Lackluster leadership and passive approach

The first Test match between India and Australia ended in a painful draw at Bangalore’s Chinnaswami stadium. Rather than taking advantage of a bold decision from the rival skipper, Ricky Ponting, who preferred to make the match lively and threw the match towards a tough competition, Team India ended it in a tame draw with bad light came as rescuer, not as hiccup.

From the very start of the play on the fourth day, India went on to the back foot, albeit losing Sehwag was crucial, as he is perhaps the only man in the team who could tear apart any bowling attack in any given situation. Alas, he got a beauty of a ball from Stuart Clarke.

Gambhir and Sachin rightly tied to build the innings after losing Dravid in the 9th over, but they were too slow to score only 53 runs in 17 over partnership. And then again, Sachin and Luxman, who took the score to 138, were even slower, consuming 26 overs to score just 61 runs though he was instrumental in saving the match for India.

Why should we be happy that Team India managed to save the match? Why did not master blaster go for win? Rather than defending, Sachin should have played his natural game and would have gone for the kill since Aussies were also looking defensive at times. Finally, Luxman and Ganguly paired to play 15 overs in which they could manage to score only 27 runs, less than 2 runs an over before bad light stopped the play!

Innings build up pays off only when the batsmen take advantage of the partnership, but that rarely happens in the Bangalore Test. Almost all the batsmen lack the competitive gumption necessary to excel in a tough contest. In 83 overs for the day, Team India could score only 173 for a passive draw.

This match can be hard to forget in many ways. First, skipper Kumble’s decision to take only pacers – Zaheer and Ishant – both of them shared 13 wickets out of total 16 Aussies wickets that fell, with only 3 wickets went to Harbhajan Singh. The skipper, who went wicketless on his home turf, did not consider in-form Munaf Patel. On a wicket giving support to pacers, an addition of Munaf would have helped restrict Aussies well within 300-350 in the first innings.

Since in the absence of McGrath and Warne, Aussies’ attack seems no more than mediocre, dropping a batsman for a bowler would have been an ideal eleven. Even though Team India has, most of the time, won matches due to bowlers, Kumble and Co. did not pay heed to this crucial fact.

Coming to the last day’s play, it is sheer frustration to watch the great Indian batting line up reluctant to chase a score not so huge not to be attainable, yet not very low. But that is what the competitive cricket is all about. New comer White gave some anxious moments to master blaster, who looked too cautious and defensive to raise his back lift to drive. Even wristy Luxman was shaky in his drives. India was never in the game to win but to defend. And that makes the difference between India and Australia. What Team India lacked was the fighting spirit.

Next time when our players come out to play in the second Test match at Mohali, they need to be mentally prepared that they are not paper tigers, but real heroes. Above all, Kumble, unlike Ganguly and Dhoni, does not show aggressive leadership, as his moves in the field are ample examples of traditional lackluster approach. He needs to lead from the front.