E-Paper
India's problem was in the mind
A batsman of Sachin's class decided to treat each ball as if it was a matter of life and death, writes Javed Miandad.
Just two sessions to go, nine wickets in hand and a bowling attack they had unfailingly milked for over 400 runs in each innings of the series. Then what went wrong?
India's problem was in the mind. A batsman of Sachin Tendulkar's class suddenly decided to treat each ball as if it was a matter of life and death.
Whereas he could have provided direction to a batting consisting of bowlers, a rookie wicket-keeper and two fellow senior batsmen struggling for form, he cast a spell of fear in their heart.
No wonder the Indians collapsed. They forgot the age-old maxim of cricket: you can play for draw for 20 overs, but doing so for 90 overs is out of question. That's the surest way to disaster.
Indians must be kicking themselves in the back.
Suddenly, every Pakistan bowler looked a match-winner. Even somebody like Shahid Afridi was a demon personified.
Kudos are coming the way of Mohammad Sami but what can a bowler do wrong if you don't take him on and he is secure in the knowledge he is not going for runs?
If Indians indeed were looking for a draw the last thing they needed was for bowlers to find line and length and hem them with eight close-in fielders.
The way to go about it was to bat normally, hit balls which deserved to be hit and scatter the fielders. Anil Kumble did it so admirably and taught his seniors a thing or two about batting.
I remember in our times we used to go hard at our opener Shoaib Mohammad for batting so defensively. We used to tell him: you are allowing the bowlers to find their rhythm and gain in confidence and they would create problem for us.
At times, we used to love close-in fielders: it only meant we are going to get some free runs in the outfield!
Imran and I always used to plot ways to win matches. That's why we called for neutral umpires because we thought we were not getting credit for our skills. We backed ourselves to defend even a sum as paltry as 120 runs.
Australians do exactly the same. They lost to India in Mumbai on a vicious turner but did they change their style of play? No. They lost but never batted under pressure.
