India At MCG 2011-12 - Review

Australia beat India in four days by 122 runs at the MCG. It was India's 5th consecutive overseas defeat, and their fifth consecutive defeat against Australia at MCG. Since Sachin Tendulkar started playing for India, India have lost 5 times out of 5 at the MCG. At no other overseas ground is India's record as bad as it is at the MCG. Lord's and the Kensington Oval at Barbados are close seconds - India have lost three out of 4 Tests there. But the MCG, be it the first Test of the series (a traditional weakness with India) or otherwise, has always brought defeat.



The wicket for this Test Match was deceptive. Despite the bright sunshine there was movement on offer off the wicket, with both new and old ball, even off a good length (as Gautam Gambhir will testify). I remember reading a report after Australia were bowled out for 333 in their first innings which quoted an Australian player (i am unable to find the link, would appreciate it if you could pass it on if you know of it) saying that it was not the sort of wicket on which any batsman could get on top of the bowling. This, in retrospect proved to be correct. The one exception was Sachin Tendulkar late on the second day. He made the wicket look flatter than it was through sure footwork, a full forward stride to the fuller balls, and a preference for offering the full face of the bat as often as possible. Until he was dismissed by a truly classic off cutter (bowled at high pace), India were ascendant. After he was dismissed, India never recovered. It was batsmanship of some genius.

There are many ways to look at the MCG Test. One could say that India's batsmen are suspect against the moving ball. But all batsmen are suspect against the moving ball. Look at the scores in recent Test Matches around the world. Look at Australia's batting in this Test - they scored 333 and 240 in the two innings at the MCG, and the telling runs, one could argue, came from Peter Siddle, James Pattinson and Ben Hilfenhaus who made 136 runs in their six innings at the MCG (the margin of victory was 122 runs). India's top 6 produced three half centuries in the match, Australia's top six produced four. Australia's top 6 produced six single digit scores, while India's top six produced four.

Nevertheless, there are clear problems with India's line up (there are with Australia's as well, but lets focus on India, since India lost. I encourage you however to think about whether the things that I will say about India's batsmen cannot be said about Australia's players). The only two batsmen at the MCG who don't have any obvious problems of form or technique, are Sachin Tendulkar and Michael Hussey. Both Rahul Dravid and Ricky Ponting have their problems. Virender Sehwag and David Warner have a similar penchant for the outrageous stroke amidst periods of relative normalcy.

Gautam Gambhir seems to have a technical problem around off stump. This is a problem that has crept into his batting because of his penchant for the short single, for which he typically plays the ball not with a straight bat, but with either and open face or an angled bat (i.e, neither vertical, nor horizontal). Quite apart from not giving oneself the best chance of meeting the ball with most of the bat, as opposed to edge, this style of play has one additional problem - it encourages one to play at balls which can easily be left alone. In ODI cricket, leaving these balls alone is a terrible idea, but in Tests, the risk equation changes, and it is better to leave these balls alone. The Gautam Gambhir who played so well in South Africa in 2010-11 against Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel, was leaving the ball outside off stump in exemplary fashion. On difficult wickets like Melbourne, this shortcoming gets emphasized and has been ruthlessly exploited by the Australians.

VVS Laxman, by virtue of his style, is not best suited to wickets where the ball moves consistently off the seam. He rarely uses a full forward stride, the key to covering the small amounts of seam movement that can otherwise be so lethal.

Virat Kohli is still an unknown quantity. It goes without saying that he needs to play far more tightly than he does. The batsman with the tightest technique in 2011 has been Alistair Cook, whose discipline has been exemplary. Kohli, like a number of other batsmen recently, seems quite happy to play at balls far out in front of his pads, or far away from his body, even when he's not playing a full blooded attacking shot. His dismissal in the first innings was a classic case of this. His first ball dismissal in the second was somewhat related to this tendency - to not play the ball late and very close to the pads. Kohli was playing well out in front of the pads, and across the line as well. As a matter of habit, his first instinct seems to be to push out and meet the ball with the bat, instead of playing late.

VVS Laxman and Rahul Dravid have both built their careers on this idea - the idea of playing the ball late and close to the pads in defense. It is easier for batsmen to disturb VVS's defense than it is to disturb Dravid's. But the manner of Dravid's dismissals - he kept getting caught on the crease to relative full deliveries, and missing them, suggests to me that the great man's career is very close to its end. Flat wickets will mask this defect, but I doubt that Dravid will be satisfied with this. He has always had a tendency to play from the crease, but his eye and balance have always been good enough for him to meet the ball just under his eyes, even if he wasn't fully forward. The bat always came down straight, and this, I think, was a function of his eye. Dravid's first innings dismissal, in the first over of the third days play was less of a problem than his second innings dismissal.

Nothing much can be said about Sehwag. He is Cricket's quintessential Other (as an anthropologist might say) - a batsman, in whose case a significant effort is required to locate a rationality in his strangeness, for conventional cricketing rationality does not explain his success.

Australia have similar problems with their batting.

The difference in this game was in the bowling. Now, it is important to understand here, that a bowling attack can be the reason for a defeat without being at fault for it. India's fast bowling is structurally weaker than Australia's, and this shows. Both Ishant Sharma and Umesh Yadav bowled well in this Test, Yadav did better than Ishant by most conventional measures. But they were both erratic. Both had a tendency to bowl bad balls. By contrast, Australia three fast men (who are by no means the three best fast bowlers in Australia right now) bowled very few bad balls, and if they erred, tended to err on the fuller side than on the shorter side. This is part of the reason why the Australian tail did better than India's. Australia's three fast men are also better equipped to attack the stumps. Ishant Sharma seems to have found an extra yard or two of pace in the past few months, and that is a wonderful thing.

The pace attack that India fielded in this Test was by far and away the most impressive one their have fielded in a very long time, possibly ever. Zaheer is now a great fast bowler. But this observation merely serves to highlight the structural shortcomings of India's cricket as far as fast bowling is concerned. Basically, any bowler in India who demonstrates an ability to bowl quick - in the 85-90 mph (136-145 Kph) range, is picked to play for India. Contrast this with Peter Siddle (twice as many first class games as Tests) and Ryan Harris (four times as many first class games as Tests). Ishant Sharma has played 42 Tests out of 64 first class games.

India's fast bowling structure is improving. This improvement is not going to bring results overnight. But the point is, while it is improving, its shortcomings are going to hurt India's results. If one looks at the larger picture, India have competed better overseas in recent times than they did in the 90s and early 2000s. This is because the fast bowling has improved compared to those periods. But it is still far weaker than fast bowling in say Australia, England or South Africa. Playing on flat wickets in India, while it has merit for other reasons, does not help the development of India's fast bowling.

So the argument, which seems to me to be quite popular, that the batsmen are such superstars and have so much experience, and hence should make up for the shortcomings in the bowling department, has no cricketing merit. It has nothing to do with cricket, but everything to do with some narrow transactional notion the equates experience with impact while ignoring complications like the structural limits (of the cricketing contest) imposed by conditions etc. The batsmen can't make up for the shortcomings of the bowlers beyond a certain point.

Having said that, I think the MCG Test was a much more closely fought than the score line suggests. Had the toss gone the other way, I think India would have won. It is much harder to bat in the 4th innings than in the 3rd, especially once you have a first innings lead. I think this is even truer in Australia's case given the unsettled nature of their top 3 batting positions. Even after Australia batted first, tighter fast bowling from India, especially to the Australian tail might well have limited the Australian tail and Australia's first innings score, which was about 50 runs too many, subsequently required Australia to attack differently, and possibly defend more than they had to earlier in India's first innings. It might have been the difference between a 4th innings chase of 180-200 and one of 294.

It would be remiss to end a review of the MCG Test without one last observation. A star has been born at the MCG. James Pattinson has demonstrated an ability to bowl fast, with rare control for someone in only his third Test Match. Yes, to be considered a top quality fast bowler Pattinson will have to bowl well in India as Donald, McGrath and Steyn before him have. But the polish of Pattinson's performance is easily contrasted with the rawness of Umesh Yadav's talent. Since Craig McDermott was made Australia's bowling coach, their fast bowling has gotten significantly deeper and faster. The arrival of Pattinson, along with the genuinely quick Pat Cummins augurs well for Australia.

That is the road to the top of Test Cricket. A deep bench of fast, hostile bowlers who can move the ball in the air and off the wicket off a fullish length at high pace. That is the one unanswerable weapon in Cricket. Even the best techniques will eventually be breached if this type of bowling can be produced relentlessly on wickets which are not flat (which most wickets outside India aren't).

As long as India have Zaheer Khan in their ranks, they will compete. Australia's middle order will have to be breached, but it is unlikely to produce mammoth scores against this line up. But it will produce competitive scores as long as Australia's fast bowlers produce situations in which the batsmen do not have to bat for survival, but to set up matches.

Australia have won a classical Home victory at the MCG, but the teams are evenly matched. A close series in still on the cards.