'We played the key sessions badly'

Editor's note: Follows, the second in a series of conversations on cricket as it happens.

Prem: So hey, Sujata... by rights, today should have been a pulsating fifth day at Bloemfontein... and instead, we get what? Another defeat, in just over three-and-a-half days. Are you glad this was a performance much improved over Durban 1997, when we got bowled out for 100, or sorry to see the team get two, three good chances to finish it off and still manage to lose?

Sujata: I'm much sorrier this time, Prem. This time the expectations from this team were higher. We have a stronger outfit, a coach who the players respect, and improved fitness and fielding levels.

Prem: Granting that, let me try playing apologist: The team had two batsmen, in Laxman and Sachin, coming back after a layoff though Sachin had the benefit of the ODIs. Two bowlers in Zaheer and Nehra, ditto -- and they didn't even get the warm-up game to tune-up. Anil Kumble, back to Test cricket after over a year. And Harbhajan, supposed to spearhead the side, out through injury. Would you say these were legit excuses?

Sujata: We always have legit excuses of injury/inappropriate batting order/bowlers' off day, the toss not going our way, take your pick. But it's not just us who get imperfect days. How about Donald not being part of the SA line-up, or the Proteas gifting us runs on the first day by bowling too short and not putting a third man and letting a 100 runs go in that region? They had off days too, and still they won. Don't you think our team should by now have learned to rise above all this and make the maximum use of the assets they have at their disposal?

Prem: Actually, I agree -- we lost because we played the key sessions badly, and that had nothing to do with personnel. Day one, session one, we go and muck it up losing four wickets. Day two, we had SA on the ropes, and we throw our wickets away in the morning when we should have looked to push the score past the 400 mark -- Pollock, in fact, said before play started that the last thing SA wanted was to see 400 on the board, doing it would have been a psychological one-up. Day three, we did well in the morning -- so promptly, our bowlers after lunch sleep-walk, when they needed to attack and take Klusener out quick. And day four, morning session, with the board reading 96/1, we gift four wickets -- doesn't matter who played and who didn't, the reason we lost was the way we played. Having said that, would you say the same team should do duty in the next Test?

Sujata: Prem, before I answer your question could I just stick with this line of thought a bit longer? You said that on each day we did something stupid and uncalled for. Now many people I speak to seem to feel that our team does not have a strategy. Many others feel that no strategy would be followed anyway as our players seem to function on a dimension uniquely their own. What do you feel?

Prem: That's a thought. I don't think it is because we don't have a strategy -- it doesn't in any case take a mastermind to say, when a team is inserted, that the openers should go out and look to stabilise, bat the new ball out, see the opening bowlers off, and so on. I think the real problem is, we don't have the fierce application a team needs to follow up one good session with another. Look at how we went -- for instance, like I said, despite a limping attack, we did well on the third morning. All it took was one good half hour after lunch, when the batsmen were under pressure. And what did we get? Srinath, bowling the first over, ambled in like he had too much to eat and bowled at 126k, and Kumble sleepwalked through his own first over -- and for batsmen like Klusener, that is all the invitation you need. Surely the coach would not have asked Srinath to bowl at military medium? The player -- especially one with experience -- has to have the heart, and the drive and desire, burning bright, more so at the key moments in the game. To my mind, we really lost the Test then, when we let SA get away to such a big lead. Look at the card -- once Boucher was out, there was no real batting coming. One wicket after lunch, and it could have been a different story.

Sujata: If we're talking of strategy, for me the key moment was day four, first session. Up until that moment we could say that overall some good, some bad cricket had been played. But on day 4 things were poised to go either towards a draw or defeat. Realistically speaking, we couldn't win. We would have looked to bat till day 5 lunch and without Harbhajan it would have been very difficult to bowl out the SAfricans. So a draw was the only option we had. In such a case what should the coach or captain have told Das and VVS? That they should play safe. Instead they both got out chasing wide deliveries in a manner which suggested undue desperation to get runs.

Prem: Hmmm... I agree with your comment about the needless way Das and Laxman, and in fact a few others, got out. But, actually, I am not sure a defeat or draw were the only options. The scenario on the fourth morning had one other interesting possibility -- a solid first hour by Laxman and Das, wiping out the lead before lunch and then, post lunch, letting the shots flow -- Laxman and Das, followed by Sehwag, Saurav, we could have ended up putting 250 on the board as target, and asking the SAfricans to chase it in something like 80 overs on the last day, and given them the heck of a fright -- like in the last Test of the previous series, when rain alone saved them. But yes, day four morning was when we really threw it away, no other word for it.

Sujata: Well, when you say asking the SA to chase in 80 overs it means that we bat till about an hour into the fifth day. Which is what I meant. The only thing is I don't see the SA's losing the match even then. They would have gone for it and probably made it too. I would have preferred to set them a target of 300 at least, and not take the risk. But that's neither here nor there...

Prem: I'm not so sure -- did you see the cracks on that track? Chasing just 54, they were fine, Kallis and Kirsten swinging the bat without a care. I doubt they would have played the same way chasing 250 or more. But as you say -- all that is now confined to the 'What if' file -- which when you think of it, is the bulkiest file in Indian cricket.

Sujata: But to get back to the earlier point, what I meant by strategy is that one assumes the most likely scenario and plays accordingly

Prem: True... and from all I know, these guys do sit with the coach and discuss scenarios and what to do in each instance -- in fact, they do it each evening, then again next morning before play begins. And then, damned if they don't go out into the field and forget it all!

Sujata: Right, and here we are discussing scenarios for the second Test! Ok, to get back to your q - you asked should the team stick to the same players and order?

Prem: That's right, too! Okay, personnel -- right, what's your take? The same team, with the benefit of some extra practise in the four day game coming up, or a change in personnel?

Sujata: Harbhajan is in, so one bowler- either Nehra or Zaheer, probably Nehra because of his injury - is out. Other than that I think the same personnel should be persisted with. What do you think?

Prem: Right, Harbhajan is a guaranteed inclusion -- actually, we missed him badly in this game, especially against the left-handers. My problem is with who the outgoing gent should be. Nehra and Zaheer were both awful in the first half of the first innings, rust showed on them big time. Both improved towards the end of the game. Zaheer, to my mind, looked marginally the more incisive, but also the less fit of the two.

Frankly, Sujata, it's the devil to choose -- what I'd do is play both in the four-day game, see how they go and then pick. For all I know, I might find that both haven't peaked yet, and drop both, bring in Agarkar and Bajji, assuming of course that Agarkar performs well in the four-day game -- he has the benefit of being fit, and nicely acclimatised. Okay, if that is the one change in personnel, would you play the team in the same batting order?

Sujata: It's the devil's take all right! Agarkar is fitter but as mercurial. I would definitely change the batting order. I may be wrong but Dravid doesn't belong in the number 2 slot. At number 6 he can be 'The Wall' we desperately need when the top order is in danger of collapse. Or conversely just the right person to continue building up a healthy looking score. Why not try Deep Dasgupta as opener with Das? His technique is pretty good. So far Dravid has scored 2 and 11 in this match. I'm sure Dasgupta can give us that too. Why sacrifice a bishop when a pawn will do?

Prem: Hey, I didn't know you had a radical streak in you! About Dravid, I don't know that I'd read too much into two failures -- seems a bit too little to write a verdict on. But there's a certain logic in your argument about the pawn versus the bishop. I'd even go with that -- on one condition, that the captain, coach AND selectors give that boy an ironclad guarantee that failure will not be held against him. You know how we are -- ask someone to go beyond the call of duty, then use failure to dump him. And Dasgupta and Ajay Ratra are our keepers for tomorrow, I would hate to see either of them messed with.

Sujata: I guess anyone following Indian cricket becomes radical! You have a point. But surely anyone can see that number 2 is the lamb to the slaughter. Unless we get Ramesh or another natural opener at 2 it's always going to be that, what's more.

Prem: Actually, when Ramesh comes back, it's going to be the devil's work, fitting Laxman, Sachin, Saurav, Rahul and Sehwag into a lineup -- but we can worry about that once it happens. Finally, if you had to pick one good thing, one positive, from this Test, from an Indian point of view, what would it be?

Sujata: Now that's a hard one! But if I had to pick just one positive it would be Shewag. He's our next superstar if he carries on like this.

Prem: Right -- is what I thought, too! Absolutely calm, unruffled, and looks good off either foot. *fingers crossed for it to last* Tell you what, let's get together again after the four-day game, see how the guys go, and what the prospects are for the second Test, what say?

Sujata: Would love to, Prem. Just say when.

Prem: Hmmmm... the day after the four-day game ends. Date?

Sujata: Sure thing, adios for now.

Previous conversation