| Scorecard: | India v Zimbabwe |
They turned in another feeble performance against India at Hobart, to be beaten comprehensively by seven wickets. India would have won even more easily had it not been for another heroic rescue act with the bat led by Zimbabwes captain, Heath Streak, after the top order had failed pitifully.
There could be no excuses from Zimbabwe after they won the toss on a good batting pitch. The weather was sunny, despite a chilly wind. Their innings became a steady procession of lost wickets and a scoring rate of less than three an over. The Indian seam bowling was good and accurate, but not as dangerous as had been that of Brad Williams for Australia.
Vusi Sibanda at least began enterprisingly, only to get narrowly run out by Yuvraj Singh for 12, after a brilliant piece of fielding in the covers. None of the other specialist batsmen seemed able to hit the ball off the square or keep it ticking over with singles, as was so badly needed.
Stuart Matsikenyeri, promoted to number three, never looked comfortable, and had scored only nine when he chose the wrong ball from the new Indian pace bowler Irfan Pathan to slog to leg, and only sent up a skyer to be caught in the covers. The normally aggressive Mark Vermeulen, by no means a specialist in the quick single, became badly tied down and scored only two runs off 24 balls before he was bowled by Anil Kumble, seeming to have no idea what to do with a straight ball apart perhaps from trying to push it to leg, across the line, for a single. Zimbabwe were now 48 for three after 17 overs.
Stuart Carlisle was there, but he never looked able to do anything more than hold an end up. Umpire Peter Parker may have had euthanasia in mind when he sent him on his way to a dubious lbw decision to Virender Sehwag, front leg well down the pitch attempting a sweep, for 36 off 71 balls. Next to go was Grant Flower for a rather limp 15, pushing back the simplest of return catches to the lucky Sehwag. After 28 overs, Zimbabwe were 83 for five and virtually beyond the point of no return.
Here now Streak joined Tatenda Taibu, who was trying to get the score moving more quickly, looking good, but still managing no more than 16 off 36 balls before he was bowled by a ball from left-arm spinner Hemang Badani. 114 for six, 38 overs gone, and the rate exactly three an over.
Now Sean Ervine came to the crease, and in partnership with Streak made Zimbabwe supporters realize the wastage of placing their most dominant batsmen so low in the order. Ervine actually did more than Streak, who survived two dropped catches, to give the innings some credibility. Standing tall and hitting the ball powerfully, especially on the off side, Ervine raced to an unbeaten 48 off just 33 balls, with a four and three sixes. He seemed able to hit the spinners with the drift caused by the wind, unlike the other Zimbabwean batsmen, and was just as confident against the seamers as the innings drew to a close.
Streak did reach his fifty, making 59, but indulged in little of the devastating hitting for which he is well known. The irony of wastage is even more evident when one realizes that in such a situation Andy Blignaut, Zimbabwes most destructive batsman, never even reached the crease. It was extremely poor use of batting resources by Zimbabwe.
India did seem to let things slide in the field. Sourav Ganguly seemed happy for his bowlers merely to tie the batsmen down and wait for them to surrender their wickets, and did not try to increase the pressure with close fielders. Streaks two dropped catches, one by Ganguly himself, proved expensive but only slowed the inevitable Indian victory.
A target of 209 against a moderate attack on a good pitch was never likely to test the strong Indian batting, although Sachin Tendulkar and his protégé Virender Sehwag did begin with restraint, Sehwag taking 16 balls to score his first run. Then they matched each other, and it has been noted by some that Sehwag has developed a rivalry with the master that urges him to outshine him.
Tendulkar was first to go, having survived just before his dismissal an uncharacteristic dropped catch by Streak at mid-off. Ervine bowled him shortly afterwards, and it appeared as if Tendulkar was a little careless in playing a ball that came back off the pitch and bowled him through the gate for 44 off 59 balls. The opening stand had realized 129, with Sehwag sure enough the dominant partner, having passed his fifty already.
The Zimbabwe bowling was a mixture. Streak bowled well early on but presumably saw the futility of coming back for a second spell. Douglas Hondo had great trouble with his direction, and his place must be in doubt, while Blignauts problem, as so often, was with no-balls. Sehwag was determined to hit Raymond Price out of the attack, lofting him for two sixes, but the spinner tricked him out, caught in the covers reaching for a ball, without appropriate footwork, that drifted away. His 90 came off 102 balls.
Badani had been promoted in the order, presumably for the sake of experience, and he made 15 before edging a widish ball from Hondo to the keeper. But the match had long since been won and lost. Ganguly indulged in some big hitting, 32 unbeaten off 26 balls, while V V S Laxman was content to keep him company for his 13.
The crucial factor in Zimbabwes losses has been the complete incompetence of their specialist batsmen. There has so often been a tendency for the top order to crumble, leaving it to the lower order to rescue the side, and it has been more pronounced than ever in the VB Series matches so far. The top five batsmen seem to be doing nothing more useful than making up the numbers.
Zimbabwe also seem afraid of radical change here, tinkering with the deckchairs on the Titanic. Something serious must be done here to get the most productive batsmen to the wicket. It is ridiculous to have players like Streak and Ervine coming in to bat when the match has already been lost.
The squad includes all-rounder Travis Friend, who has done some valuable work as a pinch-hitter at number three. His bowling is unlikely to be needed much, as he is very wayward, but if he came in early on, even if he went cheaply, he would not be likely to waste valuable time pottering around at three an over.
I would suggest opening with Vermeulen and either Flower or Carlisle the other of these two could be used as a floating batsman with the experience either to come in at number four if two wickets fell really early or wait until the final overs when they can work runs quickly. Sibanda has talent and scores quickly, but he still has not learned to build an innings. Vermeulen could be instructed to go out there and hit boundaries, his speciality.
It might be worth experimenting with the following batting order: Vermeulen, Flower/Carlisle, Friend, Ervine, Streak, Blignaut, Taibu and Matsikenyeri. It should be flexible as befits the situation, with (as mentioned above) Flower or Carlisle to come in at four if two wickets fell very quickly or wait until eight or nine if all goes well.
But the main value is that Zimbabwes most aggressive and productive batsmen are far more likely to get to the wicket with the aim of taking the team ahead with plenty of time to do so, rather than have to rescue the side with only 10 or 15 overs left. Is the management enterprising enough to try something like this, and would the players be positive enough to embrace it?
Perhaps not. I think they could make it work if they were in the right frame of mind certainly it could hardly do worse than the present state of affairs but Zimbabwe players tend to be fearful, conservative and lacking in self-confidence in the cold light of day. It is not inconceivable for the top order to come right and for Zimbabwe to pull off an upset or two, as they do that now and again anyway. But, whatever happens, they will need to show more boldness than they have done thus far in Australia.
(Article: Copyright © 2004 John Ward)