NEWS
MATCH REPORTS
DIARY
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
PEOPLE
ARCHIVES

Lara leads Windies into final

There are times when I sit down to write a match report about a game involving India and the words don't come -- what does materialise is a numbing sense of futility.

True, as a reporter, I am supposed to be -- and god knows I try to be -- unbiased, to write merely about the cricket, and not let feelings get in the way. But darn it all, I am also a human being, an Indian not merely by birth, but by inclination and proud to be one -- which last, I guess, is why it hurts when I have to do reports like this one.

Not, believe me, because India were beaten. There have been defeats before -- many of them, in the almost four years that I've been covering the game for the net. But some of those -- Durban against South Africa comes to mind, so does Chennai, the Independence Cup, against Pakistan, and a few others -- were easy to absorb. Simply because the Indian team, on those occasions, were beaten by better all round performance, not by rank ineptitude on their own part. Put differently, it is easy to take a defeat when a team goes down fighting -- why other defeats, like the one today, hurt is because of an entire abdication of spirit, of a hangdog listlessness that, to me, spells a lack of pride in team and country.

Cricketing inability you can forgive. Lack of pride, abdication of responsibility, either individual or collective, sticks in the craw and won't come out.

That is my situation, here.

And before I get asked this in mail, it ain't even an ego thing -- as in, yesterday I said India should win, and got proved wrong, hence the vengeful feeling. Not the least of it -- in fact, the reverse is true. In fact, the real feeling of let down comes from the fact that so many fans in the commentary box got things right, we doing the commentary got it right, but the very obvious did not seem to occur to the men in the middle -- which makes you come to the only conclusion possible: that it is not that they can't think, but that they can't be bothered to think.

And that attitude is a betrayal of the immense loyalty their fans have been giving this team.

As always, the commentary transcript is being appended herewith, therefore in this report, we'll only look at the broad, analytical lines.

India today went in with the same team as the one that beat Australia. As I had indicated yesterday, a good option would have been to rest Agarkar, whose propensity to pitch too short in his first spell could prove disastrous, and bring in Prasad, who at his very worst bowls a very full line. However, Azhar -- heck, why single out Azhar, say rather the team's think tank -- choose to retain his team, and that was the way it went.

Azhar won a key toss and elected to field. He argued something about moisture on the track helping spinners later on. I have no intention of playing Monday morning coach, of second guessing after the event. But I don't quite get it -- how does moisture on the track in the afternoon help spinners at night? Am I missing something, here?

The Windies made one change and what a key one it turned out to be -- Reon King given his first cap, at the expense of the obviously faster Nixon McLean. And King responded with a crucial spell at the start, bowling a tight line and length, denying room for strokeplay, and bowling his ten overs through to the precise field set for him by his captain (makes you wonder, doesn't it, why the vastly more experienced Indian bowlers couldn't do the same in their turn? But more of that later).

But it was Merwyn Dillon who was the real star -- and in a surprising, but on consideration, good, judgement, the eventual man of the match. Michael Holding keeps hyping him, saying that he will be the spearhead once Ambrose and Walsh are finally put to pasture, and today made it easy to see why. Pacewise, he is maybe a yard slower than the two senior bowlers in their prime, but he has their gift of bowling the unerring line, of doing exactly what he needs to, to get batsmen out. And he struck two big blows at the top when he took out both Tendulkar and Azharuddin before the audience had really settled into their seats.

Tendulkar's dismissal owed to a good ball and an outstanding catch by Hooper, diving to his right to make a next to impossible catch look ridiculously simple at a very wide gully. And Azhar, well, some day perhaps I will understand the reasoning behind his insistence on coming in at the fall of an early wicket, when he is patently so much better off entering the stage with the ball a little older, the pace a little slower -- conditions that make his wristy style of play more feasible. The television crew provided an interesting moment after his departure, when in split screen mode they showed, on the left, his dismissal the other day against Australia, and on the right the one here -- and believe me, if you didn't see the respective bowlers, you would have thought you were watching the same thing.

That brought in Dravid, in a very familiar situation, to partner Ganguly. The other day, when he came in at 2 down for next to nothing against Australia, I thought he did a good job of weathering the storm and consolidating. Today's innings, though, just didn't cut it. The difference between the two days, really, was that against Australia, Dravid had Tendulkar at the other end and going like a man in a dream, so he could afford to play his steady, solid game. Today, it was Ganguly at the other end -- a Ganguly who, early in his innings, was made to look almost like a novice by Windies bowlers who had obviously done their homework and kept peppering him with short deliveries lifting into his ribs from just short of a length, provoking a cat on a hot tin roof style of play that became assured only once the quicks, Dillon in particular, went off.

Given the circumstances, Dravid needed to bat with more authority -- and that was where he failed today. The problem with players like him is that if they start out in a very defensive mould -- which, given the circumstances, was understandable enough -- they find it next to impossible to shift gears after a bit, once they have got their eye in. A Tendulkar, a Ganguly, does that with ease -- but a Dravid, often even an Azhar, finds it difficult to move from the back foot to the front, metaphorically speaking.

Ganguly meanwhile hung in there and once the quick bowlers went off, he opened out in fine style. He has this god given gift of timing, evidenced in this innings not by his trademark off driving (full marks to the Windies here -- throughout his innings, there was not one ball that gave him the room outside off for those shots -- a dramatic indication of the value of doing your homework), but by the ease with which he cleared the field, with little fuss, and in the process knocked Keith Arthurton out of the attack.

In some earlier innings, I have found myself a shade disillusioned because Ganguly, smooth as silk through the early and middle part of his innings, tends to choke back when he sees the prospect of a century, and to play with undue caution till he gets to the mark. Today, the reverse was true -- India were way behind on runs, scoring a mere 94/2 at the halfway mark, so Ganguly took on himself the onus of attack, and did so at every given opportunity.

The other performance worth mentioning was Robin Singh, and I must confess to some personal satisfaction here. During the commentary on the South Africa-Sri Lanka match, when asked about the prospects for today and how India would cope with Hooper and Arthurton, I had said that to my mind, the vicious short arm jabs with which Robin clears the field on the on would be the answer to that brand of attack -- and today, Robin was brilliant in that role. Time and again, despite the threat of fielders on the line (at one point, there were a long on, a wide midwicket and an orthodox midwicket, all on the boundary), Robin backed himself to clear the field and did it with supreme nonchalance. The other impressive feature of his knock today was his heart -- he wore the flag on his sleeve, and played out of his skin when his team needed it. Which, given the overall attitude of the team, can never be applauded enough.

India ended with 242 -- and on this track, against this bowling, that was a good 45, 50 runs short of the possible. More so, because Simmons, Lewis, Arthurton and, to an extent, Hooper all got stick, King had bowled his ten overs through right at the top, Lara -- who had another very good day as captain, with spot on field placements in particular being the highlight of his leadership -- making a rare mistake by not bowling Dillon out for his full spell. All of which spells a vulnerable bowling side, and further underlines the Indian ability to make full capital.

But the total still could be defended, because there was a brittle element to the Windies batting. To give you a for instance, during the break in play, we in Rediff played make believe. Imagined that we were the Indian think tank, and came up with little "dossiers" on each of the opposing batsmen. This is what we figured:

1) Stuart Williams is essentially a back foot player with an attacking bent of mind, tending to make a lot of his runs on the cut and the pull. His drives though are mostly played with feet in place, no real movement, tending often to just transfer his weight on the back foot and punch on the up. Good line to bowl to him is very full, in the corridor around off, leaving the bat late -- the fast bowler's leg cutter. Alternately, if you can manage late inswing, things could be interesting, because his back foot style of play makes the lbw an option.

2) Philo Wallace is a batsman in the WWF mould. Lots of muscle, lovely clean hit through the line. He doesn't really get to the pitch, just moves his feet halfway there and thumps the ball around mostly on the up, relying on a good eye, timing, and enormous power to produce some spectacular results. Pitch it up to him, or short, and he will murder you with huge drives to the first and fierce pulls to the second. Best lines would be to go round the wicket, pitch a three quarter length, landing middle and off and angling outside off -- if he pulls, he is hitting against the pace and a wide midwicket is in business straightaway, if he drives, again, the ball is slanting away from the shot and a widish cover comes into play, and he is none too good on the cut. The alternate line is to go over the wicket, bowl from wide of the stumps, pitching a very full length, the angle as the bowler goes wide lining the ball in on middle and leg, very close to his pads -- obvious reasons, that line gives him no room at all to swing his arms, and he is either likely to be bowled trying to hit across the line, or caught at cover/mid off driving without enough arm room.

Okay, this was in fact what we posted before the West Indies innings began. Now check out, through the commentary transcript, what actually happened. Williams was taken out early. How? By the first ball that was pitched up and around the off-corridor, leaving the batsman on the seam, and getting the top edge on an airy drive played with no foot movement whatever.

Meanwhile, Wallace -- beginning with a clean hit over long on off the loosener from Srinath that started the innings -- got runs. How? Because though Srinath steadied himself after that first ball, and bowled tight, he tended in each of his overs to pitch one either that shade short, or that extra bit full, and gave Wallace the room to swing those mighty arms. And obviously, a batsman sure of one four, probably two, in an over, is under no pressure. Wallace was under less pressure than most, because Agarkar in one nightmare first over made matters much worse -- to Williams, for whom you pitch up, he pitched short and was savagely pulled twice on the run, and to Wallace, to whom you pitch three quarter, he pitched right up in the slot for the lofted drive in the V.

Makes me wonder -- if we could see the need, if so many fans, some of whom haven't even seen a match in some time -- could see this, then why couldn't the team's think tank? The only answer is -- at least unless someone comes up with a better one -- is that they just couldn't be bothered.

Agarkar had to be taken off after just one over -- while Prasad, in shorts and a singlet, sat in the pavilion in animated conversation with Malcolm Marshall (hopefully, the chat did Prasad more good than Agarkar's stint in the middle did for him). Earlier, I had written about Agarkar's abilities, and nothing I have seen since makes me take any of that back -- the lad is still a very good bowler, and did in fact bowl much better, much fuller, with more seam movement, when he came back on towards the end. But he has this bad weakness of thinking he is Lillee or Holding or some such and, with the new ball, trying too hard and getting too aggressive -- which, at his pace, spells disaster. He has to think this one through -- or the think tank has to think it through for him. Failing that, a career that started like a rocket could go the way of the likes of Dodda Ganesh.

Meanwhile, back for a moment to our dossier:

Chanderpaul is aces on temperament, and technically, his main problem would be the tendency to shuffle too far across his stumps -- being bowled round his legs enough times to indicate that this is his biggest achilles heel. A right arm bowler going round the wicket, angling in to leg and middle and either straightening with the arm, or coming back in to him a shade, seems a nice line to bowl to him.

So guess what? The Indians did the exact opposite -- over the wicket, slanting away from him, with loads of room for him to hit through the line and get him off like a rocket even as Philo Wallace, with the advent of Kumble, was looking very ordinary at the other end.

It was left to one man to highlight, starkly, the problem of the Indian bowlers -- and predictably enough, that man was Sachin Tendulkar.

Around the 13th over, with the bowlers vying with each other to see who could bowl the worse line (speaking of which, there are times when Kumble foxes me -- how, for instance, does he manage to bowl outside leg stump to both right hander and left hander alike? I would have thought if he held one line, and it proved to be the wrong one to the right hander, it would at least by default become the right one to the southpaw -- but apparently, I was wrong.) he suddenly took charge. There was not even a pretence of consultation -- Azhar stood at either midwicket or cover, while Tendulkar stood in the slips, moved the fielders around, yelled instructions to the bowler -- all clearly audible, in Bambaiyya Hindi, over the stump mike.

And suddenly there was a sense of purpose -- the bowlers, for the first time, seemed to know what they were supposed to do. By the way, none of this is to be interpreted as a dig, direct or otherwise, at Azhar's captaincy. In so many words, he is not a mastermind, nor has he ever pretended to be. What I mentioned above is what everyone who saw the game observed -- and the conclusions there are your own, to draw.

And Tendulkar put the seal of it by taking the ball himself and, in his very first over, taking out Wallace. The batsman is a right hander, right? So Tendulkar became a leg break bowler, pitched one just short, turned it away from middle and Wallace, leaden footed when playing the turning ball, just stood there and tapped it back to him. That brought Lara to the wicket -- and for the ten overs of Tendulkar's spell, the two went head to head time and again with Lara, never once, being able to get the part time bowler away.

A lesson in there, perhaps? That a bowler can't just run in and sling them down, he needs to think as well?

The way Tendulkar took out Chanderpaul was a classic of mind over matter. The batsman developed cramps, began to limp, and called for a runner. The obvious ploy was to flight to him (in any case, the minute he was faced with two lefties, Tendulkar had switched to off breaks), to keep bringing out, knowing that a batsman with footwork impaired was liable to make a mistake when using his legs. Till then, Chanderpaul had repeatedly danced out to the Indian spinners -- the minute Tendulkar spotted the vulnerability, he began flighting and, later in the over, drew the batsman down the track but unable to get to the pitch, the arm ball going through the gate to take out the stumps.

From our dossier:

Lara's desire to dominate is his biggest weakness -- two slips, a gully or, if you can't afford that, one slip standing wide with a gully, sets him up for the right arm fast bowler bowling around the wicket, keeping it just wide of off to tempt him into the drive -- a shot that, with his exaggerated backlift, he plays with a fair degree of risk. You could heighten the risk factor by posting a short cover -- challenge the man, and he has to try and hit you out of the attack, and that could be his weakness.

Another thing with a short cover is that it is a con job -- of course, if you drive on the up you tend to get caught, but the real danger of that position is, you are telling the batsman, drive clean and there is a fielder to ensure you get nothing for it. So a Dravid, with short cover in place, will find him every time. A Lara will look to pass him. Shutting the bat face means the ball goes back down the track -- so he tends to open the bat face, with the result that the edge becomes even more on.

Facing spin, especially early on in his innings, it would be criminal to bowl to him without at least one bat pad fielder -- the choice between silly point and short square depending on the kind of spinner in action.

Okay, so what actually happened? Way below his arrogant best, Lara did manage to grit his teeth, hang in there and see the side home. When he got to his 50, they flashed the wagon wheel, giving his innings in graphic breakdown. Guess what? 47 runs came on the on side, just four on the off. And of those 47, 38 came between square leg and fine leg.

To state the obvious -- Lara was given gimme balls on his pads, which he took full advantage of and thanks to which he never really came under pressure. And -- as so dramatically shown by that four measly runs on the off, he was never really forced to drive, in other words, he was never really attacked on his most vulnerable point.

Where then the surprise that the West Indies won, and India lost? The Indians are almost like delinquent schoolboys, in their reluctance to do their homework -- and you know what happens to delinquent schoolboys come exam time.

Add to that an air of complete abdication the minute things go bad, and the picture is complete. Yesterday, at the end of our match report, the value of Ganguly as a bowler against a team like the West Indies, in conditions like this, had been underlined. Surprise, surprise, Ganguly never did get to bowl. Neither did Robin Singh, ostensibly the fifth bowler in the side. Instead, first Kumble, then Tendulkar, then Joshi bowled their overs out, and India turned to Rahul Dravid for off spin -- when one regular bowler, and another with loads of experience under his belt, patrolled the boundaries.

Maybe someone, somewhere, can make sense of that -- I can't.

And oh yes, we "fielded badly" -- in fact, the fielders kept running beside the ball, like an escort, before bending down in leisurely mode to pick up and roll back to the bowler, while singles were taken and, often, converted to twos.

That is what I meant at the outset of the report -- it is not the defeat that hurts, but rather the manner of it. Also, earlier this year, when India won some games, I had in the match reports mentioned that these flaws still remained, that they could prove costly -- this is one time when a person hates to be proved right.

And all this, for a team that has a captain, a vice captain, a coach, and a consultant coach who, last heard from, was watching video tapes of the Indian team's performance in Sharjah. This might sound like a nasty dig but I can't resist -- do you suppose, come the World Cup, he will be watching videos of the Indian performance here in Dhaka?

Oh well -- couple of days off, and then on to Sharjah. A win there to be greeted with complacence and the attitude that all is right with the world, a loss to be met with a shrug of the shoulder and the comment, at the end, that we didn't get enough runs and then bowled badly and didn't field up to the mark and anyway, the other team were better on the day, you know...

Meanwhile, this tournament ain't over yet. The crowds -- more importantly, the sponsors -- might not get an all sub-continental final, as hoped -- but tomorrow's match up between South Africa and the West Indies promises, on the evidence of their performances thus far here, to be a classic.

Scoreboard