India's ATG Bowling Attack Revisited

[shankar]

Originally Posted by SJS

It was only towards the very end of his career, probably the last year, if I remember right, that he bowled the lengths he should have bowled all through. I remember talking to friends during the 2003 world cup, Srinath's last international performance and saying "Why didn't he bowl like this earlier in his career." His Test career had already ended by then.

He had finally developed a proper away-going delivery (at the fag end of his career) which made a massive difference to his bowling. The lack of a fast-bowling tradition (a parampara) that passes down such simple skills quickly to young bowlers really hurts India time and again. Zaheer as you point out, made the changes needed early enough to make a contribution to India's test cricket fortunes. But he too, spent ages being average before learning what he needed to. Ishant I think is one who could have gone down this route of being average; instead he tried to learn new skills early in his career, failed spectacularly and now it's a struggle to even get back to where he was and relearn his old skills.

[watson]

Well that's interesting. The bowling attack that was democratically elected is probably not the one that is the most popular after all.

Not only that, but I think that Mankad-Dev-Amar Singh-Prasanna-Chandra would probably be a better attack than Mankad-Dev-Kumble-Srinath-Prasanna.

I wonder whether other CW ATG teams have the same problem with their attacks?

[SJS]

Originally Posted by watson

Well that's interesting. The bowling attack that was democratically elected is probably not the one that is the most popular after all.

Not only that, but I think that Mankad-Dev-Amar Singh-Prasanna-Chandra would probably be a better attack than Mankad-Dev-Kumble-Srinath-Prasanna.

I wonder whether other CW ATG teams have the same problem with their attacks?

I think it is not so much about democracy but about two things both somewhat connected. One is about making more informed choices and the other about choosing the entire attack which is what the selectors are supposed to do then a bowler or a pair of bowlers at a time where it is a one on one choice rather than a balanced attack. It has happened before in some earlier such exercises where a bowler has lost out in a one on one and not been able to make a comeback.

I think the choice of a complete and balanced attack is a better option.

What I do, if I am not shooting off the cuff, for ATG sides is to first choose a short list. This would normally consist of a pool of about 20 players

• 3 openers
• 2 one-drops
• 4 middle-order bats (4-5)
• 2 batting all rounders
• 2 bowling all rounders
• 1 batsman keeper
• 1 specialist keeper (only if I think he is a better gloveman than the batsman keeper)
• 3 pacers
• 3 spinners

All the specialist batsmen, pacers and spinners are chosen purely because they are the best in my opinion for that category. The fact that I may have Sobers in the best all rounder category, does not stop me from choosing him for the middle order where I ALWAYS have him.

Then in the next step I whittle this down to a touring squad of, say 15 which would typically have

• 2 openers
• 1 one-drop
• 2 middle order bats
• 1 batting all rounder
• 1 bowling all rounder
• 1 batsman keeper
• 1 specialist keeper
• 5 specialist bowlers - the proportion of spinners and pacers in the attack depends upon what my two all rounders bowl

Then, finally, I prefer to choose a team of twelve (not eleven) in which there will be six bowlers (including the two all rounders) so that I will have a choice of five bowlers, at least to cover a wider range of under ground conditions.

What this process does is that at every stage after the first pool of 20-21 is finalised, one keeps the balance of the entire side always in mind. This is critical and always at the back of the selectors' mind in real life as well, as is apparent from what Bedser writes in choosing that post WW II side.

This is not as complicated as it sounds and can actually be fun as well. It takes a bit longer but what is time for those who have the onerous responsibility of selecting an ATG side for the planet ?

[SJS]

There is an interesting aside and being put here as much in humour as in serious comment.

In India the zonal-representation nature of the five member selection committee has led to some very strange choices in the past - although, in recent times, this has, apparently gone down.

Selectors are keen to get players from their zones in so they tend to trade votes. If you vote for my pacer, I will voote for your spinner when that comes up for voting. Some of these wranglings have come out in the open in the past but the thick-skinned and monopolist BCCI hasn't bothered to do something about it.

I am reminded of it because this too involved selecting players in bits - openers, then middle order, then spinners and so on and not the entire attack at the same time. I think from the time of Vengsarkar (I am open to correction) this has changed and selections have become more considered and have taken the entire squads into account. What is still missing to some extent, however, is the question of grooming youngsters, not choosing players who might be better off playing elsewhere, say in an India A tour, than warming the bench on tour and so on. But things are better than before.

Of course, actually dropping a senior instead of resting him is still something we baulk at.