An old phrase in Indian cricket has come to haunt the current team. It is “should have won”.
India, under Virat Kohli, should have won their last series in England. Ahead of the Test series in Australia, it is still “should win”, but Ian Chappell for one has warned that Australia will go for India’s throat — in seven decades of trying, India have not won a series there. Kohli’s team seeks to overcome a psychological barrier more than anything else.
Of the 1967 series, more than half a century ago, Jack Fingleton wrote that India should have won two Tests. They lost all four. Just over a decade later, Australia, weakened by the loss of players to Packer’s World Series Cricket, recalled Bob Simpson who at 42 led the team to a series win, scoring two centuries himself.
Close encounter
That 1977-78 series should have — that phrase again — gone India’s way. Australia lacked experience, they lacked the bowling, they were up against a superior batting side. Australia won the first two Tests narrowly — by 16 runs and two wickets respectively — and were comfortably beaten in the next two, India winning by 222 runs and by an innings and two runs. The decider went Australia’s way by 47 runs.
It was an exciting series — Simpson compared it with the series of the tied Test against the West Indies — but an inexperienced side had kept the famed Indian spinners at bay despite the successes of Bishan Bedi (31 wickets) and Bhagwat Chandrasekhar (28).
If that was a series that should have been won by India’s bowlers, 2003-04 should have been sealed by the batsmen. That series was drawn 1-1. India’s batting line-up: Virender Sehwag, Aakash Chopra, Rahul Dravid, Sachin Tendulkar, V.V.S. Laxman, Sourav Ganguly was touted as one of the finest 1-6 in the game by cricket historian David Frith. The quantity of runs was as impressive as the quality of the batting, yet there it was again — “should have won”.
Anil Kumble claimed 24 wickets, and the teams played another wonderful series. “Every once in a while,” said Wisden, “comes a special sporting contest that leaves behind a whiff of glory and magic.” True. But from a narrower perspective, no series win for India. India won in Pakistan a few months later, and this was the golden period of the golden team, yet Australia remained impervious to their obvious strengths.
Before the start, skipper Sourav Ganguly had said, “After this tour we will know how good we really are.” Kohli has not made such a dramatic statement, but it is a sentiment that many will identify with back home. Kohli’s — and by extension the Indian team’s — aggression has served him well on occasion, but discretion ought to be the better part of aggression.
Early setbacks don’t bode well
There is an argument for going into the first Test with the extra batsman; an early loss throws the team, and India have tended to lose the first Test of away series rather too often for comfort and then struggled to get back into the competition. Cape Town and Edgbaston are the most recent examples.
That a Cricket Australia XI without a single player in the Test team could take 544 runs off the Indian attack (Shami, Yadav, Ishant, Ashwin, Jadeja) is not an encouraging sign. Australia’s batting might look weak in the absence of the banned players Steve Smith and David Warner, but the bowling (Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazelwood, Pat Cummins and Nathan Lyon) is capable of running through most sides. On paper, India might have excellent bowling, but it is in series like this that Australia have discovered batsmen who stand out. Peter Toohey in 1977-78 and Simon Katich in 2003-04 are examples.
The Indian team appears pragmatic, with Ajinkya Rahane admitting that Australia begin favourites. It is equally true that this is also India’s best chance in recent years to correct their lopsided record in Australia. The fast bowlers provided hope and confidence in England, and if they make the adjustments on the bouncier wickets, we could be in for a close series. The key, as India discovered afresh in England, is to pick the right team.
Provoke
It will be interesting to watch Australia’s approach. Will they bite their tongue and cut back on aggressive behaviour? And will India provoke them into losing control? The team has received much flak following the cheating episode in South Africa, and might be keen to prove they can win without the belligerence.
For all that, the focus will be on Kohli. The last time he led in Australia, he was handed the job when M.S. Dhoni quit. He responded with two centuries in Adelaide and a thrilling run chase that nearly won the match. Tactical shortcomings were overlooked. This time, greater focus on captaincy and a less forgiving media will add to the pressure. His string of victories (at home) has primed the Indian public for similar performances abroad.
Victory will guarantee a slot in the pantheon reserved for great captains. A slot where “should have won” finds no place.
