da brwin： There are many things that go into making a great team: a good opening pair, potent strike bowlers, a wicketkeeper who can bat, a captain whoinspires from behind and leads from the front
India Verdict by Amit Varma12-Mar-2005
Kamran Akmal was brilliant, and Abdul Razzaq supported him valiantly, but did India do all they could to break the partnership?© Getty Images
There are many things that go into making a great team: a good opening pair, potent strike bowlers, a wicketkeeper who can bat, a captain whoinspires from behind and leads from the front. But the most importantfacet of a winning team, the one that is indispensable, is a culturalone: a burning desire to win.This Indian team, which aspires to greatness, does not have enough ofthat desire. These are not unduly unkind words for a team that wasthwarted by worthy opponents: the evidence was there to see atdifferent points during the Test.Consider the third day’s play. India made 129 runs in 60 overs betweenlunch and close of play. And in the afternoon session alone, they made59 runs in 29 overs. This from a team, mind you, that was on top inthe Test, that had only to drive home the advantage. And althoughPakistan’s bowlers, especially Abdul Razzaq and Danish Kaneria, bowledwell in that post-lunch session, it was not of such a class that theIndians couldn’t handle it. Sachin Tendulkar, who has evisceratedbetter attacks than this, batted as if Geoff Boycott and not VivRichards was his hero. Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly and VVS Laxman alldawdled, as if they had to play out time to save the Test. Indiashould have ended that day with 100 more than they did. Those runswould have made the difference.Then, consider the fifth day’s play. Pakistan began the day with theirtop six batsmen out, just 53 ahead, and you’d imagine that the gamewould be over, at the latest, by an hour into the afternoon session.Instead, Pakistan added 239 more. Kamran Akmal and Abdul Razzaq battedwonderfully, but the Indians never looked like getting them out. Theydid not have a man capable of running through the tail. Or rather,they did have the men, but those men didn’t do the job.Being a fast-bowling strike bowler doesn’t just mean that you run inwith the new ball and make it swing and seam and get early wickets. Italso means that when there is no help from the conditions, you run inand bend your back and use your brain and, with the sheer fire in yourbelly, burn the opposition. Wasim Akram, the West Indian quartet, AllanDonald, they could all do that. do that? Strike thatfirst word; they do that, time and again.India once looked to Zaheer to play that role, but he blows hot, blowscold, and sometimes doesn’t blow at all. He was outstanding with thenew ball on the first morning of this game, and woeful on the lastmorning. You can’t blame a guy who gives it his all, but Zaheer didn’teven bowl accurately, and his line and length was wayward. Ditto IrfanPathan, who was far slower than his usual self. Had he picked up aninjury during the Test? Perhaps. He had done so Chennai againstAustralia as well, a few months ago, and India had struggled to getthe lower order out then as well. Such familiar themes should not bereprised, and the team management must be blamed if they are. Thesemen are capable of much more, and they did not deliver. The questionmust be asked: “Why?”Virender Sehwag, in fact, told reporters after the third day’s playthat it was team strategy to “play out time”, and to not bother aboutthe pace of run-scoring. Such a safety-first strategy befits teamsthat struggle to compete, as India did for a few decades. It isunseemly now, for a team aspiring to be top of the heap. There areplayers in this team who epitomise the attitude that the entire sideneeds to get: Anil Kumble and Rahul Dravid. (Kumble didn’t breakthrough either on the fifth morning, but at least he tried his hardeston a pitch that offered him little.) But the entire team must imbibethat attitude, and the change has to come from the top.If not, a change has to come the top.