da premier bet： Caught between their cricketing and commercial interests, thesupermodels of Indian cricket must have been under the illusion thatall they had to do was strut their stuff and the Wellington Test wouldbe theirs
Erapalli Prasanna17-Dec-2002Caught between their cricketing and commercial interests, thesupermodels of Indian cricket must have been under the illusion thatall they had to do was strut their stuff and the Wellington Test wouldbe theirs. There was an obvious lack of effort from the visitingbatsmen who seemed to be only going through their motions. Probably itwas this apathy that also led to them showing a complete lack ofemotion after their abject performance.
© CricInfoMy mind goes back some 34 years to another Test match at Wellington -the third match of a four-Test series. India had won the first Test atDunedin, which incidentally was also its first-ever Test match winabroad. New Zealand bounced back well to take the second atChristchurch. When the two teams came to Wellington for the allimportant third Test, the conditions were similar to those whichgreeted Ganguly’s men in the recent Test; it was cold and windy, andthe pitch had a lot of grass on it. But the then Indian team showedthe will to fight it out and win the match. Our eight-wicket win pavedthe way for us winning the series 3-1.I reckon the New Zealand team then was far superior when compared totheir present line-up, especially when it came to the batting. Idistinctly remember the right-handed opening batsman Graham Dowling.If my memory serves me right, he scored 143 in the first Test atDunedin and then piled on 230-odd runs in the second Test atChristchurch. The Kiwi batsmen then were good at playing the sweepshot, a much-favoured form of play against our spin bowling attackwhich included the likes of Bishan Singh Bedi, Bapu Nadkarni and yourstruly.At the Wellington Test that followed, after New Zealand had decided tobat first, yours truly destroyed their batting with a five-wickethaul. And in the second innings it was Bapu Nadkarni who picked sixwickets, getting the ball to turn viciously, while I finished withthree.The nature of the track was very much the same after 34 years. SouravGanguly’s men found out like we had all those years ago that the BasinReserve track in Wellington has always had a spongy feel to it whichhelps the seam bowlers.If it helps the seam bowlers, it would also definitely help good spinbowlers. If I am correct, Shane Warne has been a very successfulbowler in New Zealand. The simple trick is that the bowler has to givethe ball a great deal of tweak. It is the ability to turn the ball onany surface that matters in the end.Spin was our strength all those years ago and it continues to be ourstrength now too. In the circumstances, I think the current teammanagement got the game plan completely wrong. And the lion share ofthe blame rests with the coach John Wright.
© CricInfoAs a former New Zealand captain, Wright would have been the bestperson to guide the Indian batsmen about the conditions. But somehowhe does not seem to have succeeded in achieving this. At no point didthe Indians seem like a team that had prepared for this game. Thebatting, in particular, with the exception of Dravid in the firstinnings, was pathetic. Even Tendulkar’s effort in the second inningswas not convincing.Make no mistake; the Indian team in 1968 did not have a foreign coach.It did not have the services of a physiotherapist and a trainer.Neither did it have a computer analyst. The team did not have the kindof facilities the boys have today. But the then captain Pataudi, andthe rest of the team had the will to win. Surely the ball seamed andbounced, but fortunately for us, there was one batsman, Ajit Wadekar,who stood like a rock and scored the bulk of the runs. The debutantmade a classy 143, which played its part in helping the spinners todestroy the New Zealand batting.There was no one to play a similar role this time around. After theabject surrender, Wright was quoted in newspapers as saying that thebatsmen should have been judicious in their shot selection. Well, allI have got to say to this is that most of the top Indian batsmen didnot get out playing shots, they were completely undone by the bounceand movement – and played nothing shots. As for his observation that”we’ve got some wonderful batsmen. When they get in, they expressthemselves and they’re good to watch”, well, all a Indian supporterwants is for this Indian team to be good enough to win, even if theyaren’t necessarily good to watch.Stephen Fleming mentioned after the thumping win that his team had aclear game plan, and that it worked out to perfection. It is evidentthat Wright and Ganguly, in contrast, did not put in much thought intothe first Test.After the walloping at Wellington, I, for one, can’t see this Indianteam recover and do well at Hamilton just by making a few changes tothe bowling line-up. What instead has to be done is that the batsmenwill have to be told to show some more courage and fight it out ratherthan setting their stall to look good against Kiwi bowlers.It will also be prudent for Wright to remember the different culturalbackgrounds the Indian players come from. In general the Indians aresoft, much unlike the Australians or Kiwis. So a tough schoolmasterapproach or a hands-free professional approach would not do any goodto the team when the chips are down. At the end of the day, the coachis responsible for how well the team prepares and performs. Wright,then, must do everything in his powers to ensure that anotherdemoralising loss at Hamilton is avoided.