India v Pakistan: Back to the Future

By Gaurang
February 2 2006

In one humiliating afternoon, India has returned to the bad old days. The defeat yesterday in Karachi was not so much about Indian batsmen not being good enough. We all know they are.

The very same batsmen gave us Headingley on a greentop, and Brisbane, and Rawalpindi, and Port of Spain, and several others. Even in Melbourne, though it was an Indian loss, the fight was not missing.

So it was not that the Indian batsmen can’t handle conditions helpful to bowlers of swing and seam that led to the debacle. And lasting less than 60 overs when facing the challenge of batting out nearly two days and losing by a monstrous 341 runs is indeed a debacle of the highest order.

So then it must have been the bowling, right? Wrong again. 0-3, a hat trick in the first over, then having the opposition 39-6 on the opening morning of a Test match after winning the toss and inserting them in is a start that captains fantasize about. While it may be true that India gave up a 100 runs too many, by getting over confident after that blistering start, the final score of just less than 250 was one that any captain would have been more than happy to settle for at the start of play.

As Michael Holding said on the first morning 39-6 did not reflect the pitch, it reflected the state of mind of the batsmen. They still were dreaming of the flat patta tracks of Faisalabad and Lahore. The wickets were gifted early by Pakistan but they learned their lesson fast and made major changes in their approach, especially in the second innings. Indian bowlers however didn’t have a Plan B to fall back on once their Plan A -- which was really no plan at all except to use the conditions and juice in the pitch -- was thwarted by the resolute Pakistan batsmen.

And by the way, who was to blame for India’s overconfidence on the first morning? Isn’t Dravid the man who always has his feet on the ground, and does not get over excited and so wouldn’t he have been the ideal man to make sure India didn’t get carried away? Well, sometimes it pays to be a bit passionate and actually gee up your bowlers to go for the kill too. And though I may have missed something, I didn't see too many huddles on the opening morning.

Another large portion of credit must also go to the Pakistani batsmen, especially the brilliant Kamran Akmal, who showed how to bat on a pitch where the ball is seaming about. He got as close to the pitch of the ball as possible and got bat and pad together, he looked compact, neat, solid yet positive. And his lead was followed by all others including Shoaib Akhtar, who last time around pulled out of the final Test with an alleged side strain and then came to bat and swung the bat around like he was Don Quixote sighting a windmill, a picture of resolute defense interspersed by some meaty blows. As for Abdul Razzaq, he showed what a great utility player he is, both with the bat and the especially the ball. He may not be on the ICC rankings of great all-rounders, but he surely pulled his weight in the team. In fact, so did youngsters Mohammad Asif and Faisal Iqbal, and the veterans Younis Khan and Mohammad Yousuf did their bit too in the second innings in the absence of regular captain Inzamam-ul-Haq.

After dismissing Pakistan cheaply, what was needed from India was batting similar to their effort at Rawalpindi the last time. But this time the lynchpin of Indian batting overseas, Rahul Dravid, was under unfamiliar strain as both makeshift opener and the captain of the team. His dismissal early in both innings, to what can only be called mental lapses, opened the flood gates and India were overrun. It is interesting indeed that the only Indian century partnerships of the match, one in each innings, involved Yuvraj and Ganguly. It seems that Chappell’s methods of making players tense, insecure and fearful of their spot in the side does have some merit. But the final result in the match shows that in the long term such a strategy is doomed to failure.

Early in Greg Chappell’s stint as India coach, in the wake of the leaked email and the vitriolic attack on India’s then captain Sourav Ganguly, this writer had said that fear of failure can make people perform better, especially if they have gotten a bit lazy or complacent, but that lack of trust is something that will eventually ruin a team every time.

A person scared of losing his job will try and do a good job just to impress the boss, but when the situation gets tough, and others around him are floundering too, only the person who has total trust and is truly loyal to the team and its leader will give his 110% to the team and go beyond what is required. Ganguly understood this and that is why he built up the confidence of his pace bowlers, even giving them preferential treatment in the eyes of some, including Chappell.

So while it may have been Chappell’s job to shake some people out of cobwebs of complacency, he went about it in a foolish manner. He quickly decided who he would back, based on how easily people responded to his ideas, and how much others were skeptical about them. Unlike his predecessor John Wright he was determined to have a much bigger say in how the team was run, including being basically co-equal with the Captain in matters normally not within the purview of the coach, such as selection, and which players to support and which to target.

Rahul Dravid, probably in his heart of hearts, understands this. His decision -- and it was after all his final decision to play Sourav Ganguly in the Karachi Test -- shows his divided thinking. On the one hand he wants to follow the path laid out by Greg Chappell, one that is based on supposedly ruthless dropping of players who don’t perform (Sorry, I guess that standard does not apply to the coach), but in reality has more to do with whom the coach thinks has the correct attitude, i.e. agrees with him unquestioningly. On the other hand he realizes that loyalty and support of your teammates is what makes good sides into Champions, so he wanted to show some loyalty to his old captain under whom he blossomed as a batsman and learned quite a few lessons in leadership.

Indian cricket is at a cross roads, and while one lost Test match and one lost series is not the end of the world even if it was the biggest series against the fiercest rivals, if the trend continues, especially overseas, one may have to revisit the idea that was summarily dismissed by the pundits: that India may be better off with separate captains for Tests and for One Day matches. After all, if players can be classified as specialists in one area or the other, why not captains? It may indeed be time to go back to the future.