First ODI
INDIA
dot balls - 125
singles - 111
twos - 12
ENGLAND
dot balls - 110
singles - 79
twos - 8
Second ODI
INDIA
dot balls - 146
singles - 100
twos - 16
ENGLAND
dot balls - 169
singles - 77
twos - 9
Yuvraj Singh. India's power hitting. Strike rates. Just a few of the things that have dominated the narrative following the first two ODI's against England.
The one component of the narrative being paid scant attention is this - India have outperformed England in the small ball stakes.
Battle plans for any contest are based upon certain assumptions. And stereotypes. And some well established canons.
Playing cricket against India brings about its own set of assumptions.
Enter left, Mickey Arthur -Any visiting team should be able to outfield India. Whereas Steyn might dive to stop a boundary at fine leg, Ishant Sharma will stick a boot out and it will go for four. India's fielding has improved but they're some way off most teams.
Enter right - Ricky Ponting
We did a lot of planning and a lot of thinking leading into the last Test series here four years ago, trying to develop a style of play that would firstly negate boundaries and make them bat for long periods of time with the scoreboard barely ticking over.(The tacit assumption being that Indians are loathe to look for the singles and twos.)
Both of these assumptions have been turned on their heads in the first two ODIs.
When a Gautam Gambhir pushes the ball, off his back foot, to Paul Collingwood and completes the run safely, it not only turns established assumptions on its head but also helps creat self doubt in the minds of the opposition.
Which is precisely what has happened.
Any team can get bashed around. And more often than not, teams can leave behind heavy losses much more easily than close defeats.
However, when a team is challenged in areas where it is clearly the superior unit, it creates, at some level, doubts about the overall gameplan as well as a questioning of one's abilities.
Which in turn leads to a loss of confidence.Which is what England faces at this moment.
15 comments:
How about a shoutout to Indian fielding :-)
Last time these two teams met the Indian fielding might have embarrassed schoolkids. I am still surprised how England won 4-3.. it shd've been 5-2 atleast, based on India's fielding.
Ok the Indians might not be JontyRhodes level yet, but they've sure come a long way. :-)
Very well put, Homer, and very interesting. Do you think Gary Kirsten is having an effect?
Leela,
India have out singled the POms.. Proof enough that the fielding has come a long way...And we have 3 run outs to their 2.. More grist to the mill :)
Cheers,
Brian,
Difficult to gauge the impact Kirsten is having at the moment - I am sure he is making a difference, but the impact is fuzzy ( what with the team selections, new captain, new selection committee etc)..
I think the full extent of the change Kirsten brings to the plate can be gauged only at the end of this season ( when all the transition is complete and the dust finally settles).
Cheers,
Astute observation. England had lesser dot balls in the first match than India! But they didn't play all the overs...
Teams have come to India looking for the dancing cobras, snake charmers, rope-tricksters and elephant-boarded maharajahs. Indian cricket was expected to be there somewhere among all those curiosities.
Unfortunately, progress touches this preserve as well - the elephants are almost gone, the maharajahs are self-appreciatory titles, the rope-tricksters are invisible, the dancing cobras and snake charmers are endangered species... and cricket, it has simply moved on.
That said, could do with better fielding and catching. The running is un-Indian.
Homer.. my take here:
http://cricketingview.blogspot.com/2008/11/did-india-beat-england-on-singles.html#links
cheers
K
SB,
The fact that England did not hustle those one's and two's and run the Indians ragged was indicative of the pressure the Indians were putting on England by their fielding.
The catching can definitely improve - we have transitioned from an ordinary fielding but safe catching side to a great fielding and ordinary catching one .
Cheers,
Thanks for the link KD...
Cheers,
KD,
The point I was trying to make was not so much about India out singling England but the fact that India continually challenged England in the field by running their singles and twos hard.
Also, the lower number of singles and twos in England's innings can be attributed to the hustle shown by India in the field and continually challenging the English batsmen, thus curbing their instinct to run India ragged.
And both these things, taken together, challenge the basic foundations of team strategies when playing India - that we run poorly between wickets and we are a poor fielding side.
And when widely held beliefs are challenged in this manner, it leads to introspection and a loss of faith ( and confidence).
Cheers,
A good pace attack as well.
RGB,
Man to man, England have the better pace attack.
Cheers,
In Indian conditions? Thats debatable.
That notwithstanding, the pace attack is no longer innocuous. Its another deficiency that has been redressed in last few years in the same manner of the running and the fielding.
RGB,
The talent was always there, what was missing was someone to hone that talent and get the bowlers bowling in partnerships.
Which is why India owes Venky Prasad big time.
Cheers,
Yes, Prasad has done a fabulous job.
But there is also more talent coming through the first class level.
RGB,
There was always talent, plenty of which went unrecognized.. :)
Cheers,
Post a Comment