NEWS
MATCH REPORTS
DIARY
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
PEOPLE
ARCHIVES

Zimbabwe pulls one back

For those who like every little detail of a match, the commentary transcripts are duly attached, alongside this report, on the sports page.

So rather than reiterate the details of the various dismissals, carried therein, I'll stick to the broad outline here.

Ten tosses, ten wins -- Azharuddin seems on the hottest streak in history, when it comes to that particular pre-match ritual.

He's also on perhaps the most extended insertion streak in history -- starting with the Sahara Cup, he has thus far inserted in 7 games out of 8.

Here, as elsewhere, his logic remained unchanged -- the only life on the track, he said post-toss, is in the first hour, we are looking to exploit it and restrict Zimbabwe to a low total.

As it turned out, Zimbabwe shot away to its highest total in the series -- thanks to the very flaws that had Azhar, in angry-young-man mode, blasting his team after the second ODI in Bulawayo: to wit, poor catching and a fielding effort that, after starting out well, began to wilt as the game progressed.

It is this tendency to fade away in the field that is most worrying -- for it signals a team that is physically, and mentally, weary. A team that can't summon up the energy you need for sustained effort. And if you look at the schedule ahead, you can't but conclude that this weariness is only going to increase in the coming months.

The result of this all encompassing fatigue is that the team has consistently given away too many runs in the field. And as India, later this year, goes up against better bowling sides than Zimbabwe, those runs given away are going to count, to make the vital difference.

Then again, maybe I shouldn't be saying all this -- Jagmohan Dalmiya will only claim that it is yet another media creation, so hey, hush!

The venue for this game shifted, from Bulawayo to Harare, and it was like a whole new ball game. With Eddo Brandes back in the side, the home side felt confident enough to leave a nice layering of grass on the rock hard track, ensuring that there would be pace and bounce throughout the match. Equally to the point, there would be little if any turn for the spinners -- thus, in one shot, Zimbabwe had given itself a little edge, while negating India's advantage.

India for this game rested Javagal Srinath (who given the nature of the track might have enjoyed an outing) and Ajit Agarkar, going in with Debashish Mohanty and Rahul Sanghvi instead. And Ajit Agarkar got to lead the attack.

There's this thing about Agarkar, that when Srinath is around, he tends to try too hard, attempting to outdo the senior bowler in pace and ending up spraying things all over the place. But in the absence of Srinath, Agarkar comes into his own, bowling within himself, concentrating on length and line and suddenly, looking an altogether different bowler.

Check out today's performance. The most consistently expensive of India's bowlers in earlier games bowled a superlative first spell of 5-1-13-1, and produced a beauty to get rid of the in form Alistair Campbell. The ball pitched a three-quarter length on off and Campbell, rather unsure which way it was going, played at it with bat away from body, the ball straightening to go through the gate and crash into middle stump.

At the other end, Debashish Mohanty bowled equally well, if with considerably less luck. An extended first spell saw him return 8-0-23-0, and in the process, he had a very good shout for LBW against Craig Wishart turned down before that batsman had really got off the blocks; then came round the wicket to Andy Flower and, first up, produced a lovely delivery to take the edge only to see Tendulkar, normally the most reliable of fielders, muff it at slip; and later on, in his second spell, beat the dangerous Craig Evans on the drive, movement off the seam taking the edge and looping down to backward point where Robin Singh, of all fielders, spilt the chance after getting into perfect position.

Just to rub it in, Wishart went on to record his first ever ODI century, Flower played a great supporting role, and between them, they batted Zimbabwe out of jail and into a good position for a late charge towards a defensible position.

The rate of progression cues into a very crucial point about India's ODI gameplan, so we will give it here: Zimbawe 10/1 in 5, 35/1 in 10, 46/2 in 15, 73/2 in 20, 97/2 in 25, 116/2 in 30, 153/3 in 35, 190/3 in 40, 227/4 in 45 and on to 260/5 all out.

That indicates the game progression: after the two early wickets, Wishart and Flower (with a good slice of luck) kept the runs coming off singles, and though at the halfway stage, or even after 30 overs, it didn't look too promising, that trickle of singles in the middle overs not only kept the score mounting, but meant that the batsmen were under no pressure to take risks, they could keep their wickets intact, and that in turn left the batting side with plenty in hand for the slog.

So how did the singles come? Thanks to a mistake the Indian side keeps making, and reporters keep pointing out, in match after match. Once two batsmen show signs of hanging in there, the fielders are pushed back to save the fours, with the result that pushes in almost any direction provide risk-free singles.

I'll tell you what, if I had a run for every time commentators on television say, "The Indians won't mind the singles at this stage," I would by now have more runs than Sachin Tendulkar.

I mean why, precisely, won't the Indians mind the singles? You give one, you have to make it back, right?

Now look at the Indian progression: 9/1 in 5, 15/2 in 10, 52/2 in 15, 72/4 in 20, 89/4 in 25, 115/4 in 30, 146/5 in 35, 173/5 in 40 and by then, it was all over anyway.

Or look at this stat -- Wishart, the centurion, got close to 65 runs off singles. The Indians needed boundaries -- because throughout, the Zimbabwe fielders were pulled inside the circle and no matter how well you placed the ball, there was a fielder there in the way.

With no easy singles on offer, the likes of Jadeja, Ganguly, and Dravid had to play uncharacteristic strokes, and they got out -- in other words, the lack of free runs forced the errors.

This is one aspect of India's fielding effort that has remained unchanged over time. It is also something for the think tank, comprising Simpson, Gaekwad, Azhar and company to think about, and rectify.

Another point relates -- okay, just a minute while I zip up my asbestos suit in anticipation of the flames -- to Rahul Dravid.

The debate on whether or no he deserves a place in the ODI squad continues, and for now, I will steer clear of reiterating my thoughts on that.

My point here is this: if you do pick him, then you have to bat him at three, because that is not only the natural slot for him, but the one best fitted for a player of his type. Lower down the order, you require batsmen capable of playing unorthodox, innovative strokes -- a knack even Dravid's mom won't accuse him of having. What he is fitted is to come in at three, to keep one end going, and let the flamboyant strokeplayers do their stuff at the other end.

But time and again, he is put down to bat at three and, at the fall of the first wicket, out comes Azhar, Mongia, Jadeja, almost everyone except the guy who was picked to bat in that position.

Problem one with that is what it does to the batsman's morale -- you are effectively telling him you don't think he has what it takes to deliver.

A bigger problem is what it does to the balance of the batting side. Jadeja at five and Robin at six are perfectly placed -- ideally, they will be in after 30 overs, and against the older ball, against bowlers intent on containment, they are devastating.

Here, Azhar first promoted himself -- a rather iffy decision, because Brandes and Streak (more of this later) are quality bowlers, there was pace and bounce in the wicket, and that stage of the game was not conducive to Azhar's brand of strokeplay.

At his fall, in came Jadeja, and that if anything was iffy-er -- the ball was new and moving around, Jadeja is the kind of batsman who needs to keep motoring along, and when the singles dried up, he was drawn into the kind of stroke -- a one-handed drive over long off -- that works at the end, but with a harder ball, meant the difference between a chip into the outfield and a simple catch to the deep fielder.

And the cumulative result was that towards the end, just when a Robin-Jadeja partnership was best fitted to put the team back on track, there was no Jadeja. And that is the real danger of diddling around with the batting lineup -- the team, as picked, has a specific guy to do a specific job, alter that without good cause and you end up making a meal of things all round.

For Zimbabwe, the real key to the win lay in two factors (backed, of course, by their as-per-usual fielding standard). The first was Wishart's innings. If you remember the first match, this was the guy who, with no reason in the world to try such a stroke, came dancing down the wicket at Harbajan and was stumped by a mile.

Here, he kept himself in check, shrugged off the fact that initially he was scoring slowly, took the singles that were made available and, at the right moment, made the push. A superbly paced innings, and one of character and maturity.

The other key was the Brandes-Streak combine. In the two earlier games, Craig Evans shared the new ball and went for plenty, his prodigality taking the pressure off the Indian batsmen. Here, Zimbabwe had two experienced bowlers operating in tandem, and that meant the screws were tightened at both ends. Check out their analysis for the first spell: Brandes 6-2-13-1, Streak 6-1-11-1. (Evans, by the way, was brought on first change and went for 13 in his very first over -- but by then, two Indian batsmen were back in the hut and that too, the most experienced players, Azhar and Sachin, so Evans being expensive wasn't the problem it could have been had he been using the new ball).

Zimbabwe rode on the back of those superb first twelve overs by their best bowlers, astute captaincy meant that the weak link -- the fifth bowler(s) -- were used when India was under pressure and in no position to go after the bowling, and the result was a fine, professional win, to round off a 2-1 scorecard for India.

Another trophy win -- the fifth this year -- might be cause for celebration. But the flaws are all too obvious, and with tougher tests coming up as the season progresses, it is going to take a whole lot of thought and effort to keep this momentum going (and there is little time for thought, and not much energy for the extra effort, is there?)

A little statistical milestone rounds this off -- when he took a brilliant one handed return catch to get rid of Evans, Agarkar got to his 50th wicket in his 23rd ODI. And that is a strike rate of 24.6 -- well ahead of the next in line, Saqlain Mushtaq, who weighs in at 26.3.

But it is in comparison with the other Indian bowlers that Agarkar's record really begins to stand out. The next best among bowlers with a sizeable haul of wickets is Javagal Srinath, at 38.5. Then comes Kumble at 39.5 (now who was it who was arguing the other day that Srinath doesn't have a good enough strike rate?). And the great Kapil Dev was striking at 44.2.

The youngster is well ahead of the field, at this point. Only twice in his 23 games has he gone wicketless, and one of them was an abandoned match against New Zealand.

Makes you wonder how long he can keep this up, doesn't it?

Meanwhile, the end of the one day tamasha, and over, come October 7, to the Test arena. See you then.

Scoreboard