India Need To Get Their Thinking Right: Is spin our strength ot pace?

[Dhondy]

It's a funny thing to say after your team has just won away from home against the best side in the world on their favourite playground, but this win raises just so many questions. When in doubt, why does India always plump for spin, even if it means going for tried and tested failures? Why do they discard players with character in favour of those who wilt in the heat of battle? It was terrible to see them select Harbhajan ahead of Sharma at the MCG, despite the fact that the latter had just come off a five-fer against Pakistan on the most unresponsive of tracks. MCG isn't a particularly spin-friendly track, Bhajji has been averaging 50+ in Tests over the last year, and there was nothing to really commend him. Fact is, there is no team in the history of cricket that's been consistently successful with two spinners in the side. The great sides have always been dominated by pace, usually with one excellent spinner. We have ours in Kumble. Good batsmen will always adjust to spin and figure out a way of neutralizing its practitioners. That has been Murali's fate against Australia, that's how Lara and Fleming scored double tons against him in his own backyard. That's how Harbhajan Singh has gone from riches to penury as a bowler. That's how Monty Panesar's mystery is increasingly a kindergarten enigma to batsmen the world over. Pace doesn't allow you that luxury. Here we were, worried sick over the absence of our two spearheads Zaheer and Sreesanth. Expediency forced our hand in selecting an inexperienced seamer and a Test discard, and hey look, the world is talking about how we discovered a talented quick and a world class allrounder. Its serendipity gone mad. Unfortunately, Indian selectors can take no credit for it. This is the same lunatic bunch of selectors that discarded the most feared opener in the world after four lean Test matches, while the Haydens, the Smiths and the De Villiers of this world were persisted with, and duly repayed the faith reposed in them. While Australian players and commentators rubbed their eyes in disbelief, India opened up with Dravid and Jaffer, and left the one batsman out in the cold that Australians really feared. He may have scored only 72 runs in this match, but his effect on the other batsmen was electric. With him in the side, the opposition never quite know which India will turn up. They fret about him, hatch plans to netralize him, which frees up the other batsmen to get on with their own game, stodgyness, elegance, whatever their salad is. It's infuriating that India will always go for the safest, most conservative option when in a bind. Already, there are calls to play Pathan as an opener to accomodate Bhajji in the XI at Adelaide. I have never heard of such nonsense. Back your winners, India. Show some bottle. Create some sporting tracks at home, go in with three out of a bunch of five very good seamers you are blessed with, leave the habildar to do his patrols in the side-lanes of Jullunder, and the world will be your oyster.

[coffee_rules]

No 5 bowlers theory again. Pathan's batting is a bonus, we cannot depend on it in opener's slot. I am pretty sure India will go with the same 11 to Adelaide.

[DomainK]

I dont think Jaffer can make any good in the last match either. We can make use of that slot by taking someone else. I dont think its a great idea to make Pathan an opener. He is just making a comeback with the ball and there should not be additional pressure on him to bat.

[talksport]

One more over? Had Ricky Ponting not been on strike, Ishant Sharma might not have bowled the 34th over of the innings. He had bowled seven overs on the trot, troubling Ponting with darting in-cutters, but he seemed to have finished his share. RP Singh, taking his cap and jumper off, began walking towards the bowling mark. Ishant had done the same too and Anil Kumble, meeting them near the pitch, needed to decide which one to go for. Sehwag intervened and told Kumble that Ishant usually bowls long spells in domestic cricket. "Will you bowl one more?" Kumble asked Ishant. One ball later, they were celebrating.

[The Outsider]

Very good, OP. Playing 2 spinners as part of a 4 man bowling attack abroad is just not on. Neither is moving one of the best number 3 batsman in the history of the game to the opening spot. We got our selection spot on here and completely dominated Australia. Of course the selected ones had to perform on the field but the first step was to get the right combination on the field. Moving on to Adelaide, if there is one place in the world where 5 bowlers can be played it is Adelaide and with Jaffer completely out of sorts, it might not be a bad idea to open with Pathan. But I won't mid going in with the same XI either. Harbhajan should not be played as part of a 4 man attack unless it is a real turner.

[Bumper]

With Veeru & Tendulkar as spin options, a case for 2nd spinner is very weak. And given Bhajji's form (or the lack of it), its a no brainer. Methinks, India will play KKD in place of Jaffar.

[The Outsider]

We've gone most of the series keeping Ponting completely out of it. Adelaide is the perfect pitch where he can do a lot of damage. I would be tempted to play Harbhajan just for that reason. Pathan can't do worse than Jaffer as an opener on evidence so far.

[Bumper]

Cant pick a one dimensional bowler for one wicket. IMO, veeru is as good. He is also a very lucky bowler. He picked 9 wickets in 4 tests in WI. Thats more than what you would expect from a part timer. Adelaide will be a patta. It will neither bounce nor take much spin, for the first 3-4 days. Bhajji will be a waste of a spot. Though, compared to Jaffar he will likely outscore him with the bat.

[aussiefan]

40 avg for bhajji....good decision not to play him....ishant great bowler!

[Mr. Wicket]

40 average for Bhajji? More like 50 in the last year. And 51 this series. India have no reason to play him. At Perth they had an attack that showed the tools to succeed in most conditions. Canny, thoughtful part time spin from Sehwag. Consistent, probing swing with the new ball from Pathan with steady line and length with the old ball. RP's effort, pace and late swing, Ishant's bounce, persistence and ability to straighten the ball from the right hander, and then of course Kumble. A defensive spinner who even with 60+ tests to his name cannot bowl appropriately on a flat or turning track has no place in the side.