Indian batting anything but in the 'pink' of health

Raju Korti
There is something extremely funny when a national team is bundled out for a paltry total, especially when the team, touted as one with great batting depth and plenteous bench strength, falls like nine pins. Actually, for a total score of 36, paltry is a big concession. The manner in which India meekly gave up in Adelaide today with just 36 runs and no one managing to enter even the double digit score was worse than an abject surrender. Worse still, all this happened when I was away for some work and when I tuned in, India was already gasping at 26/8 and staring at one of the most humiliating defeats on a foreign soil. It brought back memories of the disastrous 1974 series against England when Indians were handed out a 3-0 Whitewash by the Englishmen. At Lords India scored just 42 in 17 overs to lose by an innings and 285 runs. Even then, recall that the late Eknath Solkar had dourly stuck around for his 18 runs when others capitulated before Geoff Arnold and Chris Old. That team had Gavaskar, Wadekar and Viswanth. The refrain was the Indians couldn't come to grips with the biting cold weather and refused to take their hands out of their pockets to take catches.  Today, with No 2 ICC ranking Kohli, they had no such excuse and in a spunk-less display of batting could score 36 in 19 overs, their score-card reading like someone's mobile number as the joke is being circulated among furious but sarcastic fans. There is of course no discounting the superb spell bowled by Pat Cummins and Josh Hazlewood with the pink ball but it is inexplicable that a team caves in with not even a semblance of fight. 

A look at the lowest Test totals should, however, give the Indians some consolation. On the record front, India has much to cheer about, facts being stranger than fiction. In the history of Test cricket India has 8 low totals as against Australia and England (19 each), New Zealand (16), South Africa (13) and West Indies (7). To give more comprehension to these figures, India and New Zealand, at least until the mid-70s were not exactly giants in the international reckoning but traditional Ashes rivals Australia and England are match for each other on that count. New Zealand, patently the minnows then, have come a long way to be no pushovers but they still retain their dubious record of the lowest ever Test total. From the lowest low of 26 by New Zealand to the lowest high of Pakistan's 80, there have been 106 such lowest low-scoring cricketing matches. Even lowest totals have scored a hundred in a game that is a baffling turmoil of numbers.

If you exempt the cut-throatism and ruthlessness that obtains in the way the game is played today with understandably high stakes, the fact remains that at the end of the day it is a game where teams will win or lose and even the best of teams can have a bad day in office. India's loss rankles not because of the loss per se but because of the complete absence of will to fight it out. With three more Tests to go and Kohli on paternity leave, the others have to more than iron out the kinks in their armour.

Beyond figures and customary sermonizing, I always wonder what does the team do on a day like this when their reputation is shredded to pieces. You see players in  the dug-out or balcony chatting away merrily, feverishly gesticulating, standing up in excitement and applauding, clinching fists, eating snacks and sipping beverages but a loss like this early in the tour takes some resilience to bounce back. I am  curious to know how Ravi Shastri will deal with this apart from giving his boys some pep talk to goad them into action since the batting technique of most of them showed they lacked application, forgot basics and seemed to be still stuck in the IPL mindset. 

From the Summer of 42 in 1974 in Lords to the Winter of 36 in 2020 in Adelaide -- and I am going by the Indian seasons -- India has taken 46 years to do worse. If this piece of statistic is any indication, I hope I won't be alive to see the worst.      

Not fair on Cheteshwar Pujara

Raju Korti
The idea of fielding two separate teams for the shorter and longer versions of the game may have its utility and logic but it has some strong aberrations. The reference is to Cheteshwar Pujara who is perhaps the only true specialist Test batsman in the current Indian team visiting Down Under. (Kohli excluded since he is playing only the first Test). Pujara played his last Test end February against New Zealand which means he has had no international exposure for almost a year. In 77 Tests, Pujara has scored almost 6000 runs with 18 hundreds at an average close to 50. Just how fair is it to expect a batsman of Pujara's class and caliber to walk into the Test side against Australia in Australia after such a long hiatus and deliver?

Given the way the shorter version has made inroads into the longer version, players, especially batsmen have to readjust and reorient themselves to a format that calls for completely different skill sets. In India where cricket is played extensively, there have been instances where batsmen have ended up being neither a Test or ODI/T20 specialist, losing their identity trying to constantly readjust. There are also those who have forgotten their durability and have made peace with the T20s on the premise that he Test version is now only regulation cricket and is losing its charm.

In the last decade, India has been handing out significantly higher number of ODIs and T20s although puritans and protagonists of the Test cricket believe -- and rightly so -- that the latter calls for greater endurance, competence and cricketing mindset. With more number of shorter matches being played, Test cricket skills appear to have taken a back seat. Notice that in the current series, India lost to the Aussies 3-0 in the ODIs but managed to upstage them in T20s 2-1. The transition from these to the Test series will not be easy although that the current Indian batsmen like the ball coming on to the bat on the bouncy Aussie pitches.

Pujara's example is a case in point that Test cricket skills may not earn you a place in the playing XI for the shorter formats. With some debate, India fell in line with the concept of playing different teams across formats as it was happening among other playing nations. Why batsmen, even bowlers were selected on the same yardstick. Remember, Mohammed Shami and Umesh Yadav were considered first serves for the Tests while Bhuvanesh Kumar and Jasprit Bumrah were preferred options for the limited overs games.

Take the case of Steve Smith. He has fared remarkably in both the formats but it is Aaron Finch and not he who is the captain of his side in the shorter version. He was, however, good enough to lead Rajasthan Royals in the more feverish version. Ditto with Eoin Morgan who is leading England in the shorter version while Joe Root presides over the Test squad. Morgan made a very interesting point earlier this year when he said he was open to the idea of England playing two matches in different formats on the same day. Apparently, Morgan was flexible to the idea of helping cricket back on its feet but he was also indicating that the character of the game was changing.

The specialization within formats in international cricket has happened particularly in the last decade or so and has become a working assumption among a majority in the cricket community. If you played Test cricket a decade before, you probably played T20s too. This is now passe and the emergence of a completely different ethos has changed the game's algorithm. There is little doubt that the domestic T20 contests created a new and stronger revenue model for cricketing boards even as franchise contracts became worth more than national contracts to a number of players. As a consequence, a series of new T20 competitions made their way into the already hectic international schedule, adding to new fixtures. Look at the players who have been risking injuries and burnout while signing up for everything. Players, coaches and selectors think differently about how to achieve all-format success. Specialization is a natural corollary. Three teams have pursued a strategy of choosing players to suit the format much more clearly than the rest: West Indies, South Africa and Australia. 

With lesser number of Test matches being played, specialist batsmen and bowlers are getting systematically sidelined. It is tough for someone like Pujara to come back after a long gap and start playing big innings. The exposure he gets at the domestic level does not really add up to much since playing domestic cricket and international cricket are different ballgames. Recall that two years ago at the Wanderers in Johannesburg, he took 53 balls to open his mark. That's nine overs too many of a T20 where explosive batsmen can score 100 runs.

Cricketing boards should identify players who play exceptionally good Test cricket and allow them to play a few shorter version games in tournaments like IPL where there is scope in the initial matches. A long wait outside the team can make players rusty, drop confidence and short on dressing room camaraderie. Losing good players at the cost of revenue and what people perceive as popularity does not make for a great cricketing sense. But who will convince the cricket boards?

Some thoughts about anchoring UPA's ship

Raju Korti
Nationalist Congress Party leader Sharad Pawar has trekked a long political expedition since the days I first met him in 1978 as the leader of then Progressive Democratic Front. He had by then established enough credentials in outfoxing veterans with manoeuvres startling even by the standards of his Machiavellian mentor Yashwantrao Chavan. A sulking Vasant Dada Patil, four times chief minister of Maharashtra, had told me how the newbie politician had upstaged him with  machinations that had left him cynical and bitter. In the decades that followed, Pawar left little doubt about his acumen that many believe is a euphemism for treachery. 

It is not my case here to dwell on Pawar's cunning but his name being proposed as the next Chairperson of the United Progressive Alliance has a ring of mystery to it given the flux in which the alliance finds itself in. That Pawar should be a key player in this mist is perhaps well in tune with his political record since the man's craft and shrewdness thrives in such political rigmaroles. As his name emerged as a front-runner for the UPA's presiding chair, I suspect we are in for another long spell of political intrigue. The NCP has been quick to dismiss all such talk but when it comes to Pawar there are no guarantees which way he will turn and when. 

There are no prizes for guessing why Sonia Gandhi has expressed reluctance in continuing as the chairperson. Her own party of die-hard loyalists has now openly started raising a banner of revolt. Mind you, the Congress was never a united party -- no party is; including the BJP -- and dissensions were always rife but the Gandhis managed to keep them in check with their so called personal charisma. Apparently, many leaders in the party see no chance of their elevation and have now started coming out of their shell to demand a change in leadership. Sonia seems to have caught on to the fact that discretion is better, and in any case, it makes sense to put someone else in the hot seat. Who else than Sharad Pawar? And for those who wonder what exactly is the difference between Uddhav Thackeray's Shiv Sena and Raj Thackeray's Maharashtra Navnirman Sena except of course ego issues, it is the same difference between Congress and Nationalist Congress Party.

The Congress is likely to hold party elections early next year to select a new president since Rahul does not want to anchor the party's adrift ship. Sonia was forced to become the interim president after Rahul put in his papers in the wake of the rout during the parliamentary elections. Frustrated veterans in the party like Ghulam Nabi Azad, Kapil Sibbal, Shashi Tharoor, Prithviraj Chavan -- among 23 others --  who have for too long pedalled the Gandhi line see this as a chance to wrest some control with the party at its weakest since its checkered history. Instead of brooding over the situation, the partymen should decisively pitch for a change if they want it revitalized with new ideas. It is not just that the Gandhis have outlived their authority, the party has to shake off its culture of sycophancy and win back people's trust if it is to regain the center-stage and emerge as a strong alternative. The fact is Congress has only made things difficult for itself.

The UPA needs a leader who is a veteran and astute politician and has the ability to negotiate with other parties. So far, there have been enough indications that regional leaders like Mamata Banerjee and MK Stalin could be tough customers who may not fall in line with the present dispensation of Congress. As for the opposition parties, Pawar fits the bill but then many in Congress feel that he cannot be always trusted. Age is also not on his side. Giving space to Pawar could be suicidal even if the NCP were to merge with the Congress. The Congressmen haven't forgotten how Pawar had opposed Sonia being a foreigner and formed his party on that plank. If Pawar does take over the reins of UPA, Congress will be completely usurped and would at best appear a poor cousin.

It is not as if Congress and NCP are made for each other but they do not have any other option but to court each other for what they believe is the common cause -- checkmating Modi. The inherent contradictions within the Congress and NCP coupled with the issue of who should head the UPA is what promises to be another teaser. It could well trigger another power tussle that may further queer the pitch for both the parties. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. As Vasant Dada Patil told me long back, all opposition parties could come together but fractions within the Congress can never unite. The Congress has lived through these internal dissensions and contradictions. This time its a different story.