Going by the first two games, the Indian bowlers looked ordinary. Other than Zaheer Khan (one spell) no other bowler looked the part. No one looked capable of taking wickets or stemming the flow of runs in either of the two games.
But then, on Indian wickets very few bowlers can do so. An extraordinary spell by an extraordinary bowler is the only way of turning things around on such pitches.
Australia has gone that way by taking three wicket takers in Lee, Tait and Johnson.
England lack wicket taking bowlers (Tim Bresnan isn't a wicket taker and his five wickets against India could be misleading).
South Africa has Dale Steyn.
New Zealand certainly doesn't have any.
Pakistan has Shoaib and Afridi.
Sri Lanka has Malinga. (You'll read why Murali isn't mentioned as you read on)
In my opinion an extraordinary bowler isn't one with 700 wickets or with an economy of 3.5-4 runs per over. It's one who can make things happen.
The World Cup in the sub continent will have be played on flat and docile pitches. Add to that 20 overs of a powerplay and 10 slog overs (if the batting power play is taken before the 40th over). That leaves us with 20 overs where a captain can set 'his' field and the bowlers can bowl how 'they' want to.
Muttiah Muralitharan usually comes into bowl after the second power play (over number 16). A sensible batting team (or one portrayed to be sensible) stops taking risks between over numbers 16-34 (say the power play is taken in over number 35). That's when a captain, spreads his field and with the lack of catchers around the bat, Murali will not take wickets.
I stick my neck out on this one. Even if Sri Lanka win the World Cup, Muttiah Muralitharan will not be the leading wicket taker.
He won't be in the top three either.
Zaheer Khan is best known for swing.
Out of his ten overs, he bowls 5-6 in the first power play. 2-3 in the batting power play and the remaining in the slog overs.
Obviously because of the conditions and the pitches available, Zaheer cannot keep pitching the ball up, as even if he gets the odd edge and the edge doesn't go to a fielder, it could easily mean four runs to the batting team. 2-3 instances of this, coupled with the balls that don't swing, he could easily end up with figures like:
5-0-52-0. (Sreesanth's against Bangladesh)
9-0-91-1 (Anderson's against India)
Lets take James Anderson's bowling performance against India. Over the past two-three years, he's easily been the best seam bowler in England.
In the ODI at Bangalore. Anderson started off by swinging it, induced edges from Sehwag, which just evaded the fielders and he ended up playing catch up by bowling cross seam or cutters to stem the run flow. That didn't work either and he went for runs. Big runs.
Netherlands smashed him around too.With Stuart Broad returning in the next game, will Anderson be dropped?
I highly doubt.
So, a wicket taker around the world has gone for more than 8 an over in two games, only accounting for one wicket.
Sreesanth played in the game against Bangladesh. He played in the warm-up game against Australia.
With the help of statistics from a cricket website:
He induced five edges against Bangladesh in five overs. He beat Ponting's bat seven times (six, if the umpire would've spotted an edge we all spotted)..
In comparison, Zaheer beat the bat thrice in his ten overs against England. (One LBW, one bowled and one which almost dismissed Yardy).
Munaf didn't beat the bat at all.
Both ended up conceding more than six runs per over.
For the spinners, Dhoni always had a slip in place (sometimes even a leg slip for Chawla). He hoped the bowlers attacked but they never did. No flight, no turn.
Just ponder on this:
If Sreesanth came onto bowl as a first change bowler (over numbers 10-12) and bowled his overs between over numbers 10-34 (which would mean only two-three of his overs during the powerplay). If Dhoni could give Chawla a slip and a leg slip, give Sreesanth a slip for all his overs during his spell. With the spread out field, he'll probably go at 6 per over, but he gives India a genuine wicket taking threat.
India need a wicket taker during that phase of the game.
With seven batsmen, three of them who're decent spinners (Yuvraj, Yusuf and Sehwag) is it worth taking the risk of playing a genuine wicket taker?
I say it is.
PS: Two games into the World Cup, if we go by history and statistics, India might well be favourites to win the World Cup.
- The last time an Indian batsman scored 175 in a World Cup, India won it.
- Every cup that MS Dhoni has lifted has involved a tie for his team.
- India - Pakistan in the T20 World Cup in 2007
- Chennai - Punjab in the IPL 2010
- Chennai - Victoria in the Champions League T20 2010.
I don't think its a risk playing a wicket-taking bowler, its a necessity. Going into the world cup, everyone knew bowling is India's biggest weakness and the first 2 games have proved it. We conceded 280+ against Bangladesh and it wasn't the fact that we conceded so many runs that surprises me but the fact that we found it so difficult to pick up wickets. We let England score 338 and even then we couldn't pick up wickets at regular intervals. The last stats you put up do encourage me, let's hope Golden Boy Dhoni has what it takes to lift the silverware!
ReplyDeleteI think you've got the Murali part SPOT ON!! I am with you on the point of playing Sreesanth but i think he should bowl with the new ball and not first change....let him swing it because thats what he is best at.....also Piyush was played as a wicket taking option and got a few too but like every leggie he was bound to be expensive...I'd say if the conditions are suitable to spin play Piyush as ur wicket taker and if not then play Sreesanth.....Piyush on the bangalore track was only half as effective owing to the flat track that the curators set up completely unlike the pitch in the warm up game.
ReplyDeleteYes Sreee should be played instead of Chawla.
ReplyDeleteSehwag, yuvi, pathan and tendulkar can bowl spin too. Anyways its been only two games the game against SA is gonna really test us .