Silly Point: The UPI cricket column

UPI Editors Krishnadev Calamur and Martin Hutchinson look at the upcoming India-England test series.

India, England series should be close

By Krishnadev Calamur

India and England prepare to meet Thursday in the first of four test matches with the Indian side more prepared mentally than any previous one to win an overseas series.

Of course, there have been better Indian test teams -- Ajit Wadekar's 1971 heroes and Kapil Dev's 1986 squad, which both won the England series, come to mind -- but this is the first Indian side in recent memory that displays a will to win previously shown only by the Pakistanis and the Australians.

The just concluded Natwest one-day triangular series provided evidence of that. In all the games, and most notably the final, India was the superior team, outclassing both England and the out of form Sri Lankans, quite an achievement considering they were the underdogs. The team played as one unit and everybody, not just the big three -- Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid and skipper Saurav Ganguly -- contributed. In fact, it was the three youngsters -- Mohammad Kaif, Virender Sehwag and Yuvraj Singh -- who excelled with the bat.

The Natwest final in which India successfully overhauled a target of 325 set by England despite having the top six batsmen back in the pavilion for a little more than 100 runs was evidence of this. Most television watchers in India put their sets off, expecting the collapse with which they are all too familiar. But a couple of hours later, Kaif and Yuvraj had steered India to an improbable and historic victory.

Having said all this, however, this Indian squad is short on test experience. Apart from the big three and veteran leg spinner Anil Kumble, much of the team has been around only for the past few years. This is essentially a one-day squad that plays test matches. The Indian selectors have made no bones of the fact they expect this side to win next year's World Cup in South Africa and the series win has raised those hopes in the Indian media.

Sehwag, despite his tests century on debut against South Africa, is best at attacking. If he fires, England will have their work cut out and spectator's at Lord's will be in for a treat, but if he doesn't, India will have a problem in its opening slot. Wasim Jaffar, who is to open at Lord's with him, is competent but not brilliant. Then there is the big three and the stylish V.V.S. Laxman. All great on their day, but unable, with the exception of Dravid, to deliver when the team needs it most.

The batting attack is strong, but the bowling is not. Absent paceman Javagal Srinath, the Indian pace attack, never very impressive, looks downright laughable in the test arena (though they did do well in the one-dayers). Zaheer Khan is good with the old ball, Ashish Nehra with the new and Ajit Agarkar erratic. Kumble is no longer at his peak, which leaves the talented and aggressive Harbhajan Singh. But one in-form bowler does not an attack make. The Indian attacks looks likely to fall short.

England, however have their own woes, mostly injury-related. Paceman Darren Gough is out with an injury and is telling everyone who cares to hear that it's the selectors' fault. Marcus Trescothick, probably the only English batsman who could get into a world side, is also sidelined with an injury. There are the veterans -- skipper Nasser Hussein and Alec Stewart -- but other than that, the team has little experience.

Glamorgan test bowler Simon Jones is likely to be picked to exploit India's traditional weakness against pace. Watch out for Andrew Flintoff. But the duel to watch will be off spinner Ashley Giles against Tendulkar. Giles frustrated the Indian in their previous encounter in India, which was criticized as negative by many, and Tendulkar is likely to want to get even.

The series is likely to be closely fought. In my previous column, I had predicted England would win 1-0. I'm going to stick with that, given India's traditional poor performance overseas and the art of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. But I hope Ganguly's men prove me wrong.

comments to [email protected]

Cricket: England injuries tilt odds

By Martin Hutchinson

In our first Silly Point column, published June 25, Krishnadev Calamur and I each picked the other's side, albeit tentatively, to win the England/India test series of four matches beginning Thursday. Since then, the injuries to key England players and India's success in the one-day series have made me less tentative -- it looks like India's series to lose.

Injuries first. Darren Gough, England's most successful strike bowler in recent years, has been ruled out of the first two Tests because of a recurrent knee injury that has been troubling him since March. Andrew Caddick, England's other front line fast-medium bowler, is still unfit for the first Test following a side strain earlier in the season, though he is expected to return later in the series. Alex Tudor, man of the match in the last Sri Lanka Test six weeks ago, and one of the few England players with any significant claim to be an all-rounder, is also out for at least another two weeks with tendonitis.

Most devastatingly, Marcus Trescothick, by far England's best batsman in recent years, and potentially close to the peak of his ability at 29, suffered multiple fractures to his thumb while fielding in a county match last week, and is expected to be out all summer. This not only greatly reduces the likely runs England can score against an admittedly not over-hostile Indian attack it also, more important, reduces the likely rate at which they will score them, crucial in a summer in which rain has so far never been very distant.

Those of us brought up on English cricket before 1980-85 have to remember that conditions for an English Test series are today very different from those prevailing then. With full covering of the wickets, and with England without penetrative spin bowlers (a lack presumably caused by said covering, as well as by the surfeit of one-day cricket in today's county game) for England to win against a touring side requires either a superb bowling performance by one or more of the seam bowlers, helped by a damp atmosphere, or for England to bat first, score runs quickly and dominate the match thereafter. Without the backing of a large score, made quickly, it is very unlikely that the England bowling minus Gough and Caddick can dismiss the formidable Indian batting lineup twice to win a match, particularly if rain shortens the playing period.

In that context, however, the rule under which the matches are being played this year, by which time lost early in the match is made up later on, up to a total of 100 overs a day, should at least help in reducing the usually high number (in anything but the driest English summer) of pointless, rain-affected draws.

The one-day series, while encouraging for England in general, emphasized by its final result the difficulty which England have in bowling a side out, and the greater resilience in general of opposition middle-order and tail-end batsmen compared with their English equivalents. Having scored the record total for a Lord's final of 325 for 5, and reduced India to 146 for 5 when Sachin Tendulkar was out, England failed to capitalize on their strong position, and allowed Yuvraj Singh, 20, and Mohammad Kaif, 21, both picked only for the one-day series, to put on 119 in 18 overs for the sixth wicket. Young players with ability can always get lucky against a mediocre bowling attack; that it happened in a Lords final demonstrated convincingly that the England bowling attack (a half-fit Gough, Tudor, Ronnie Irani, Ashley Giles, Andrew Flintoff and Paul Collingwood) was indeed mediocre. Even on the batting side, England learned from the series only that Trescothick, Stewart and Hussain were competent, which they already knew.

The England 13 selected for the Lords Test contains the usual names; it would have been nice if the rash of injuries to key players had been used to bring in new blood, rather than to recycle past mediocrity. On the batting side, Mark Butcher has been brought in for Trescothick, presumably to open with Michael Vaughan. John Crawley, Graham Thrope, Nasser Hussain and Mike Stewart (the latter to play in his 118th Test, breaking Graham Gooch's England record) will presumably anchor the remainder of the batting line-up, though Craig White has been brought back into the squad, allegedly to increase England's batting options. Since White has a Test match batting average of 21, including him as one of the six front-line batsmen (including Stewart) would produce an eccentrically unbalanced batting line-up, with Stewart at five, White at six and five more bowlers thereafter. On the other hand, White as a bowler has only 40 test wickets, and is said to have lost 3 mph to 4 mph in speed in the last year or so (he is 32) so he would seem to add little on that side either.

Two other all-rounders included in the squad are Andrew Flintoff, who is one of the central core of "contracted" England players, and Dominic Cork, who isn't. The eccentricity of England selection is demonstrated by the reluctance of Cork's inclusion (and his failure to go on tour over the winter). Still only 30, he is currently England's leading domestic wicket taker, with 55 first class wickets in 2002, has 127 test wickets (the most of any current player other than the injured Gough and Caddick) and a Test batting average of 17, not all-rounder status, in my opinion, but useful nonetheless. Flintoff is young, by English standards, still only 24, so he may improve, but he has only 28 Test wickets, at a strike rate of one every 92 balls, and with a batting average of only 19 is again not quite an all rounder, though he has a Test century, 137 against New Zealand last winter.

Unlike many contemporaries, I am not, when discussing all-rounders, thinking only of the incomparable Ian Botham. In the 1960s, England had three spin bowling all-rounders, all three of whom took well over 100 Test wickets: Ray Illingworth, Fred Titmus and David Allen. Of the three, Illingworth had a Test match batting average of 23, Titmus of 22 and Allen of 26; with the exception of Illingworth at the end of his career, all three generally batted eighth or ninth in the order. With three such qualified candidates (and others such as Tony Lock, Robin Hobbs and John Mortimore), the two spin bowling places in the England team were hotly contested throughout the period.

Provided the selectors don't indulge their White fantasy, Flintoff, at No 7 and Cork, at No 8 would both seem likely to play, with Cork in practice providing the spearhead of the bowling attack. Ashley Giles is the only spinner of the remaining bowlers; at 29, with only 44 Test wickets, he has yet to show true penetration at this level. The other two fast bowlers will presumably be Matthew Hoggard, 25 year old Yorkshire fast-medium bowler with 46 test wickets and Simon Jones, who would be playing in his first Test, although Yorkshire's Chris Silverwood (27, 11 Test wickets) has been called up as reserve.

The Indian squad, to be selected from 13 players Thursday morning, is likely to include Sachin Tendulkar (Test average 58, with a chance to pass Don Bradman's 29 Test centuries and move into second place all-time behind Sunil Gavaskar's 34); Rahul Dravid (Test average 51); the captain Saurav Ganguly (Test average 42); V.V.S. Laxman (Test average 42) and the young Virendar Sehwag (Test average 51 so far). The depleted England attack, with only Cork and Hoggard true front line Test bowlers, will be lucky to bowl them out once, let alone twice.

Perhaps England's best hope is a draw. If the wicket takes spin, India's Anil Kumble and Harbhajan Singh will prove a handful, but on a batsman's wicket, or in seam-friendly conditions, India's fast bowling line-up, while talented, is very inexperienced.

In a month's time, after the first two test matches, Krishnadev and I will see how our predictions are faring.