Ganguly's captaincy faltered under pressure

So India lost the first Test and conceded the initiative on a platter to the Australians. Several factors were behind the abject surrender. Steve Waugh got away with his decision to put the opponents in thanks to insipid batting by the Indians. Apart from Tendulkar none looked comfortable and the other batsmen seem to be only as good as the bowlers allow them. It was a known fact that Glenn McGrath bowls in short spells and it was the business of openers Ramesh and Das to see off his first spell but both of them showed they do not have the technique to smother the moving ball. McGrath and co. bowled a good line but beyond that they were not even intimidating. It was atrocious to see the Indian batsmen hit against the spin of Shane Warne in the first innings and get out caught within the 30 yard circle.

But the main reason for India's debacle was the very ordinary field placements set by Saurav Ganguly which let the Australians off the hook. He also had Tendulkar on for too long and failed to appreciate that on a wicket like this at the Wankhede Stadium, the bowlers don't have to try too many variations. Tendulkar, I accept, is an intelligent cricketer but Ganguly has got to realise that he is not a regular bowler. Instead, he should have operated the pacemen at one end, especially someone like Agarkar with the old ball, and attacked with spin from the other. Ganguly has to understand that when the bowlers are trying too many things, they tend to land a couple of balls short and on a wrong line. The onside field for such balls was totally unprotected and the field placements helped Gilchrist and Hayden chance their arms and score runs at will.

Well, strange are the selectors' minds. They invited Hirwani to the team but dropped him suggesting they had no faith in the choice. When a team is selected, I believe there should be some planning. The optimum plan for the Indians is to have three spinners in the eleven and the absence of a third spinner in the side was felt acutely. The game plan of the Australians was very clear. They had assessed that if any bowler were to trouble them, it would be Harbhajan Singh. They attacked him and the Indian captain faltered under the pressure. Instead of attacking on the onside he persisted with an offside field. Remember I have maintained that field placing is an important aspect since the bowler cannot take all his wickets unassisted. For a spinner, more than 60% of dismissals come through catches which can be achieved only when he knows the art of bowling to a set field. From this angle the Indian side looked totally confused in the middle.

The batting of Gilchrist and Hayden on a wicket which helped spin was magnificent. Hayden played the sheet anchor role and his patience was remarkable. But I still feel that Harbhajan would have achieved success if he had stuck to an onside attack against Hayden. There were many occasions when miscued shots by Hayden went abegging. If we are going to prepare wickets like the Mumbai one, the off spinner holds the key to India's fortunes. I feel sorry for Sanghvi for whom it was a harsh welcome to Test cricket. Since he is not such a big turner of the ball it meant the Aussies were always going to get him away for runs. The Test is a lesson for the selectors that while selecting the side they must have a gameplan and stick to it at any cost.