da supremo： So the search for the elusive away series win continues
da marjack bet： Partab Ramchand23-May-2002So the search for the elusive away series win continues. As Indiaprepared to leave for the Caribbean, great hopes were nurturedthat, for the first time since England in 1986, they would returnvictorious. The visitors were even installed as favourites bysome experts, the mood was generally upbeat, and both positiveand negative factors seemed to sway things India’s way.And yet, at the end of the five-Test series, the result sheetreads: West Indies 2, India 1, drawn 2. The silver lining wasprovided by that notable victory at Port of Spain, and yes, therewere a few individual feats that did not go unnoticed. But by andlarge, the weaknesses of the side were all too apparent, and inthe final analysis, the series must be termed a disappointment.When the Indians landed in the West Indies, certain inherentweaknesses were known to everyone, but it was hoped that theteam’s main strength the middle-order batting would help plugthe loopholes in the other departments. The main worry was thebowling, but there was also a question-mark over the top of thebatting order. However, with the West Indies themselves goingthrough a lean period, it was felt that the strengths and faultsof the two sides would level out and, with some good fortune,India could win their first series outside the subcontinent in 16years.A series between two sides occupying the bottom half of the Testrankings list was bound to be mediocre. All the same, it had themakings of a close series, and the keenness of the contest thatsaw the final Test decide the series covered up for some ratherordinary cricket. The limitations of both sides were all toopalpable, but whereas the home side rose above these limitationsand played above their potential, the Indians did not play up totheirs. Therein lay the chief reason for the defeat.Underlining this was the West Indian bowling. Before the seriescommenced, it was reckoned that the pace quartet, a pale shadowof their predecessors, would be hard-pressed to bowl out theformidable Indian batting line-up twice in a Test. Yet, they didthis not once, not twice, but three times in the series, and onlyon one occasion out of six did the Indians cross 300.On the other hand, the brittleness of the West Indian batting didpresent the Indian bowlers a great chance to cover themselveswith glory. And yet they could bowl out the West Indians in aTest only twice, and in one of those four innings, the hostsscored a little matter of 422. By the end of the series, MessrsMerv Dillon, Pedro Collins, Cameron Cuffy and Adam Sanford couldjustifiably be proud of having done an admirable job.But then even Messrs Ramnaresh Sarwan, Carl Hooper and ShivnarineChanderpaul can pat themselves on the back for rising to theoccasion. There were always doubts over the durability of theiropening pair, and it was taken for granted that much would dependon these three and Brian Lara. The star left-hander’s poor formput additional pressure on the trio but, thriving on this,Sarwan, Hooper and Chanderpaul bolstered the team’s fortunes timeand again in such a manner that, by the end of the series, theIndian bowlers must have been quietly thankful for theirdeliverance.
© CricInfoThe Indian quartet in the middle-order faced much the samepressure, in that the openers hardly ever came off. Under thecircumstances, it must be said that their performance was up topar. Rahul Dravid, Sachin Tendulkar and VVS Laxman all gothundreds, while Sourav Ganguly was happily among the runs again.A bit of a bonus came their way with Ajay Ratra’s timely centuryat Antigua and the form shown by Wasim Jaffer. But again,consistency was not their strong point, as proved by the debaclesat Bridgetown and Kingston, Tendulkar’s failing by his own highstandards, and Shiv Sunder Das’ inability to get going.
© CricInfoHowever, I would not like to be too hard on the batting. Ifanything, harsher criticism should be leveled at the bowling.Sure, there were limitations, but then again, they too were upagainst a supposedly feeble West Indian batting line-up. Lara’slack of form presented the Indian bowlers with a golden chance ofcoming good. Yet, over and over again, they bowled seeminglywithout a set plan to dismiss a batsman. And when they wereconfronted with Hooper and Chanderpaul, it looked like they werejust going through the motions of completing the over.The defining moment in the lack of ideas probably came in thepre-lunch session of the Kingston Test. To me, that was theperiod when the game and the series – was won and lost. On apitch that was heaven-sent for them, Ganguly’s decision to field a defensive tactic gave the Indian bowlers the opportunity torun through the West Indian batting. But they made a mess ofthings, got carried away by the pace and bounce of the wicket,sprayed the ball all over the place, and thereafter it was uphillfor India all the way.It is fashionable to blame the batsmen for the failure of theteam, but a look at the Test averages provides clinching evidencethat the bowlers were probably more to blame, symbolised by thefact that the five main bowlers between themselves had just onefive-wicket haul. I am not sure whether persisting with thepolicy of three seamers and only one spinner throughout theseries following the victory at Port of Spain was that sound astrategy.It must have been galling for Ganguly to lose a series he musthave looked forward to winning, especially after the triumph inthe second Test. His captaincy had high points and low points,but his passion and his tough, no-nonsense approach, which havebeen hallmarks of his captaincy over these last two years, isstill very much prevalent. All he requires is a little brushingup on matters of tactics and planning. In any event, there islittle doubt that he remains the best man for the job. But theIndians will continue to win at home and lose abroad. Thisunfortunately is the prime lesson driven home by the justconcluded Test series.
