From: pvr@rice.edu (Narasimha Pvr)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Reflections on the performance of the Indian team: Part-2/2 (V.Long)
Date: 7 Apr 1992 10:31:05 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

I wrote in Part-1 of this series:

> Now that the season is over for the Indian team, let me reflect on what
> happened in the season, what went wrong, what went right and what we need in
> future. First let me give my opinion on the captaincy issue.

>                             CAPTAINCY

               [stuff deleted]

>                 INDIVIDUAL PERFOAMCES IN THE SEASON

  [I reflected onto the performances of Ravi Shastri, Krish Srikkanth, Navjot
   Sidhu, Sanjay Manjrekar, Sachin Tendulkar and Dilip Vengsarkar in this
   season.]

>        (Mostly, to be continued in Part-2 sometime later)


Now, I am coming up with the second part.

[Contd.]

        MOHD AZHARUDDIN

Everyone has ups and downs:

The season was mostly disapponting for his fans. However, he gave them their
moments of excitement with good knocks towards the end of the season.

With his knocks in England and NZ, it looked like the Azhar who made debut
into the international scene with those divine performances (prompting Sunny
to make that famous comment) was reborn.

But it is natural for anyone (unless you are Don Bradman or George Headley) to
fail in some series very badly after a series of continued good performances
in a few series (I think even they failed partially).

Azhar's best at Sharjah, in the home series against SA and WSC was 31*. His
average of 16+ in WSC was only better than Border's in the world cup (who did
well till then).

Criticized as adament:

Ian Chappell criticized Azhar as being very adament. He said Azhar wasn't
receptive to the advices from elders. Azhar just shrugged off every criticism
saying he would be back to form soon. He thought he was just through a bad
patch and would overcome it soon. And, Chappelli criticized that attitude
strongly in a column.

That's the way he is:

But Chappelli didn't understand Azhar well. Azhar is a natural player with
stylish strokes. To quote (roughly) myself from an earlier article, "he
doesn't defend the ball the way a Shastri or a Vengsarkar does, instead he
deflects it gracefully. May be, that's not the best way to get many runs. May
be, he can be more consistent if he changes (mainly on a bouncy pitch). But
that's the way he is. He has been entertaining crowds that way for a long time
irrespective of how much he actually scores on the board. And, what's likely,
he will remain that way!"

Azhar is back to form:

He came up with an excellent century when expected least to give moments of
excitement to fans in that close (loss by 30+ runs in the fourth test) and
controversial (by saying that I am not taking away credit from _anyone_) test.

He kept up that form since then. Though he failed in the fifth test and in the
opening match of the world cup, he did well since then in almost every match.
He scored 332 runs at 47.43 in the world cup (from 7 matches, with one 32 and
one 30 over matches).

Let us hope he will retain that form for a couple of seasons atleast. He can
win matches for India on his own when in form.

No sixers please:

Sixers have been Azhar's bane. I have seen him getting out trying a sixer on a
few occasions. Azhar should realize fast that he is no good in hitting sixers
and he is too good to waste his wicket trying to hit them. In the last 2-3
years, he developped an unfortunate fancy for them. Even if you are good at
hitting sixers, you should try to control yourself after one sixer. Why should
Azhar go for a second consecutive sixer even after losing his wicket that way
a couple of times earlier?

In the crucial match against NZ in the world cup, things could've been much
different if Azhar has shown a little more caution. The partnership which was
looking good was broken thuis facilitating a collapse in the last 10 overs. I
think Azhar should learn from SRT. SRT was one of the most famous batsmen in
the Indian team for hitting sixers. He also lost his wicket twice trying a
second sixer. But after the second incident, he almost gave up sixers.

Don't get me wrong. I am not against sixers. If only a few overs are
remaining, fine. It's a risk worth taking. But with a lot of overs to go and
with a good partnership just starting to blossom, it's IMO a very unwise
decision. Azhar is good at hitting fours, after all!

        AJAY JADEJA

A good prospect:

His figures in the world cup were

   Scores (7):      -   1  46   6  27  13*  -

   Aggr:  93              Max: 46           Ave:  23.25

In the match against Aus, he bowled well and fielded very well. He came almost
towards the end (batting) and got out very fast without wasting balls. So his
1 doesn't say anything. In the remaining matches, he was reasonably
consistent. His 46 (off 77 balls) was as much important in India's crucial win
over Pakistan as was Tendulkar's 54* off 61. It was more or less like his
debut innings. He played well. In the initial overs, when Krish Srikkanth (5
off 39!) was struggling, Jadeja looked solid. He showed an ideal temperament
for an opener.

Though his 27 against NZ was off 61 (or 62?) balls, I don't think that should
count strongly against him. An opener is sometimes prone to such bad innings.

Overall, his bowling wasn't special. But it was his first experience, after
all. He is said to be a very good fielder. One of his catches was ranked in
Channel-9's classic catches (in this season, among the matches covered by
them) (I think his catch was #2). He is worth trying in test matches also. We
need a solid bat in tests. India has been suffering from the lack of good
openers for sometime. Jadeja's discovery was timely. With time, he will mature
and do well. He is one guy worth sticking to for sometime atleast in tests.

        VINOD KAMBLI

Two wrongs don't make a right:

It is unique to India's selection policy. Where else do you see the chairman
of a selection committee saying immediately after selecting team for a long
tour of 5 tests and 8-11 onedayers, "my heart bleeds for X", where that X is
a person undeservedly dropped by the selection committee?

The selection committee tested Kambli in the Sharjah cup and it looked like he
came good. Apart from his 45, a particularly impressive knock was his 31 when
everyone except Manjrekar and him failed (thanks to Aaqib) [in the final].

Then they took Ganguly into the team without any point. When a youngster is
dropped for a long tour despite a good performance, he is bound to lose some
confidence. No matter whether the president of BCCI makes a phone call to him
to assure him that he still has chance for the next tournament or not.

High expectations:

What everyone had in mind was that world record partnership of 645 runs
(unbroken) between him and Tendulkar  in a high school match. That Kambli
dominated the partnership [he made 345* while SRT made {300 - # of extras
during the partnership} _during_ the partnership. (Tendulkar made 328* in that
innings.)] raised the expectations. But no one bothered about the fact that SRT
had an average of 1032 in that tournament while Kambli didn't do well in the
other matches, that SRT had a cakewalk to the Bombay team and later to the
Indian team (and later to some "rest of the world" teams) while Kambli
struggled to make it to even the Bombay team.

Temperament - no longer a problem:

During the early part of his first class career, he had big problems with his
temperament. He got a first class century very late, in fact. (One thing to
notice in his early first class career is he had some sort of competition with
Sachin. During the partnerships with Sachin, he was noted for trying to
dominate Sachin!) But later he succeeded in correcting his temperament. And
the result was a flow of runs in Ranjis! Even in the match against Pakistan,
he maintained his cool and played a valuable knock (24).

A costly blunder:

BCCI's decision to drop him for the Aussie tour was really a costly blunder.
It cost him the Indian team a lot.

We had to resort to the gamble of trying him in the world cup without much
prior experience. That made us exclude Amre from the team. Amre could've done
better possibly. But the problem was we didn't know how Kambli would do and we
wanted to try him.

If only Kambli was taken for the tour! Then we could've experimented both Amre
and Kambli and would've made a better (and informed) decision in the world
cup. Also, it might've helped Kambli's form and confidence. There are mistakes
which cannot be corrected.

Anyway, he is a good prospect despite the bad performance. It is a pity that
things are so badly managed by BCCI so as to get the worst out of it.

        SAURAV GANGULY

I expressed my feelings in an earlier article (after WSC). It was a rank bad
decision to include him in the team. It was another bad decision to take him
for a crucial ODI instead of Amre, who was doing decently. You can't judge a
youngster in just one match (he was under a lot of pressure - he came in at
4/35 in the 12th over). It is unfortunate to see how the management plays with
the confidence and careers of young aspirants, without serious thinking.
I hope a promising career has not been nipped in the bud.

        PRAVEEN AMRE

Impressive:

His performance was impressive. After being the drinks man for quite sometime,
he made a very good debut. In the debut ODI of SA, with India needing 177 or
so, he had a good partnership with Tendulkar to steady the innings with a
superb 55*. He has fluent shots and when in form and when able to play in his
natural style, he can be enthralling to see.

A talent wasted?

I, for one, believe that he was not well-used by his captain. With Manjrekar
out of form, Amre should've been tried (in WSC) at #3. He never looked at ease
while trying to slog in the last few overs. He always made around 20 and got
out playing a fancy shot. Slogging doesn't come naturally to him. I see little
point in using him at #6 or #7. It's a waste of talent, IMHO.

The only reason you may give for playing him at #6/7 is that he plays low down
the order for his team in India. Well, in India's first class cricket, it
doesn't matter whether you are batting at #1 or #4 or #7. You _will_ be
involved in a big partnership (so that your team makes 600+) irrespective of
where you bat. Once a wicket falls, the procedure starts fresh. It's like
everyone opening! You have 100-run partnerships for the last wicket (to fall,
that is!). The score will finally be 658/6 (declared) or something like that.

Also, in the world cup, he wasn't given many opportunities. But, then, it
couldn't be helped because Kambli was on trial.

Play him in tests:

In future, he is a good prospect for tests (and for ODIs, if used properly).
He seems to have a good temperament. He should be tried in tests. He can prove
to be a solid bat.

        KAPIL DEV

Good bowling form in tests:

He had a terrific test series in terms of bowling. He got his 400th wicket on
the tour. He claimed 27 wickets (he claimed 5 wkts in an inng twice) at an
average of 23.89. He was second only to McDermott who took 31 at 21.32. Other
prominent performances were by Hughes (22 at 23.64), Prabhakar (19 at 35.79),
Whitney (17 at 21.12). Also, Kapil, who took 18 and 17 tests for his 251-300
and 301-350 respectively, took only 15 for 351-400. He has a lot of reasons to
be happy after the undue criticism of which he was at the receiving end in the
last couple of years.

His batting wasn't impressive, though. He made 165 in 9 innings with a maximum
of 56. But, so was the batting of many other Indians batsmen.

Tops the strike rate in WC:

With a strike rate of 124.81 (161 runs off 129 balls), he had the highest
strike rate (among those who made atleast 150 runs) in this WC. The next two
had 100.52 and 92.98 (Strike rate is the # runs scored per 100 balls).

He had an average of 25.17 in WSC which was next only to the averages of
Tendulkar (44.56) and Srikkanth (31.30). Next were Manjrekar and Amre at 18.80
and 18.71 respectively.

His batting in onedayers has been good of late. It was he who did all the
slogging in most of India's world cup matches.

        MANOJ PRABHAKAR

Steady batting in tests:

He made 224 runs (with the highest being 64 and with 2 half-centuries) at an
average of 28.00. In average, he was 4th and in aggregate, he was 3rd. After
shameful collapses of top-order, he steadied the innings and help the innings
be steered to a respectable score on many an occasion.

His bowling, though still inconsistent, is not bad. He maintains pressure on
the batsmen with his seam bowling. He has developped a good slow ball these
days, which might be helpful in future.

In onedayers, he is bowling well and he hardly had a chance to play a good
innings in ODIs of late. He is being sent in very late these days.

        MORE and PANDIT

More batted well in the test series scoring 143 runs from 6 innings (let me
remind you that he didn't play in 2 tests) at an average of 28.60 with a
highest of 67*. Apart from Prabhakar, he is another guy he was responsible for
India's respectable scores in many innings during the first half of the
series.

Pandit, taken in, after a century in a first class fixture, didn't bat well.
But he got only 3 innings to play.

I don't have any idea of how they kept the wickets. Looks like India doesn't
have a good keeper right now.

More's batting has been on the rise for sometime. That's a nice. But that
shouldn't be at the cost of a fall in keeping.

        SRINATH and BANERJEE

Good debuts:

They have to perform better, what with the new bunch of fast-bowlers coming up
and with Indian selectors always willing to end the careers of those on trial
in a blind hope that the guy next on the list will do better than thid guy. I
hope Srinath and Banerjee will be given more opportunities. Both of them were
very unimpressive in the world cup, but they were ok in WSC. I think they had
a lot of cricket in the season and that had its toll (more so, because they
were new to international cricket).

Srinath should learn:

Unless a bowler has both inswinger and outswinger, he is no real threat.
Srinath should work hard on it. Also, he should make the most of Kapil's and
Prabhakar's experience. He should learn the slow ball and swinging the old
ball from Prabhakar.

Srinath, mainly in the onedayers, seems to try too many things and seems to be
over-ambitious. When he gets hit in the initial overs, he turns wild and tends
to be erratic. That's just a matter of attitude. If the captain forms a good
rapport with him and makes him take things a little easier, it should help.

Erratic:

Banerjee seemed to be very erratic. Instead of concentrating on pace, he
should concentrate on consistency. He has been given very few opportunities.
With some more experience, he will learn. With the swing that he's capable of
generating, he can be tough to handle, if he is more consistent.

        RAJU

Stabilizing his position in the team:

He did pretty well. He used the tour, on which the only other spinner was
Hirwani, to make his position in the team secure. Though I wouldn't say he
fulfilled his promises after the NZ tour and test against SL, I am satisfied
with the steady performance of his in ODIs.

        10    0    37    1  (Aus)
        10    0    38    2  (NZ)
        10    1    41    1  (Pak)
         6    0    43    0  (SA - 30 overs)
        10    2    32    1  (WI)
         2.1  0    17    0  (Zim - 32 overs)

A good performance without any doubt. (His figurees in the WSC were also very
similar.)

But, when I look at the way Pak used their spinners, I wonder why India
couldn't have used another as well. IMHO, Kumble would've done much better.
Throughout his short career (Eng tour and Sharjah - he was very economical and
his fastish leg-breaks (with a lot of top-spin) were hard to hit. English
batsmen could take only 19 runs from his 10 overs on his debut!), he was very
economical (he took 4 wickets once, but usually, he doesn't take many
wickets. Just one or two). To me he looked like a very bright prospect for
ODIs. I don't think his poor fielding abilities (which were seemingly cited by
selectors as the reason after the team for the Aussie tour was announced)
matter much. He would've added a lot of variety to the bowling attack and
could've been very effective in some matches.

Also, talking about spinners, including Shastri in the team for the matches
with NZ and WI wouldn't have been a bad idea.

There is nothing to write about Hirwani. I don't think he can come back and
play well agin. He will join the list of one-match wonders. It's better to
promote someone else (Raju, Kumble and Maninder) instead of sticking to him.


                        BATTING STATS IN B & H WSC

[The batting and bowling stats of the test series and the batting stats of the
world cup were posted on rsc. But there weren't any stats (there were score
cards, though) for WSC on net. So, I am giving below the comprehensive batting
stats of WSC (only of Indian batsmen).]

Player                     Scores                     Runs   Best    Ave   MoM
                                                                           (?)
            WI   A   A  WI   A  WI   A  WI  F1  F2

Shastri     33  10   0   4   1   -  22  11  17  61     159    61    17.67   0
Srikkanth    3  60   7  82   3   4  42  60  41  11     313    82    31.30   2
Manjrekar   15   2  57  55  12   1  16   2  18  10     188    57    18.80   0
Tendulkar    1  36  57  48  21  77  31  57*  4  69     401    77    44.56   1
Azharuddin   6   6  21* 31* 13   8  22   5  12  11     135    31*   16.88   0
Amre        20  33   8   -  10   -   -  18  20  22     131    33    18.71   0
Kapil Dev    5  25*  3  21* 39  28   7   1* 20*  2     151    39    25.17   0


WI, A, F1 and F2 stand West Indies, Australia, Final1 and Final2 respectively.
I am not very sure of the info given under the MoM column.

I have already consumed too much bandwidth for both parts together. So let me
stop my reflections here.

Now, Sadiq has an option of writing part 1 of part 2 or part 2 of part 1. :-)

--------
PVR Narasimha Rao
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket