Zaheer Khan has been magnificent for India, but who should partner him?
As such, even though the result was not to the fans liking in the VCA stadium at Nagpur, for much of the match, they did get to see exhilarating cricket from two teams who have made somewhat of a habit of producing memorable matches. The reason for the despondency and deafening silence that pervaded the ground when Robin Peterson struck the winning runs was not easy to pin-point. Was it because of the vaunted batting line-up time-travelling back to the nineties and collapsing as soon as Tendulkar was out? Was it because of the lack of penetration in the bowling? Was fielding the difference between the sides? If Gambhir and Yuvraj had held on to catches and Raina had not fluffed a simple run-out chance, surely the result would have been different?
On balance, though each reason contributed, the one that was the most glaring was the bowling. On the field, India did drop the two catches and miss a run-out, but dropped catches are almost a part and parcel of games, and if an entire high-scoring match hinges on a dropped catch or a missed run-out, the bowlers have not done their job.
As regards the batting collapse, in the understandable angst over India sliding from 267/1 in 39.3 overs to 296 all out in 48.4 ignored one thing. On a pitch that wasn't an absolute belter, 296 was a pretty decent score to end up with. Given a choice of 296 before play started, either captain wouldn't have been displeased to be defending that total. What caused heartache for the fans was that India looked set for 350 before they folded for 296. However, in a world governed by statistical normalcy, it isn't always surprising that teams that have built up good starts don't go on to achieve the sort of totals that look possible. After all, if some batsmen have performed significantly above average (Tendulkar, Sehwag and Gambhir in India's case), it follows that some will perform below average too (Dhoni, Yuvraj, Yusuf and Kohli in this match).
The central point though, of 296 not being an inadequate total to defend stands. What for me is the clinching evidence of India's wafer-thin bowling attack is the difference between Zaheer Khan and the rest. Zaheer returned with figures of 10-0-43-1 in the match. Take away those and the rest of the bowlers combined had figures of 39.4-0-250-5. Zaheer had an economy rate of 4.30, the rest combined had one of 6.30. That was the gulf between him and the rest - a whole 2 runs per over less.
It has long been said that Zaheer is possibly the most valuable player in the Indian team if it wants to progress in the World Cup, but no match brought it home quite as strongly as this one. The question is - from among those in the squad - who best should partner Zaheer?
Both Nehra and Munaf didn't impress at all, and while Munaf has done well in patches in the recent past, Nehra's recent form has undergone a rather steep decline. The only other pacer in the squad is Sreesanth, who seems unable to get a game and Dhoni's avowed intention of giving games to those who 'need them to regain their confidence' curiously doesn't apply to Sreesanth. In the current cricketing season - starting from India's ODIs against New Zealand at home, to the ones against South Africa away, up to and including today's World Cup clash against the Proteas, Munaf and Nehra have played 13 and 12 matches each. Sreesanth has played just 3.
Here's a look at how the trio's stats have been in the current season:
| Matches | Overs | Runs | Econ Rate | Wickets | Average | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Munaf Patel | 13 | 104.5 | 524 | 5.00 | 22 | 23.82 |
| Ashish Nehra | 12 | 82 | 491 | 5.99 | 11 | 44.64 |
| S Sreesanth | 3 | 19.2 | 130 | 6.72 | 7 | 18.57 |
From the table it is clear that Munaf has been head and shoulders above Sreesanth and Nehra, if we take only recent form into account. However, the comparison between Sreesanth and Nehra makes for interesting reading. Sreesanth hasn't been given enough games, and been dropped on the basis of that one game against Bangladesh where he conceded 53 runs in 5 overs. What the scorecard of that game will not tell you is how unlucky Sreesanth was, with none of his good balls - and yes he did bowl quite a few of those - getting wickets, and some of them in fact flying off edges to the boundary. True he bowled some bad balls too, but on another day that five-over spell could so easily have resulted in figures of 2/35 rather than 0/53. In the two games he did get against New Zealand, Sreesanth was magnificent. He took 3/30 and 4/47 for a combined economy rate of 5.37 and an average of just 11.00. To be sure, when the team goes in with only two pacers Munaf should get the nod ahead of Zaheer, but Dhoni's continued shunning of Sreesanth is inexplicable. Remember too, that he had a very good Test series against South Africa, delivering the ball of the series to snare Kallis.
If the team does not go in with three seamers, then it is surely time for R Ashwin to take Piyush Chawla's place in the playing eleven to partner Harbhajan Singh. But if there comes another pitch, where the team think-tank opt to go with three pacers, it is time to give Sreesanth a go.
This will, by no means solve India's bowling problems. But the least you can do, is pick the best combination from among the available talent that you have got. India's bowling is already scant on resources, and it cannot afford to let people with valid credentials cool their heels in the dressing room, while others ply their trade on the field.
No comments:
Post a Comment