Ok this reading compels me to write a post.
India are top team in the Tests in the world for more than a year now. And this has not come down to India just cos of the mathematical formulae that go beyond calculating the ICC rankings and all. The results home and away reflect the consistency India has had over past 3 years starting England 2007 or perhaps before than that. India reached # 1 ranking last year and has hung to it for 1 year and counting now. Its not like South Africa who reached # 1 in both formats of the game and slipped no later than they reached.
There have been verbal volleys from the coach and the captain of SA how India have to win to prove their # 1 ranking. What if India wins? What if SA lose yet again to take 20 wickets? They failed to take 20 wickets in consecutive tests against weaker Pakistan which had no Yusuf in their ranks. They have not won a Test series at home beyond last 2 series. They drew against England and lost to Australia just after they won in Australia.
Same Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel failed to shut out the Pakistani batsmen in Sheikhland, who had been bruised and hurt by England in England and in Australia before.
"We've been touching the No. 1 and 2 spot for the past two-and-a-half-years and we've played some good cricket around the world. We pride ourselves on big series like this one". Smith says. But they have not clung on to that spot. They are not even 1, 2 or 3 in ODIs.
Their batters have been getting big runs every where but they have choked when it came to hitting the nail hard to win a series. They won in Nagpur in India but lost in Kolkata. So if they are tough nuts why did they lose out in India 2 times after winning first test every time. Why did they fail to dismiss Pakistan 2 times in 2 tests in last series they played?
Last year they drew against England but 2 times out of 3 in first 3 tests they were in winning positions but failed out to take last English wicket to win 3-1. So who is tough and who deserves a # 1?
India or South Africa?
India have consistently won test matches in absence of first choice bowlers most part of the times. They've found out somebody in the bwoling department who stands out and delivers.
In batting they have made 400 runs in 7 consecutive games and passed 300 in one of every 25 Tests they have played in since 2008. They have not lost a series in last 2 and half years.
South Africa have not won a Test series in their own backyard in 2 years, their own conditions pacy and bouncy aiding their fast bowlers, they still failed to take 20 wickets every Test they played. Their batsmen plundered runs, but their bowlers lacked the firepower to take 20 wickets consistently.
On the other hand India -- having a so called "world class bowling attack" have taken 20 wickets in alien conditions and in supporting conditions. They won in SL, when SA were blanked 0-3. They won in NZ. India saved test matches, won test matches, chased targets in 4th innings, won convincingly, made huge scores in first or second innings of a test giving enough time to their depleted bowlers to take 20 wickets.
If Sehwag does not do it, then Dravid does, if not Dravid then Laxman. Sachin always performs.
And whats this hype about the dislike for short balls? Who fails against them? Sachin? Dravid? Laxman? Sehwag? If its just 2 batsmen -- Gambhir and Raina who are prone to short balls, then why label the entire team as succeptible to the short stuff. Try short stuff against Sehwag. Once or twice you might succeed, but be ready to face the music then. Remember 319? Remember this year's Kolkata test?
Does South Africa invite that awe which Australia had? They've never won in SL, India. They last won in India 10 years back and since then they have lost 1 and drew 2. They were blanked 0-3 in dead pitches of SL 4 years back.
Australia consistently whitewashed them this decade home and away until 2008 when they won 2-1 but lost the home series 1-2. They won in England but drew in home. They failed to shut out Pakistan who are at their weakest in terms of batting in their history.
It'd be better if Smith has a look at the side he's got and then do a pot shot to India. India has experienced customers who are too good to fall in this verbal childish trap of so called mind games. Focus on the play in the middle dude and not on the verbal volleys.
0 Perspectives:
Post a Comment