Onus on India’s seamers to get early wickets

Cricketing logic suggests that Indian batting with the kind of batters they have is unlikely to flop twice in two games, but that logic does not build up the same optimism in me with regards to the bowling, writes Sanjay Manjrekar

India obviously is the team that’s expected to win this game.

Onus on India’s seamers to get early wickets(AP)

New Zealand, known to ‘punch above their weight’, will do their thing, give their very best while keeping a calm head, and of course field brilliantly like we saw in their first match. But that many times is not good enough to make them champions. After all, in the end it’s about ability and that’s where India are placed much higher in the comparison.

Plus, this World Cup is being played in the UAE, which puts Asian teams at an advantage and teams like NZ at a slight disadvantage. We have seen a few surprises in the first week of the World Cup, more than its fair share actually even by T20 standards, South Africa beating West Indies for example, Pakistan beating India, etc. And for this reason, India should be slightly worried playing their second match.

All the recent news from the Indian camp has been about Hardik Pandya, how he bowled for 20 minutes in the nets to two batsmen, etc. Well, if Hardik is fit to bowl, and bowls well enough, that eases the burden on India; they don’t have to keep bowling a bowler who is having one of those terrible nights when nothing seems to go right for him.

SIXTH BOWLER

When you have a sixth or seventh bowling option, despite the stature of the bowler, you can stop him right there and do damage control. The sixth bowlers’ two overs for say 16 runs are like gold dust, and this becomes one of the many game-changing decisions you make in a T20 game.

So, it’s great to know that Hardik could bowl in this game but Hardik the batter must come to the fore first—that’s more necessary for India. He has looked off-colour for far too long, although I liked the way he struck the ball against Pakistan, albeit for a very brief period.

I know Indian batting failed, but how easily Pakistan chased down the target of 152 was disturbing, especially when you consider Pakistan’s batting history. Cricketing logic suggests that Indian batting with the kind of batters they have is unlikely to flop twice in two games, but the same logic does not build up the same optimism in me with regards to Indian bowling. India need wicket-taking bowlers, period. It is one thing that was glaring for me versus Pakistan and this has to be addressed immediately before it’s too late for India in this World Cup.

For seamers to get early wickets in T20s when batters are trying to settle in for the big flourish later, you need ‘obvious weapons’ as seam bowlers to knock them over, like how Bhuvi used to when he swung the ball like a banana at decent pace and got you two early wickets, or like Deepak Chahar (standby) does now when he plays for Chennai Super Kings.

Shaheen Afridi pulled out this big weapon of high pace and swing to get Rohit and Rahul out. India currently have a seam attack that has two top quality bowlers in Bumrah and Shami, but both have the more subtle skills that work brilliantly in Tests. In T20s time is short, so you have to go for the jugular right away.

SHARDUL LIKELY

Because India don’t play two wicket-taking spinners these days, the onus is even more on the seamers to get early wickets, whether it’s bowling first or second. Shardul is likely to play, so he may get wickets in the middle and the death like he always does. But India’s job will get much simpler if they have seamers who will get them 2/3 wickets early and not while batters are trying to hit them for 4s and 6s. The former allows you to dominate the game.

Shami could try the yorker and the bouncer to get early breakthroughs. Cutters on good length is a ‘long term returns’ tactic suitable for Tests but for quick, short-term gains both Bumrah and Shami have to bowl their hearts out, at searing pace, and try and get those yorkers and bouncers in early. Both aren’t swing bowlers like Afridi or Chahar, so this is the only other alternative to get early wickets.

In the middle overs Varun Chakaravarthy holds the key. He has the track record of getting batters out not just when they are trying to hit him out of the ground, because his spinning partner is the kind who can’t deceive batters to get them out, like a Kuldeep Yadav or a Chahal would, or for that matter Rahul Chahar.

That brings me to the matter of whether India should play Chahar, I say yes only if Indian seamers aren’t bowling to get wickets in the first half. The advantage of playing Chahar is that you have one bowler to bowl both to left-handers and right-handers as he turns both his leggie and googly. Jadeja bowling to left-handers is a risk that most captains he plays under will never take.

It’s really up to how India plan for this game—to change the personnel or slightly tweak the personality of their existing bowlers. Otherwise, even if India bat well, it will not be a guarantee of India winning.