Email
Print
Share
The only way the Aussies can come back in this series is a batting collapse by India. It happened against the South Africans in Ahmedabad.
It happened repeatedly in Sri Lanka. It happened in the first Test in Bangalore before Harbhajan Singh and Zaheer Khan bailed India out with half centuries. It nearly happened in Mohali too, when Gambhir, Dravid and Laxman fell in quick succession after lunch on the first day.
So it is bemusing to hear that VVS Laxman may be left out of the Delhi Test to accommodate Anil Kumble in the playing eleven. That must be music to Ponting's ears after the worst drubbing an Australian team has got in many years.
It's true Laxman and Dravid have contributed little to the 'team effort' so far - and I still can't understand why the young in-form Rohit Sharma is not in this team - but they're top order batsmen. Removing one of them will lighten the batting, encourage the Aussie bowlers, and provide the opening that Ponting so desperately needs to wrest the initiative back from India.
And why Laxman? Just because he has fared marginally worse than Dravid in the two Tests so far? What about the Lanka series where Laxman was the only one in the middle order to have a decent batting average of 43?
With Dravid out of form, dropping Laxman means India will rely on just four batsmen. The openers Sehwag and Gambhir are in sparkling form, but all it takes for the new ball to get a wicket or two is to hit the seam and deviate or rear up. Tendulkar and Ganguly got amongst the runs in Mohali, but that was on a placid batting wicket where almost everyone in the lineup scored heavily. And we know what they did in Sri Lanka.
Dhoni coming at No.6 seems all right after his impressive batting in both innings at Mohali, but let's not go overboard. He's a wicket-keeper batsman averaging around 35 in Tests. Besides, the reason why India chose to play six batsmen in Bangalore and Mohali despite having Dhoni in the ranks is precisely to guard against the Aussies running through the batting if two or three fail in the top order.
To change that formula just to create a slot for Kumble would clearly be putting the interests of an individual above that of the team. It is this sort of thing that has done India in time and again, such as when individuals have focused on their milestones rather than the team's requirements. That is why it was so refreshing to hear Sehwag say in a post-match interview in Mohali, on being asked by Gavaskar if he was disappointed at getiing out in the nineties, that he wasn't playing for a century, only trying to maintain the required run rate.
If the selectors had displayed a similar attitude after the Mohali Test, that is, putting the team's interest above that of Kumble, India would not be in such a quandary in spite of getting so far ahead of the Aussies in all departments of the game in Mohali. The quandary of course is that Kumble can only play if either Laxman or Amit Mishra is dropped from the winning team.
Dropping the new spin sensation Mishra would be an even bigger boo-boo than dropping Laxman. It wasn't just that he got a five-for on debut, or that he was the highest wicket-taker in the Test. What was most impressive to me was that he did it in Mohali.
Enthused as I was by Dhoni becoming captain, and Mishra getting to play, I thought it was unfortunate they were getting their big breaks on such a dead track. I had seen how Kumble and Bhajji had toiled over after over without making a dent in the defences of the Kiwis and then the Pakistanis on the last day of a Mohali wicket by which time it is fast asleep.
It was the sheer brilliance of Amit Mishra's bowling in the first innings - the flight, the googly, and the sharp spin - and some reckless batting by the Aussies in the second innings that took India home with two sessions to spare.
Mishra got seven wickets compared to Bhajji's five, but more than the number of wickets it was the manner in which he got them that was so refreshing after so many years of watching Kumble and Bhajji go through their familiar repertoire. Most of the Aussie batsmen got out to defensive shots to Mishra, either failing to read his googly or getting beaten by flight and turn.
Bhajji's three big strikes at the start of the second innings were abetted by a premature sweep by Hayden, a wild pull by Hussey, and an expansive drive outside off-stump by Katich. Mishra was also underbowled in the second innings.
The point is Mishra is the dangerman for the Aussies. Ishant Sharma and Zaheer Khan did a fantastic job on such a docile wicket, but they wouldn't have won the match without that five-for from Mishra.
Even if you give Bhajji full credit for his wickets, that wasn't the match-winning effort. It was surrealistic therefore to see Dhoni, Tendulkar and Ganguly walk away with awards at the end of the match, with Mishra hiding in the background. Dhoni did score in both innings of the match, but so did four other batsmen in the lineup. It was after all a very easy batting wicket.
The man of the match, from the Aussie point of view, was Mishra without a doubt. And he's the guy they would be most apprehensive about in Delhi too. They know they aren't picking his googly and that's always disconcerting when you go in to bat against a spinner.
