“WHEN in doubt,” noir master Raymond Chandler once said while dispensing writing advice, “have a man come through the door with a gun in his hand.” James Anderson was that man with the gun for England, at a point in the game when the game was in equipoise.
How do you explain to a Martian that a game that lasts five days / 450 overs can really be decided in the space of four minutes and six deliveries? Or how a 38-year-old, well past any logical use-by date — notionally the team’s strike bowler, who gets his first bowl in the 28th over of an innings — can produce a first over of such lethal quality as the one James Anderson bowled to completely change the narrative?
India lost Pujara in the 7th over of the day’s play, against the run of play — because there was nothing in Pujara’s play either in the first innings or for the duration of his second to suggest he was particularly vulnerable to spin. His ability to come out to the in-between length, and go deep for the slightly shorter one, has worked for him through his career — until the fatal delivery just back of length, with inward drift before turning the other way, that the number three played from a rooted position at the top of the crease and a shut bat face to give Leach an outer edge.
Gill, though, was batting with his trademark languid grace and Virat Kohli, who hasn’t had an innings of real distinction since his century against Bangladesh in 2019, settled in quickly. With both batsmen stroking fluently and stealing singles almost at will, India appeared to have weathered the loss of two of the top three and brought the game back into balance.
Enter the man with the gun — with an over as devastating as a landslide. What was most impressive was the way he called it before he played it — in pre-game comments, he had said that the ball would reverse appreciably around the 25th over. He got it in the 28th, and it took him just one delivery to line things up before he delivered.
Gill’s batting has no discernible chinks. His footwork is very organised, his read of line and length close to perfection, his bat has so much time get in position it is almost as if the ball slows down to accommodate him. And here he was truly on song – until Anderson got him in his sights, and took him out with an example of swing bowling that deserves to go down in song. The ball started off on a fourth stump line, began drifting in towards off, hit the deck on that perfect length just back of good, and moved sharply in to find a gap between bat and pad where there seemed to be none. You can watch the clip endless times without ever figuring out what any batsman — including the very best in the world — could have done to survive it.
And then it got better. One ball later, another perfect example of reverse swing nailed Ajinkya Rahane, who was lucky to get the benefit of the umpire. So the following ball, Anderson took the umpire out of the game, repeated the exact same delivery he had bowled to Gill, and found India’s vice-captain, already woefully out of form, a sitting duck in his personal shooting gallery.
Four deliveries, one let off, two instances of the off stump cartwheeling towards the keeper — game over. But brilliant as those dismissals were, I have a preference for the way he out-thought Rishabh Pant. The diminutive number six looked quite comfortable even against Anderson around the wicket, so the bowler set him up with reverse swinging deliveries that came into him, then took him out with a cutter that went the other way. Pant played for the one coming in, looked to work it off his pads, and got the outer edge to cover.
That spell, of 7-4-8-3, is the story of the Indian second innings collapse — the rest, including an extended spell by Jack Leach where he showcased the much-hyped, rarely understood ‘character’ more than anything else — had an air of inevitability, once Anderson set the dominoes tumbling.
There is an end of Test ritual fetishised by management-speak — “take away the positives” is how it goes. But barring the continued form of Shubman Gill, a better outing for Virat Kohli, the batting ability of Washington Sundar (which should not come as a surprise to anyone following his career) and the bowling of Ishant Sharma and Ravichandran Ashwin, there is nothing to take away no matter how hard you scrape the bottom of the barrel.
India’s number one and number five are iffy. Number four is struggling to overcome what for him is an extended run drought. On the bowling front, one number tells the story: Ashwin bowled more than 72 overs across days one, two and four. That he had to shoulder — on a dodgy shoulder — such a marathon effort tells you the story of a bowling attack that was not even a decent bowling defence.
In post-match comments, Kohli suggested that the two support bowlers — Nadeem and Sundar — didn’t live up to expectations. He did not explain what the expectations were based on. What India lacks — and what India can do — is a subject for another day, though.
For now: Jimmy Anderson. In a different day and age, they would be writing about him in iambic pentameter. All you can do, in the age of 240-character Twitter posts, is watch clips of his three dismissals on loop. And marvel, at a man who seems to get better each time someone writes finis to his career.
19 comments
Rahane had literally nothing at his disposal. Virat had, quite literally, right from the selection time everything at his disposal.
The former produced a series for the ages. The latter blames his team at the first opportunity! well.. well!!
Thanks to James Anderson, Root and the younger trope, the match could be remembered for something positive!
That has always been the way, no, for the Kohli-Shastri duopoly? Subtly shift the blame onto others when things go wrong; when they go right, take all the credit. There was so much talk about how Shastri made those wonderful speeches in Oz, and how the plans that worked were actually jointly laid by Kohli, Shastri and Rahane before Kohli left for India, and much more besides. Everything a bunch of rookies did on the field somehow came back to VK and RS (as witness the five continuous days when the lunch breaks in this Test featured clips of an interview with those two).
I presume that unless RS has an attack of laryngitis no one knows about he is still making speeches. And VK is still making plans. And all that other good stuff is still happening. And yet, this happens — because the support bowlers did not do their bit. The unasked question, which I hinted at above, is: You are the management, so tell us, when you picked Nadeem who was not even in your original squad, what was your “expectation”? And did you pick Sundar for his batting or his bowling, and if the latter, based on what exactly?
Politics, cricket, whatever — the game is to avoid responsibility, and sneak credit where possible.
PS: Actually, this was pre-emptive. I was planning to write about this at length one day before the next Test.
Looking forward to the article!
This is a very unfortunate comment actually. I dont think VK and RS have ever tried to take credit from anyone. They cant also be blamed for what Star plays during lunch break although I admit it is cringeworthy :).
The question asked was pretty straightforward whether the support spinner did their job. It was true that they didnt bowl to expectations. Nadeem was either too short or too full and was bowling 15 no balls. Washy also didnt bowl well and both were quite expensive. Washy had two dropped catches but those were quite late in the day after Eng had crossed 500.
On Kuldeep, we need to remember that in Brisbane, the team management found it fine to select three net bowlers before him on a pitch which had bounce. Thakur, Sundar and Natarajan. Virat has given reason why they didnt select Kuldeep saying then we will have three bowlers all turning in. Another thing to remember about Kuldeep is he is not known to be economical. In Ranji also he goes at 3.7 RR. And he is also not making his IPL team KKRs first 11. So there is a good chance he is not bowling well enough in the nets for both Brisbane and Chennai team managements to overlook him. One more thing about Kuldeep is he bowls quite slow. And this was a slow pitch with no zip in it. Easy to say in hindsight now but what were the odds that he truly would have done better.
I would like to know now who would be the 3 spinners you would select in third test. I assume Axar will play for Nadeem. Will you drop Sundar for Kuldeep?
Krish – After Gabba, Shastri may not have shouted from the rooftops and claimed credit but there was enough going around in the media which seemed to indicate it was a Shastri ‘masterstroke’ and in fact the strategy that led to the downfall of Aussie batting was plotted in June-July 2020 itself 🙂
Of course, VK and RS won’t do their own bidding. You would never see a picture of LKA bringing down the structure himself, but everyone knows who brought it down.
To add to this: having been a part of this ecosystem, I know this much. The media generally follows the narrative that has been fed to them.
I mean, if an RS inspirational speech had a role to play in the turnaround, I wish he had made some speeches at the start of this first Test.
Additional point to consider: Granting that the two support bowlers did not deliver, and therefore VK’s criticism is valid, is it equally true that India batted poorly in the first innings and were only marginally in the game because of the contributions of numbers six and seven? If yes, would that point have been worth mentioning, while talking of support bowlers giving away 90 runs more than needed? After all, India was batting on day three, and the conditions were still conducive to digging in and batting deep. Between them, three of the top five Indian batsmen played a grand total of 63 deliveries and produced 18 runs. Might be worth a passing mention, while talking of how non-regular bowlers let the side down.
Exactly!
Yes we batted poorly in first innings. 73/4 was the point we lost the test. India is one place where tests are decided by first innings more than any other country. Nadeem and Sundar surely bowled badly though but the test could have been saved with a better batting performance in first innings
The Ashwin and Sridhar videos actually mentioned RS a lot. Jinx was not mentioned there even once. Thats where the whole RS was the tactical brain caught. And it is quite possible RS was tactically very good later on when he had to take a bigger role in VKs absence. I do think RS had a strong cricket brain even as a player. The star programming is surely cringeworthy no doubt
There is actively taking credit. And then there is passively allowing the credit to be bestowed on them, and cooperating with the process. The Star cringefest is an example of the latter — the post Oz narrative has somehow been about how Rahane was merely implementing plans already laid by Kohli and the think tank; about Shastri’s inspirational speeches, and much on the same lines. RS and VK may not have actively sought the credit, but surely they could, when asked to sit down, spend more time talking of what the players actually did on the field than on “I told them this… that… the other…”?
On Kuldeep: I heard Virat’s rationale. There is a difference. Ash is not about “turning in” — he is about variations and changes of line and pace. Sundar is the classic off spinner, in the limited sense that the off spin delivery at almost medium pace is ALL he has in his armoury just now — he is there more to bat, and to provide relief to the main bowlers. Kuldeep is a big-turning spinner — as wrist spinners tend to be — and more important, because he is wrist spin, he takes pitch assistance out of the requirement. Kuldeep’s real threat (true, again, of wrist-spinners) is the ability to extract grip and turn because of revs and not the pitch, and then use that ability to turn to set up the one drifting the other way, or hustling through straight off the pitch.
I am not comfortable naming players without knowing what the conditions are going to be like. But assuming a typical Ahmedabad pitch, assuming also that Jadeja remains unavailable (I am not sure what his situation is just now, though I was told he has begun gradual training), I’d go with Sundar (in again for his batting, but having worked with bowling coaches to fine tune his basics) at 7; my main spinners would be Ash and Kuldeep (not Axar — pick him, and you will find he is not the Test bowler everyone thinks he is), and Boom and Ishant. Caveat: If there seems to be even a smidgin of life in the wicket, I’d keep in mind that the point is to win, not buttress your batting — and bring in either Siraj, preferably, or Shardul for Sundar.
Sure that weakens the batting — but the fix for that is to strengthen the numbers 1-5 — in which at least two are very vulnerable — not simply extend the batting at the expense of the ability to take wickets.
Like I said — premature; too early to tell what kind of pitch Ahmedabad will end up producing. I hope it is not on the lines of Chennai.
There is one more test in Chennai , Sir. Ahmedabad is 3rd test only
I think we will go with Kuldeep, Axar and Ash for second test. I am hearing lot that it is going to turn a lot. Surely we dont want a dust bowl after Pune 2017
One additional point about the Star programming: For a long time now (actually, since the likes of Dravid, Ganguly, Srinath, Kumble etc quit), interviews are not recorded just like that. You need to get in touch with the agent, brief him on what the questions will be, what ground will be covered, how and when it will be aired or printed, what space will be given and how much prominence, etc before the agent will even take the request to the player / coach. Every single thing is pre-packaged, and all details decided in advance.
(I am not, by the way, talking of the quick sound bytes in between sessions — which are part of the package the sponsor and broadcaster pay for).
Dear Sir,
You make some interesting points.
For me, it was difficult to sustain my high (admittedly) level of tolerance for the tripe offered to us as the World (!) feed of commentators. With the possible exception of Murali Karthik, the rest of the panel specialized in unadulterated drivel.
Ian Chappell, the most forthright of commentators, is no longer part of Indian commentary panels. Sunil Gavaskar, sadly, is now an apologist(despite the exaggerated Anuskha Sharma posts) for the BCCI.
Can this state of affairs change?
Yours as ever,
Colonel Sekhar
Hello, Colonel, yes, the commentary is tripe (even Karthik is good only when he speaks to bowling fundas; the rest of the time, he is as anodyne as the rest) and no, the state of affairs will not change. The BCCI picks its commentators and ties them to lucrative contracts. The unstated caveat is that if you are vaguely critical of the board (which includes even things like pitch preparation) or of the stars, you are out of the box.
Pity, but then, that is how the board has been, for a very long time now. To expect it to change, when it has completely subverted the Supreme Court judgment on eligibility for office, and installed the Home Minister’s son as President only because he IS the HM’s son, is to expect too much.
Be well
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/ind-vs-eng-1st-test-chennai-virat-kohli-backs-ajinkya-rahane-and-says-india-won-t-be-jumping-the-gun-1250853
Very curious to know your thoughts on Rahane the batsman. He obviously is very well protected from criticism as even above article shows and there are more such articles in last 4 years. He comes up with a knock once in 10 games. Has had 3 bad years in the last 4. Averages 26 at home since 2017. Where has Rahane the batsman gone?
Rahane the batsman has issues that he hasn’t been able to work out. At his best, his hallmark used to be perfect balance and shot selection both in offense and defense. Both have deserted him — and not just recently, but for quite some time. What he needs more than anything else is to be able to work (not with a Vikram Rathore in the nets, but with someone like Dravid at the NCA) on his issues and sort out the little kinks that over time have evolved into big chasms.
The one reason neither he, nor other batsmen in similar situations, do this is because no international player has any faith in a system where some players get to walk in as automatic selections after spending time away for whatever reason, while others, once out of the squad, have no hope of making it back automatically once they are fit and ready. Rahane falls in the latter category — if he yields his place to someone else, so as to gain time to work on his technical issues, he is pretty much certain not to make it back into the side. (Check out the fates of players like Yuzi Chahal and Kuldeep, for instance — not so long ago, everyone was hailing the “spin twins” as India’s most potent red ball threats.)
I think Rahane has been supported by team management more than required. They dropped him once 4 years ago in SA (his form was bad then too). After that there has not been a single test last 4 years when he has been dropped. If anything he is someone who falls in the former category. I find that a bit wierd as it is clear that he is not as good a batsman as people think he is. He has like 11-12 tons over 10 years and have been pretty poor in the last 3 of the 4 years.
Comments are closed.