Zimbabwe Cricket Online editorial, issue 4

It was most disappointing to lose the First Test against India after compiling over 400 in the first innings. But it did once again illustrate Zimbabwe's current inability to put together two good team innings in the same match. Thanks to Andy Flower, they did manage to reach 200 in both innings - and they had not achieved this for 15 matches, in fact since our last match against India, when they beat them at Harare Sports Club two years ago.

TENDULKAR AND BRADMAN

The Indian bowling is not particularly strong, but their batting is magnificent. Sachin Tendulkar rivals Brian Lara as the most talented batsman in world cricket today, and he appears to have been unspoilt by his success and the adulation of 1000 million people, unlike the West Indian. He has been compared to Don Bradman, the greatest run-scorer of all time, as far as his style is concerned. I see two major differences in approach, though. For Bradman a century was only a stepping-stone for 200 or 300, but Tendulkar rarely stays on for the second century - to the great relief of his opponents. Bradman rarely hit sixes and was renowned for keeping the ball on the ground, while Tendulkar frequently hits in the air and always seems to give his opponents a chance. For these reasons his average is only 55 instead of 100.

So great a batsman is Tendulkar that his two middle-order associates, Rahul Dravid and Saurav Ganguly, are often under-estimated. They are in fact great world-class batsmen in their own right. Dravid in particular seems to give the bowlers less of a chance than Tendulkar, more content to play within his limitations, which are few nowadays. He hit a double-century in the first innings, followed by a not-out fifty in the second, and scarcely gave the bowlers any reason for hope. With three like this, it scarcely matters who else fills the batting positions, although they have some very capable performers, and makes it surprising that India should try to strengthen their batting by playing only four specialist bowlers.

Against such powerful batting, Zimbabwe's bowlers need to be at the top of their form, and they were not. If Andy Flower is half of Zimbabwe's batting, Heath Streak is half their bowling. Brian Murphy bowled well in the first innings, but Paul Strang suffered a recurrence of his arm injury and Henry Olonga and, surprisingly, Bryan Strang were well below their best. Travis Friend is injured, so Zimbabwe have few options for the Second Test.

INDIA'S REAL MATCH-WINNER

Perhaps even more than Dravid and his partners, it was pace bowler Javagal Srinath who won the match for India. After a long spell in the field, Zimbabwe's second innings began with what appeared to be a lack of confidence and application by certain batsmen, but it was Srinath who made the most of it. He is not as fast as he used to be - four years ago he produced what Grant Flower described as the fastest bowling he had ever faced - but he is a better bowler than ever and it was he who made the most of Ganguly's enterprising declaration.

Coming back to Zimbabwe's batting, it has become increasingly true over the last couple of years that if Andy Flower fails, the team fails. No doubt opponents have recognized this and target him especially, but without consistent success. Hopefully Alistair Campbell, batting more responsibly than ever before, will give him more support, especially when he has passed that major barrier of a first Test century. But Grant Flower is out of form and confidence, Dave Houghton has retired, Guy Whittall is inconsistent, Stuart Carlisle still has to learn to build on good starts, and several other batsmen on the fringe are as yet unable to make a real mark in Test cricket.

DROP GRANT FLOWER

Perhaps at last now those responsible for selecting the team will bite the bullet and realize that Grant Flower, who reached the depths with a `pair', should not open the batting again until he has his game and his confidence in order. Grant is far too good a player to drop from the team, but he needs to be dropped in the order, as he has been in the one-day team. Against New Zealand Grant survived for long periods but was so defensive and lacking in confidence to play his strokes that it affected Gavin Rennie and Stuart Carlisle, his less experienced partners, and the innings stagnated. Now he is not even surviving and his problem must surely be more mental than technical. The longer the decision is delayed, the less likely Grant is to succeed in the middle order, and I hope it is not already too late.

Guy Whittall opened at times in England and did a good job. He does not mind opening, responds well to extra responsibility and has shown the ability to play a long innings, most memorably against New Zealand recently. My batting order for the next Test would be: Rennie, Whittall, Carlisle, Campbell, Andy Flower and Grant Flower.

THE NEW ORDER

Gavin Rennie is another whose recent form has not lived up to his good start in Test cricket, and it is difficult to tell how much this is due to the fact that he has been constantly in and out of the side over the last two years, and also overlooked for the one-day team, despite the fact that his record at the unwanted number seven position in that side is as good as anybody's. I feel he should be assured of his Test place for the rest of the season and given a guaranteed run to prove himself. Past performances show he does have the ability to succeed in Test cricket, so he would justify this confidence being placed in him.

I am tempted to drop Carlisle to five, behind Campbell and Andy Flower. But that would mean that Campbell and Whittall would be more likely to bat together regularly, and the odds on a run-out with those two in partnership are pretty high! It would be better for the team to have its best batsman at number four, or even three, but with having to keep wicket as well Andy Flower would have too little time to recharge his batteries and his hands after a long spell in the field. In a year or two he will quite possibly yield the gloves to Tatenda Taibu and then be able to concentrate on his batting and take on full responsibility near the top of the order.

WE ARE BEING BEATEN MORE OFTEN

Zimbabwe seem to have lost their ability to avoid defeat in Tests. They have lost ten of their last 13 Tests, and the three draws were all affected by the weather; their previous ten defeats were spread over 21 Tests. The blame for this can probably be laid mainly at the door of the batsmen. In their last 10 Tests, Zimbabwe's batsmen have recorded 22 scores of 50 or more, eight of them by Andy and six by the departed Goodwin and Johnson. They have recorded five centuries, two by Andy, two by Murray Goodwin and one by Guy Whittall.

In our last issue we published a form chart and Test averages of Zimbabwe's players during 2000, showing only three batsmen averaging more than 22 in the six Tests then played. Andy of course, Goodwin who has departed, and Whittall who only played in three and scored most of his runs in one innings.

The gap in talent between Andy Flower and the rest of his current team-mates is not all that great. The gap is more in such areas as determination, temperament, application, single-mindedness and positive thinking. He is respected by the others as the ultimate professional, setting the highest of standards in all that he does. Some of them, at least, need to be a little more diligent in copying his example. It would be interesting to know his views on his under-achieving team-mates, but he could hardly reveal them without being disloyal.

The lower order, at least, showed more application than some of their seniors in the second innings against India, and almost succeeded in putting India under a lot of pressure on that final day. They might well have done so had it not been for a trigger-happy umpire who shot down Andy Flower, lbw to a ball missing off stump, and Henry Olonga when he was settling in, lbw to a ball that he edged on to his pad.

THE UMPIRING PROBLEM

Umpire Srini Venkataraghavan some time ago won a poll among CricInfo readers as the best umpire in world cricket, but Zimbabweans will not have too many reasons to remember him kindly. It was he who handed Graeme Hick his first `pair' in the Lord's Test against West Indies last season, giving him out caught at the wicket when in fact he had not hit the ball in the second innings. The English regard David Shepherd as the best, but he has not been very impressive at times either during the last couple of years. Umpire John Hampshire, who coached the Zimbabwe team through their first four years of Test cricket, appeared to do a very competent job in that Delhi Test.

One cannot blame the umpires too much. The players to a large extent have only themselves to blame for the number of bad decisions, as they spend their time pressurizing the umpires with numerous false appeals, despite this being officially against the spirit of the game as laid down in the new code of laws that has been in operation since 1 October. This is one of the bad habits Zimbabwe have learned since their promotion to Test cricket.

In the past also, many umpiring errors could be suspected by spectators and critics but not proven - often only the players knew for sure. Now, with the close-up television camera, most umpiring errors are displayed to the world in full gory detail. This cannot improve any umpire's confidence. Then why can't some of them be a little more careful before giving a batsman out? More umpiring controversies seem to be over an umpire mistakenly giving a batsman out rather than giving him not out when he should have been dismissed, yet the laws say the benefit of any doubt must be given to the batsman. He after all has no further chances if he is the victim of an error, while the bowler does.

Traditionalists resist the idea of a television camera helping an umpire with decisions like catches at the wicket, bat-pad catches or lbw decisions. True, the camera cannot always tell for sure. But there are occasions, as with those lbw decisions against Andy Flower and Olonga, when their proper use could reveal errors and avoid unjust dismissals. I have always felt that a way should be found to use them effectively to help the umpire, while agreeing that there are some dismissals where the umpire must use his own judgement as the camera cannot be completely trustworthy.

There would be other benefits for cricket, too. The players themselves are in favour of justice being done. Unsporting appeals would be greatly reduced, as the players would recognize the futility of trying to influence and pressurize the camera. Umpiring mistakes not only harm players' records and even their careers, but they cause a lot of aggravation between teams who believe they have been cheated out - sometimes with justification. The batsman who refuses to walk for a thin edge to the keeper or a bat-pad will be more likely to get his just desserts, while the fear in a batsman's mind that he may be given out caught at short leg or silly point off his pad alone will be diminished.

WE NEED JUSTICE IN CRICKET

Yes, I make a plea for umpires to be allowed to seek third-umpire advice when necessary over all tight decisions. Some will be too proud to do so at first, and for that they must accept criticism if they err, as was the case when some were too proud to ask for help when it first became available for run-outs. And I feel it should also be possible for a third umpire, after seeing the replay, if there is an obvious problem that is immediately evident, to use the walkie-talkie to contact the umpire in the middle and suggest he reconsider a decision.

Many umpires may resent the dilution of their authority, but I think justice should be done, and be seen to be done, and that this is more important than an umpire's personal feelings. After all, the umpires are supposed to be there for the benefit of the players rather than vice-versa. The results of too many close matches and even series are in the hands (or fingers) of the umpires at times, and this is wrong. With so many matches, especially one-dayers, having close finishes, one can imagine how many times a crucial umpiring error has turned a fine balance in the match. Were I an umpire, I would hate to have that on my conscience.

And lest I am thought to be too partisan in my views, I must repeat that Zimbabwe got the better of the umpiring decisions in the recent one-day series against New Zealand, and one or two of these, had they been different, may well have cost the tourists that series. Zimbabwe's 2-1 win brought mixed feelings. They may still have won without the umpiring errors in their favour; they may still have lost at Delhi without the umpiring errors against them. But the players in the privacy of their dressing rooms will be tempted to blame the umpires rather than themselves for their failures, and this is another bad thing. Let's have justice.

UPDATED RECORDS

Some more records have been updated since our last issue. Detailed Test career records have been completed for Bryan Strang, Henry Olonga, Pommie Mbangwa, Brian Murphy, Gavin Rennie and Craig Wishart, which now covers all the team that played in the First Test against India. Henry Olonga's biography has also been updated.

Next week we plan to cover the Zimbabwe Board XI matches against Easterns at Mutare and include further updated biographical and statistical items.