Willow Talk
Let's have an open conversation about cricket. What you'll find on this blog are observations that you wish the TV anchors and pundits would make - but don't. So join in.
 Email |
 Print |
 Share |
Obviously, there's some truth in all those claims, but it's not the whole truth. The fact is it would be very convenient for the coach and captain if those were to be seen as the real reasons why India did so badly. But the hypothesis falls flat as soon as you subject it to a little scrutiny.
On a Trent Bridge pitch, where spinners had caused havoc in previous matches, India chose to deploy a three-pronged pace attack. Between the three of them, they bowled just six overs and even those were too many. It's elementary that at least one of them could have made way for an extra batsman (Dinesh Karthick) or a specialist spinner (Pragyan Ojha).
Dhoni and Kirsten consistently got the team selection badly wrong right through the tournament. RP Singh, the best bowler in the IPL, was kept out until the last two matches, and he was predictably the best seamer as soon as he finally came in.
India had the best lot of part-time bowlers in the tournament - Yusuf Pathan, Yuvraj Singh, Rohit Sharma, Suresh Raina. But the point about having batsmen who can bowl is that the team can then afford to have depth in its batting. The advantage is totally lost if the team is packed with five specialist bowlers as Kirsten and Dhoni chose to do match after match. In fact, the absence of Sehwag made it even more imperative to pack the side with as many batsmen as possible.
So, did fatigue have something to do with the thoughtless planning in evidence? We don't know what inputs Gary Kirsten gave, but quite apparent was the team think tank's poor judgement in selection and the way it went about the chase against England, allowing the required run rate to climb out of reach while the whole contingent of power-hitters cooled its heels in the dugout.
Injuries, fatigue and burnout are a given in modern-day cricket and all the teams are complaining of it. But if you look at the specifics, there's no way the team leadership can hide behind that fig leaf.
Sehwag was undoubtedly a big loss, but Dinesh Karthick was a good replacement given his form in the IPL where he had a couple of match-winning knocks for Delhi. So why was Karthick not given a single game? Shouldn't he have been the natural replacement for Sehwag instead of the fifth specialist bowler? Why, Karthick could also have given Dhoni a break if he was feeling fatigued.
And then there's the lament about our pace spearhead Zaheer Khan who picked up a shoulder injury during the IPL, didn't play for a while, and was a shadow of his usual self in the World Cup. Tch, tch, tch!
Aren't we overlooking Praveen Kumar, who was one of the top bowlers in the IPL where he played a big part in getting Bangalore into the finals? In fact, he did much better than Zaheer Khan in South Africa and I suspect he would've revelled in English conditions with his seam bowling. He didn't get a single game and I'm sure he's neither fatigued nor injured, just pissed off.
Blaming the batting is also a cop-out if you think about it. None of the teams have posted extravagant totals because there's been a bit in the pitch for the bowlers - seamers at Lord's and spinners at Trent Bridge.
India lost to South Africa because they were allowed to post a half decent total on a difficult pitch after being on the mat. Letting them get there and failing to chase it down was primarily the fault of wrong team selection.
India lost to England and the West Indies primarily because of Jadeja's 25 in 35 balls and Dhoni's 11 in 23 balls in the middle overs. This was more wrong strategy, than poor batting form.
It's really thinking and planning that let India down more than fitness or batting. Dhoni should acknowledge this, instead of being in denial, because that's the best way to move forward and start correcting the faults.
Another thing he perhaps needs to think about is why he alone has been left carrying the can. What is Gary Kirsten's contribution to the team apart from finding lame duck excuses? What is his claim to fame as a coach? Is he the best the board can get? Why not proven hands instead - like Darren Lehman who helped first Jaipur and then Hyderabad to become IPL winners, or Shane Warne the wizard of Jaipur, or the old favourite Dav Whatmore who transformed first Sri Lanka and then Bangladesh?
Perhaps the board prefers a yes-man than a coach with good ideas. I suppose in that case Indian fans will just have to put up with watching teams with great talent being inconsistent and under-performing.
Newer post