This is the first time the Indian cricket team has been whitewashed at home in a series of more than two Tests and that too, to a visiting side reckoned to be none too strong and no match for the “formidable” home team. When a team goes down to a shattering setback the like of which has never been experienced before in 90 years of Test cricket at home, there will be questions right down the line, says Partab Ramchand, as he analyses what went wrong
The post-mortems have been going on for some time now. The discussions have been long and exhaustive with so many aspects of Indian cricket coming into consideration. This is only to be expected with India losing their first Test series at home for 12 years and after winning 18 contests in a row. Moreover, this is the first time the team has been whitewashed at home in a series of more than two Tests and that too, to a visiting side reckoned to be none too strong and no match for the “formidable” home team. In almost 70 years during which they came to India 12 times, New Zealand won only two out of 36 Tests, one in 1969 and the other in 1988. Under the circumstances, it was reasonable to expect India to continue their winning ways but what happened was something that not even the most cynical Indian cricket supporter would have envisaged.
When a team goes down to a shattering setback the like of which has never been experienced before in 90 years of Test cricket at home, there will be questions right down the line – the methods adopted by the Indian players, especially the batsmen, whether the team selection was correct, whether the coach did his job adequately, whether it was right to produce the kind of surfaces on which the three Tests were played and, overall, did complacency and lack of proper preparation have a role to play in the debacle.
Actually, it was all of the above. For starters, the team management looked upon this series as a picnic. With their awesome record at home, they were over confident against opponents reckoned to be pushovers and paid the price. There seemed to be no planning and the mental preparation was clearly lacking. The Kiwis, on the other hand, despite coming over after having lost in Sri Lanka, approached the contest methodically and clearly had made plans to exploit any chink in the Indian armour. But even they would not have bargained for a clean sweep especially in the absence of Kane Williamson who missed the entire series.
More than the bowling which also had its shortcomings, one could find fault with the batsmen for being responsible for the shock result. Some of the shots they played were shocking and this approach has no place in Test cricket. It is clear that too much T-20 cricket has taken its toll on the thinking of the Indian batsmen. Unorthodox strokes like the reverse sweep, switch hit and the Dillscoop are all fine when played within limits. In Tests, they should be used as a surprise tactic to ambush the opponents but when played all too often they not only fail in this respect but also by nature being shots of chance it could more often than not lead to disastrous results. One lost count of the number of times the Indian batsmen got out while playing the reverse sweep. An aggressive approach as a counter-attack is most welcome but this should be tempered with the traditional qualities of patience, concentration and technical skills when it comes to Test cricket.
There was a time when Indian batsmen were the best in the game when it came to negotiating the turning ball but on the evidence of what one saw in this series that is no longer true. The Kiwi line-up did not possess any world-class spin bowler and yet the Indians did their reputation no good. Time and again they came a cropper against bowlers like Mitchell Santner and Ajaz Patel who for all their good work came up with flattering figures.
If the batting was the main culprit, the bowling too cannot escape blame. On pitches tailor-made for spin, Ravichandran Ashwin, given his record, reputation and experience failed to deliver even when confronted with a New Zealand batting line-up that was pretty modest by any reckoning. Ashwin has performed better against tougher opposition, lending credence to the general belief that perhaps he is nearing the end of his career. He has rendered yeomen service to Indian cricket but at 38 it could be just about curtains for him if he does not do well in Australia. Of course, much the same can be said about Rohit Sharma (37) and Virat Kohli (36).
The team management should also shoulder the blame for both the selection of surfaces and faulty selection. Playing on spinning tracks to back your strength can boomerang if the batting fails to rise to the occasion. This has happened more than once in the past and the same sorry story was repeated. Also, on the pitches that one saw in the series, it was clear that the pacemen would hardly have a role to play. So often has Ashwin opened the bowling with a fast bowler on such surfaces. In fact, Washington Sundar underlined the need of an additional spinner in the two Tests that he played.
The new coach, Gautam Gambhir, also clearly is not blameless. Succeeding the likes of Ravi Shastri and Rahul Dravid may not be easy. His comments during the match-eve press conferences did not exactly make him popular with the cricketing fraternity. Rising to K.L. Rahul’s defence and then dropping him from the playing eleven, with statements like the Indian batsmen not being fallible to spin bowling despite repeated failings, have sullied his image. One gets the distinct impression that his tenure could be a short one especially if the Indian team fares badly in Australia.
(The writer is a veteran sports writer who spent his career working for The Indian Express and The Telegraph and Sportsworld. He lives in Chennai.)
from Webdoux