Cricket-Zondeki incl...

After Martin Crowe's and a few others' scathing criticisms of the Indian batsmen and in general the Indian team, I felt I'd to say a couple of things. Well, a few more than a couple maybe.

First, the talk of no technical adjustments being made. Sehwag, like Crowe himself had astutely suggested, was standing with his backfoot on the crease line. And generally, looked much more comfortable here than in his short stints at the crease at the Basin Reserve. His main problem in conditions such as these is the incoming ball because of the nature of his footwork. But he looked to have covered this area. The ball he got out to had more to do with bounce or perceived bounce. The short ball at his body is a part of his game he needs to improve. But, really, all it takes is the Steve Waugh approach of taking it on your body. And, that will come with time. After all, Waugh himself took a fairly long time at the start of his career to figure this out. But, there were definite signs that work was being done to sort out technical issues. I'm surprised that Sehwag's standing almost outside the crease didn't merit mention in Crowe's first day analysis on Wisden.

I'm equally surprised that Stephen Fleming keeps talking about the Indian bats' lack of commitment to the cause. I didn't think New Zealand with the exception of Mark Richardson batted much better in Wellington. The Indians with the exception of Zaheer were probably half as penetrative as the New Zealand attack and bowled when the conditions were far more conducive to batting than on the first day, when you'd to try a bit to discern the pitch from its lush green surrounds. Which other bat - other than Laxman - got out to spongy bounce? Nathan Astle. Was there a mention of his technical deficiencies at any point? No. We all know how much footwork Astle has and how much he plays away from his body. How much more did New Zealand make? 80 odd runs more than India. How many batsmen other than Richardson and Astle made above 30? None. I suppose you define this as an ability to make runs in seaming conditions.

Martin Crowe talked of how sure he was that John Wright would be hurting at the Indians' dismal showing with the bat in Wellington. Obviously, John Wright would have been hurt. So would have been the Indian team. The implication seemed to be that Wright was a man who played his cricket with a lot of pride and the Indians weren't doing the same. I'm sure Wright would argue vehemently that this isn't the case. It's interesting how quickly questions are asked of mental toughness and pride when Indian batting lineups fail in seaming conditions. Did anyone question Ponting's lack of will or a certain lack of stomach for a fight when he failed miserably against Harbhajan on the same pitches that Hayden was making runs by the ton? There was the mention of a lack of proper technique against offspin, but, ah no, it was never his lack of commitment to the cause.

It's not my intention to paper over the Indian bats' technical deficiencies against seam bowling in seamer-friendly conditions. And, it was seam and a bit of inswing, not really bounce. The greenness of the pitches made them hesitant to come forward, yes. But, very few bats actually got out to the bounce. The general sentiment that was being disseminated was the detection of a certain fear in the Indian batsman's psyche. It's nothing really to do with fear, it's more to do with that extra bit of technical tightness and getting over a lack of continuous exposure to seaming pitches.

The couple of balls that Tendulkar and Dravid got out to yesterday were absolute corkers. It was curious to hear their wrist positioning wasn't right. Crowe's opinion in this case, was one of the more pragmatic ones, and he's right, you'd to be pretty good to edge those balls. Ganguly's shot was a shocker, and he'll be the first person to admit it. But, most sides would have been hard pressed to get to a hundred yesterday without losing half their men. I'm fairly surprised so much was made of Harbhajan's backing away outside legstump. Was he expected to play correctly forward to a couple of dozen balls and then edge a perfect legcutter? On the other hand, there was a fair chance that seeing him back away and slog, Bond would get a bit riled and try to bounce him out and he'd get a few free runs. And, that's exactly what happened.

Admittedly, there's a lack of footwork in Laxman's case and a bit of a return to that outside-the-offstump waffle for Ganguly. Both played with great discipline and care in the West Indies when we were there last. They need to return to that type of form. It would have helped if this was a 3 test series.

The problem with a lot of commentators these days is that I don't think they get to watch the good innings played by some of these Indian bats. For instance, if anyone had bothered watching a couple of tapes of a few Ganguly, Laxman innings in the West Indies, there wouldn't be the endless carping on what's perceived as some sort of inherent inability of the two of them to play on away pitches. Yes, there's the return to a few bad habits, but that should absolutely be not equated with a lack of will to gut it out or a fear of the bouncing ball. That coming from a captain who made a very ordinary 25 in his only knock in Wellington and whose other teammates save two didn't make it over 25, is a bit much. A conversion ratio of four 100s to thirty three 50s wouldn't exactly be a lack of commitment now, would it?