NEW FEATURE ON BENCHMARK00WEB.NET: Indian cricket test series report & analysis

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

Virender Sehwag – Sehwag battled balance issues throughout the tour of Australia. His lack of footwork has been cited by many pundits, but if truth be told, Sehwag has often given the impression that his feet are painted on even when the opener has gone through prolific run periods during his career.

The real problem with Sehwag's batting has been his balance, which ofcourse is somewhat related to his poor foot work. During the test tour, Sehwag was hitting too many balls at catchable height. If your balance is weighted towards the leg side (say backward square leg for visual purposes) your bat will naturally swing in an arc which is conducive to uppish strokes. Ofcourse this can be somewhat compensated by regulation good footwork, however when the two evils combine it is a recipe for dire problems.

Hmm, I don't think this really explains Sehwag's poor performance. His feet have always been made of lead and he's always hit the ball in the air a lot, but when in form he's found a way of maintaining excellent balance nonetheless, even in Australia.

I'd tend to just put his failure down to shot selection. I don't think there's anyone that could have got away with playing so loosely through the off side against a new ball attack with the pace, outswing, seam and carry that Pattinson and Hilfenhaus were getting. I can't really buy that getting onto the front foot before trying to flail it over cover would have been much more successful.

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Hmm, I don't think this really explains Sehwag's poor performance. His feet have always been made of lead and he's always hit the ball in the air a lot, but when in form he's found a way of maintaining excellent balance nonetheless, even in Australia.

I'd tend to just put his failure down to shot selection. I don't think there's anyone that could have got away with playing so loosely through the off side against a new ball attack with the pace, outswing, seam and carry that Pattinson and Hilfenhaus were getting. I can't really buy that getting onto the front foot before trying to flail it over cover would have been much more successful.

I actually said that he never uses his feet anyway, so I didn't use that as a reason.

Sehwag hits in the air in a controlled manner when he's going, if there is such a thing. When your weight is falling against the shot you can't control how high it goes, and invariably it just goes at catchable height.

Sehwag compensated for no footwork by having an impeccably still head at point of contact. In Australia his head was falling back and his weight was all wrong.

Without going through them, I'd say pretty much every shot he got out on was mistimed/edged, not middled in the slightest. In form he plays those shots, but he middles them and gets away with it.

[Spark]

I reckon one or two dismissals were down to him getting awesome balls as well, tbh.

[Spikey]

he did hit one or two good shorts tbf



and his head was still in them

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by Spark

I reckon one or two dismissals were down to him getting awesome balls as well, tbh.

Well yeah, no doubt. But I'm just going on what Indians can improve on, as per my disclaimer.

Can't help good cricket by the opposition.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Hmm, I don't think this really explains Sehwag's poor performance. His feet have always been made of lead and he's always hit the ball in the air a lot, but when in form he's found a way of maintaining excellent balance nonetheless, even in Australia.

I'd tend to just put his failure down to shot selection. I don't think there's anyone that could have got away with playing so loosely through the off side against a new ball attack with the pace, outswing, seam and carry that Pattinson and Hilfenhaus were getting. I can't really buy that getting onto the front foot before trying to flail it over cover would have been much more successful.

Sehwag's problem was his lack of footwork this time though, in a way. Watching him bat it was obvious - now that doesn't mean he needs to move his feet to succeed or that he should be working on that; it just means that whatever he used to do to get around the "problem" just wasn't happening for him. The reason he tried to flail it over cover was the fact that he was completely off balance and had no idea where the ball was in relation to his body, his bat and the stumps. It was poor footwork 101.

Moving your feet in itself gives you few immediate advantages, but the reason we do it is to help us stay balanced at the crease, transfer our weight properly and give ourselves control over our shots. Sehwag has usually managed to do most of that without any foot movement for whatever reason - some people have pointed to how still his head is, others to how few triggers he has, others merely to his eye - but whatever it actually is, it just wasn't happening for him, so his poor footwork cost him.

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Sehwag's problem was his lack of footwork this time though, in a way. Watching him bat it was obvious - now that doesn't mean he needs to move his feet to succeed or that he should be working on that; it just means that whatever he used to do to get around the "problem" just wasn't happening for him. The reason he tried to flail it over cover was the fact that he was completely off balance and had no idea where the ball was in relation to his body, his bat and the stumps. It was poor footwork 101.

Moving your feet in itself gives you few immediate advantages, but the reason we do it is to help us stay balanced at the crease, transfer our weight properly and give ourselves control over our shots. Sehwag has usually managed to do most of that without any foot movement for whatever reason - some people have pointed to how still his head is, others to how few triggers he has, others merely to his eye - but whatever it actually is, it just wasn't happening for him, so his poor footwork cost him.

Yeah agree totally with this, and have tried to say the same in the report.

Sehwag can get away with no footwork because he generally has exceptional balance and weight, however he does it.

Once he has balance problems then he's in trouble because he doesnt have the feet to make up for it.

[Woodster]

No footwork and swinging ball meant Sehwag was always going to struggle. If he manages to somehow get through the new ball and the swing diminishes he can cash in, but he rarely did and it was no great surprise.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

3.0 Bowling:

3.1 Overview

Overall, the bowlers biggest shortcomings were their inability to bowl in partnerships. They regularly released pressure, through either poor bowling or poor placement of fields, allowing the batsmen to regularly rotate strike and making the task of building pressure far more difficult.

Either a severe lack of planning went into bowling to the Australians, or the bowlers lacked skill in executing the plans.


3.2 Bowlers Analysis

Zaheer Khan – Khan was the most damaging of the Indian bowlers from go to woe. Lacking match practice played a part in him not being able to bowl longer spells, but he also didn't have much to play with in terms of field placements. Often came on and produced something with the old ball.

Ishant Sharma – The word 'unlucky' is thrown around a lot, and it is not a word that should be thrown around when spoken about Ishant Sharma's test series. It may look as though Sharma was unlucky because he had probably more plays and misses than other bowlers, however he's a victim of his own poor length, opting to try and blunt batsmen's play by pitching it too short instead of preparing to be driven in order to draw the edge through swing or later seam movement.

Although I can't see it happening due to obvious reasons, Sharma would be well served by having a conversation with Peter Siddle, who reaped the benefits of pitching the ball up and letting the ball swing.

Umesh Yadav – Yadav failed to give his captain what he was really crying out for – control. The Nostrils may be sharp through the air, however he needs to learn how to bowl a consistent and telling spell of bowling, building up pressure. That is what bowling in partnerships is all about. Instead of coming on and releasing pressure by dropping in one poor ball an over, Yadav needs to focus on a channel and look get wickets by good bowling, instead of bad shots. He undoubtedly has something about him, however he is useless if he lets the opposition spiral out of control. Mitchell Johnson suffers from the same short comings.

Ravi Ashwin – For mine, Ashwin used his suduku delivery (the ball that goes the other way) too often, blunting it's potency. Undoubtedly the Australian's were aided by Michael Hussey's tips on how to play Ashwin (born from Hussey's time with Ashwin for the Super Kings in the IPL) were beneficial to the team, however Ashwin still needed to hold some of his cards closer to his chest.

Like Zaheer, Ashwin was a victim of bowling to terrible field settings and plans. What baffled me was when Ashwin found himself bowling around the wicket to right handers with a leg slip in place, taking out several of the major modes of dismissals.

It's interesting with the bowling; it's universally agreed that they were absolutely rubbish as a whole, but when you break it down none of them were terrible individually at all. Zaheer was short of fitness and bowled some really toothless spells at times but he also bowled some not too short of world class and he was actually very effective across the whole series; Yadav lacked control but bowled some beauties, trouble the batsmen and actually took wickets throughout; Sharma was innocuous but did offer India control which they could've built pressure with; and Ashwin while not brilliant was really pretty good for a touring offie.

They really were absolutely awful as a whole though - far worse than the sum of the parts - which again brings us back to how awful Dhoni's captaincy was. I think the bowlers bowled well enough, certainly at times, to at least build some pressure in patches but Dhoni's field settings ensured there were always easy runs practically anywhere and his bowling changes were uninspired at best. Sehwag was just as bad in his field sets (probably worse tbh) but he did show a bit more initiative in his bowling changes and plans and he did get a bit of a rough deal by having a captain on the flattest road in the country after they were 3-0 down already.

[Daemon]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

It's interesting with the bowling; it's universally agreed that they were absolutely rubbish as a whole, but when you break it down none of them were terrible individually at all. Zaheer was short of fitness and bowled some really toothless spells at times but he also bowled some not too short of world class and he was actually very effective across the whole series; Yadav lacked control but bowled some beauties, trouble the batsmen and actually took wickets throughout; Sharma was innocuous but did offer India control which they could've built pressure with; and Ashwin while not brilliant was really pretty good for a touring offie.

They really were absolutely awful as a whole though - far worse than the sum of the parts - which again brings us back to how awful Dhoni's captaincy was. I think the bowlers bowled well enough, certainly at times, to at least build some pressure in patches but Dhoni's field settings ensured there were always easy runs practically anywhere and his bowling changes were uninspired at best. Sehwag was just as bad in his field sets (probably worse tbh) but he did show a bit more initiative in his bowling changes and plans and he did get a bit of a rough deal by having a captain on the flattest road in the country after they were 3-0 down already.

Along with how well most of the Australians batted.

[Spark]

I will never, ever forgive Dhoni for setting a field to Umesh Yadav at Sydney against Michael Clarke with no slips early on Day 2. Especially because his first two overs that day with a normal field had actually been pretty good and if not quite troubled Clarke, gave him cause to be cautious.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Daemon

Along with how well most of the Australians batted.

I don't mean they just didn't take any wickets though; I mean they were legitimately poor as a whole. It wasn't just the batting. I'm a bit reluctant to say Australia batted particularly well anyway tbh; India had the top 3 gone early in most of the innings Australia batted and then just let them completely off the hook.

[vic_orthdox]

RE: Sehwag, 28/1/2012.

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

There hasn't been a big difference in his footwork, IMO, think he's just been leaning back on the ball more than usual, his balance has been off.

RE: Dravid, 13/1/2012

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

You can see why Dravid has struggled in Australia, this tour especially but even in general. His defence has been breached so often because he's not prepared to commit over his front leg when defending, you see him go forward and then brace his front knee and stand up tall, rather than getting his eyes over the ball. His hands try to find the ball and that's where he's fallen down.

He looked very similar in his first tour over here in 1999/00.

[Spark]

Yeah it's hard to say we batted well as a whole when really it was just the same two or three people every time, with only one exception.

[Spikey]

I've said it before but the way pressure just evaporated after a batsman passed 20....it's the bowlers, it's the captain, it's the fielders around the batsman. Just shocking.