After a frustrating day in the field, India were eventually set 180 to win at 4 runs an over. Ten Cricket's lunch time show, 'Straight Drive', featured two seasoned pundits, Arun Lal and Tony Greig, agreeing that India should easily chase down such a score. Lal saheb even went as far as to suggest that India shouldn't consider themselves a true number 1 side if they don't chase this, and went on to vent his disappointment at the prospect of India not taking on the chase. Many Indian fans, raised on a diet of IPL and slam bang, winning-World Cups-with-sixes style ODI cricket lapped it all up.
4 an over? Easy shit!! Bring on the powerplays!!! |
Let's deal with the surprise factor first. For those unaware, this ISN'T the first time India have given up a test in the name of risk-free cricket. By memory, Ahmedabad 2002 vs England, Nagpur 2006 vs England, the Oval 2007 vs England are some of the numerous examples of draws being conceded when a win was possible. It surprises me that an entire legion of cricket enthusiasts and followers failed to remember some of these instances when the batsmen called it off. The fact is, what happened today was not an aberration, it was a safety first approach that is CHARACTERISTIC of our Indian cricket team.
![]() |
"Bah, THIS is how you win a series!" |
If you look at the matches mentioned above, you may notice that the usual suspects took part in those matches, with Rahul Dravid's presence being particularly noteworthy for the amount of time he consumed at the crease. As long as India relies on the likes of Dravid and Laxman in the middle order, this safety first approach will be the norm. That begs the question, why do they play like this? Think back to the tour of 1996, when India failed to chase 120 at Bridgetown. A generation of cricketers scarred by bad memories are unlikely to take risks even when the situation suits. They are dead set in their methods, and will continue to be as long as they play. As the saying goes, old dogs don't learn new tricks. It's up to the next generation to take the team in a different direction, a bit like how Dhoni did with his bold declaration in the 2nd test.
Funnily enough, I can hear the mob reacting..."But waaaaaaaaaaait, isn't this Indian side the number 1 team in the world? Aren't we fucking amazing, aren't we the team that should show KILLER INSTINCT in situations like this, by kicking ass and taking names?" The frequently asked question is whether the Aussies of the 00s or the Windies of the 80s would have done the same. My response to this is, 'WHO FUCKING CARES?'. At the end of the day, India are indisputably the best test side in the world. How does a refusal to chase 85 off 90 have any bearing on this? They are at the top now and if they continue to win series they will deservedly be ranked the number 1 side in the world. Whether the Windies or the Aussies of the past would have done things differently is immaterial, the same exercise in futility as assuming what Bradman's average would have been had he played in the modern era. If comparisons are your thing, go wonder whether the Windies or Aussie sides exercised significantly greater control over the weather than India did.
"Not bad, but couldn't they be bigger?" |
Like most drivers on India's roads, Mr. Arun Lal and my fellow Indian cricket followers motor along in U-turns instead of staying on the right lane. Today's 'debacle' will be forgotten in a heart beat once India win a game or two in England. And that's when I will take the time to read over this post, and have a chuckle to myself.