India has lost the first Test of a series in England 12 times outof 14. The only exceptions are 1971 and 1986 and interestinglyenough India won the series both times.
The present team can certainly take someinspiration from the 1979 squad, the only previous outfit to getfour Tests in England. On that occasion, India was given littlechance against an England team that, following the defections toKerry Packer’s World Series Cricket, was probably the No 1cricketing nation. India lost the first Test by an innings and 83runs in four days, were shot out for 96 on the opening day of thesecond Test and yet heroically held on to draw not only thatLord’s Test but also the two remaining games.
|
Actually Indian contests in England can be divided into twodistinct phases with 1971 being the cut-off year. Prior to that,India played six rubbers in England (including the only Testplayed in 1932) and lost every one of them. Since 1971, India hasplayed seven Test series’ in England, winning two and losingfive. And there has been marked improvement since the dismalinitial record. Many times in 1979, 1982, 1990 and 1996 theseries has been lost narrowly. On all the four occasions, Indialost the first Test but drew the remaining matches.The present team can certainly take some inspiration from the1979 squad, the only previous outfit to get four Tests inEngland. On that occasion, India was given little chance againstan England team that, following the defections to Kerry Packer’sWorld Series Cricket, was probably the No 1 cricketing nation.India lost the first Test by an innings and 83 runs in four days,were shot out for 96 on the opening day of the second Test andyet heroically held on to draw not only that Lord’s Test but alsothe two remaining games.That England team, led shrewdly by Mike Brearley, was, as I said,arguably the best in the world. But it is astonishing how Indiahave repeatedly gone down in England to teams which are all toomodest in their composition.In 1959, India lost all five Tests, during one of the finestsummers, to an England side which had been thrashed 4-0 inAustralia just the previous winter. In 1967, England were notexactly on top of the world and yet India lost all three Tests.The home team were also a fairly mediocre outfit both in 1990 and1996 and yet India again contrived to lose the series each time.Paradoxically, England were the best team in the world when Indiaregistered the historic series victory in 1971.There was a time when the wicket and weather conditions inEngland were heavily loaded against the Indians. And while theseremain factors, they are now not as pronounced as in the past.Many of the current Indian players have had considerableexperience of playing in England, either on previous tours orthrough their county engagements. Moreover, in the second half ofthe English summer, the weather is more or less settled and thepitches do not pose the kind of problem they may pose in May andJune.What’s more, this is again a pretty modest England side. Theirmixed record at home in the last few years underlines this. Andthen there is the growing injury list. The bowling, in theabsence of Darren Gough, Andrew Caddick and Alex Tudor was prettyordinary at Lord’s. Now Simon Jones, inarguably their fastestbowler, and Graham Thorpe, arguably their most accomplishedbatsman (in addition to the already injured Marcus Trescothik),will be missing from the line-up at Trent Bridge.If after all this, the Indians are still one down in the seriesafter the opening game, a major factor has to be that they arenot playing up to potential. They have allowed themselves to beout batted, out bowled and out thought.As I pointed out in a previous column, nothing will convince methat England’s batting line-up is as strong as India’s. Thebowling admittedly has discernible weaknesses and it may lack thefirepower to bowl out England twice. But India has the batting todraw a Test even if they lack the bowling to win it.The bookies, in fact, had a drawn game as a prohibitive favouriteon the second evening of the first Test with India 128 for one inreply to England’s 487 and who could find fault with them forthat? Virender Sehwag was going great guns, Rahul Dravid wasbatting in typically obdurate fashion and Sachin Tendulkar,Sourav Ganguly and Venkatsai Laxman had not even picked up theirbats to take on a bowling line-up that lacked both bite andvariety. However, as is well known, the scenario changeddramatically on the third morning.The fact of the matter is that India should never have allowedthe game to drift away so quickly. It took a No 8 batsman with anaverage of 7.81 going into the match and a dubious record of oncehaving registered five ducks in a row and a No 11, who has nopretensions to being any kind of batsman, to show up the failuresof the famed Indian batting line-up.Whichever way one looks at it, then, the onus is on the batsmen,more than on the bowlers, to perform. They have a greaterreputation to live up to. As the stronger of the two departments,it is imperative for the batting to shoulder much of theresponsibilities.Again, the present set of batsmen can take the cue from theirpredecessors in 1979. On that occasion too, the batting wasstronger than the bowling and so well did they perform that butfor a couple of unfavourable decisions by the umpires, Indiacould well have drawn level in the final Test at the Oval. Thereis nothing bowlers like better than commencing their job with abig total to defend. In these circumstances, even a toothlessbowling line-up can perform like hungry lions.