da dobrowin： Besides, what kind of pitch did Wright expect in South Africa
Anand Vasu10-Nov-2001The Indian coach John Wright has been under sheltered fire for India’sperformance in recent times. The team, by notching up its ninth straightloss in a limited-overs tournament final, certainly did not help hiscause. A considerable section of the public, however, was willing tocondone India’s performance in the shorter version of the game. But whenIndia lost the first Test against South Africa at Bloemfontein andwent 1-0 down in the three-Test series, Wright’s problems reallyescalated.
Besides, what kind of pitch did Wright expect in South Africa? Witha pace battery at their disposal, the Proteas were certainly not goingto serve up a slow turner, not against India at any rate. After all,even children on the street in India can tell you how well their teamplays fast bowling.
After putting 379 on the board in the first innings, India capitulatedin familiar fashion in the second innings to hand South Africa aconvincing nine-wicket win on a platter. What has angered Indian fansis the fact that India were, at one point, in a position approachingsafety before they threw it all away. Sachin Tendulkar, at hisdazzling best, made 155, sharing a 220-run partnership with debutantcenturion Virender Sehwag. Despite this, India lost as many as sevenwickets for just 52 runs on the morning of the fourth day. Was therenot a plan in place?While the blame certainly cannot be laid solely at the feet of thecoach, he has made more than one remark that provides nothing short ofcannon fodder. On the morning of the first Test, Wright waspredictably asked how he thought the pitch would play. “I don’t knowfor sure. We’ll just have to wait and watch,” he said. Listening toWright, Sunil Gavaskar on television commentary could not containhimself. “That’s not what the coach should say. If he can’t make itout, he should make an effort to try and find out what the pitch wouldplay like,” said the former Indian captain. One would be hard-pressedto fault Gavaskar’s logic.Besides, what kind of pitch did Wright expect in South Africa? With apace battery at their disposal, the Proteas were certainly not goingto serve up a slow turner, not against India at any rate. After all,even children on the street in India can tell you how well their teamplays fast bowling.Thus said, there is perhaps room to give Wright the benefit of thedoubt and admire him for his candour. So he was not sure how the pitchwould play, and he told the media as much, right? Wrong. It is onething being honest with the boys back in the dressing room and quiteanother to relinquish the psychological advantage by announcinguncertainty to the world media.Interestingly, a similar incident happened just days after Wrightuttered those words halfway across the world. Having turned down aconfident shout for lbw against Justin Langer, when the Australianopener was yet to open his account, umpire Daryl Harper admitted hismistake the next day. “An error that cost 104 runs,” he said onnational radio. Once again, one can only say the same thing – weadmire your honesty, Mr. Harper, but next time, save us the grief.The Australian Cricket Board is unlikely to appreciate Harper’sgesture, and he will probably be careful enough to never repeat hismistake.Coming back to Wright, either the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has turned a deaf ear to the Indian coach, or he is charting his own path independent of the Board. Just days after his remark about the Bloemfontein pitch, Wright came forward with another pearl that was best left in its oyster. “I admit we made a mistake in team selection. We should have played AjitAgarkar instead of the two left-arm seamers,” confessed Wright. That it was a mistake to play both Ashish Nehra and Zaheer Khan is amply clear. However, one must stop a moment to look at the reason India went into the first Test with the aforementioned pair.Harbhajan Singh’s sudden affliction (epididimytis) opened up a spot inthe bowling line-up; after all, if he was fit, there would never havebeen the thought of playing three seamers. Given the recent dismalrecord of Venkatesh Prasad, enter Nehra and Zaheer. By the second dayof the Test, however, the ace off-spinner was fit once more and raringto go. With the Sikh fit, the question of playing both the left-armersdoes not even arise. Where then does Agarkar come into all this?It’s simple. He doesn’t. And a quick look at his performance in Testsso far suggests that it is perhaps best for all concerned if thematter rests there.Let’s face it. As much as one wishes it, two wrongs can never make oneright. Some may have made out a case that, with both Zaheer and Nehrarusty from recuperation, Agarkar should have replaced Harbhajan. Bethat as it may, including Bombay’s blue-eyed boy as a sort ofcompensation for the second Test would only be foolish.Both Wright and Harper, within the space of a week, have demonstratedamply the importance of measuring one’s words before they are uttered;after all, once spoken, they are in the public domain, fair game formisinterpretation. And that is really the last thing that India needright now.