England v India:
3rd ODI
Dorabelle
Believe
January 22nd 2017
It has taken a
long time coming. A win in an international on this tour, although not, as some
have stated falsely, the first win of the tour (England did win the first
50-over warm-up against India A). It has been a tough tour, first in the Tests
and then in the ODIs as a very strong Indian side has consistently produced
that bit of magic that turns an even contest into a one-sided one. England have
competed in the Tests (their average first innings score was 390 – the previous
winter South Africa’s was 150, albeit on more difficult pitches). In the first
two ODIs England had threatened to win both games, but fell just short.
In this series
England have scored 350-7, 366-8 and 321-8. They have shown the cynics that the
matches would not be a series of mismatches, with England’s batsmen floundering
helplessly against the Indian spinners. Instead the matches have turned on
small moments: one or two big overs, India taking a key wicket at a key moment
while England could not. The differences between the two teams have been small.
It was a
phenomenal effort from both teams to amass 637 runs on a pitch on which India
must have hoped to limit England to 220 with their “A Game” and probably not
much more than 260 with their “B Game”. It took fourteen deliveries at the
start for a batsman to lay bat on ball, as deliveries bounced and hooped
around. Right from the start if the bowler landed the ball on the right spot it
was well-nigh unplayable. It was a situation in which England could so easily
have slipped to 30-3 and left the game almost over when it had barely started.
Despite that, Jason Roy and Sam Billings rode their luck, hit the bad balls
when they came and generally punished India for not quite being on their game.
Even when a
batsman fell – and armchair critics foamed at the mouth at some of the
dismissals – someone else came in and stepped up to the mark. After an England
wicket fell to a poor stroke, one particular critic explained to all on one
particular forum that batting properly was not rocket science. Having the
advantage of actually being a rocket scientist, I can say that if batting were
as easy as the armchair critics believe, I would be an international batsman
too and not a rocket scientist. Batting is all about making the correct
decision in the 0.6-0.8s between the moment that the ball leaves the bowler’s
hand and the moment that it reaches the bat. The bowler is trying to get you to
make the wrong choice in guiding the sweet spot of the bat (which is at a different
point for each bat) to its encounter with the ball. Pressure. The crowd. All
are trying to make you make the wrong decision. The greatest batsmen are able
to make the highest percentage of correct decisions and adapt best to all the
variables that affect how the ball reaches and leaves the bat.
Batting (and
international cricket in general) is very similar to rocket science in many
respects. You have a battery of highly-trained individuals, each with their own
tasks, trying to work together as a team, making a series of highly-pressurised
split-second decisions and trying to get every one right. Get a decision wrong
and the results are disastrous and, sometimes, catastrophic. A small error at a
critical juncture can lose you your mission (in cricket, read “match”, “tournament”,
“series”, …), cost a huge amount of money, cost you your job and be mercilessly
replayed time and again in slow motion for an audience of millions on the
evening news. The fact is that the armchair critics can watch time and again in
slow motion and without pressure, while the poor beggar in the middle has to do
it at full speed in a split second with no second viewing.
Television and
Internet are becoming merciless. When Jason Roy was out, the talk was not that
he had scored 65 from 56 balls and given England yet another fast start (his
scores on the tour have been 62, 25, 73, 82 and 65), it was of him “giving it
away”, of “Joe Root Syndrome” (50s not becoming destructive centuries). Roy has
taken England away at 6-an-over for the first twenty overs in each game,
setting the platform for the middle order.
When India
finally got the ball (and the front foot) in the right place – getting Jonny
Bairstow with a sucker punch only to find that you have gone well over the line
was sloppy – suddenly batting looked much harder, especially with turn on offer
as well as extravagant movement for the seamers. England can feel indebted to
Ben Stokes’s resurgence as a limited-overs player now that he has a set role in
the side at #6 and Chris Woakes’s injection of self-belief when almost everyone
questioned why he kept getting chances. To get to 321 when they were
246-6 with only 7 overs to go was a superb effort. Even when there is a mid-innings
squelch, more often than not the lower middle order helps to set things right.
Today was one
of those days when the finishers hung around. This is what lost England the 2nd
ODI: while India had an established batsman at the crease at the death, England’s
fell a few overs earlier, robbing the innings of critical momentum and taking
maybe twenty runs off the total compared with what it might have been. To add 73
in 39 balls of bombardment from Woakes and Stokes set a total that England knew
that they could defend. It also gave England the vital factor of momentum.
To win, India
needed the breaks to fall their way. England certainly made things ruinously
hard for themselves at times. First ball of the innings Chris Woakes bowled a
vicious lifter, Rahane gloved it cleanly to Jos Buttler… and no one appealed.
How did India reply? The last two balls of the over sailed to the boundary for
a six and a four. Willey bowled a fine
over and removed Rahane: would India be cautious? Not a bit of it! Kohli’s response
to a superb delivery from Woakes was to hammer the next two balls for
boundaries. It seemed that the Indian tactic was to intimidate. Willey bowled a
nine-ball over with three wides and then walked off holding his shoulder.
India were
either playing and missing or hammering boundaries. There was no concept of “safety
first”. Even when Jake Ball dropped Kohli India the frenetic activity did not reduce.
India seemed to be betting on everything falling their way and England
cracking, but with the Required Run Rate rising steadily, he who chances his
arm will inevitably run out of luck in the end. England needed to stay calm and
play to a plan, which was what they did, despite being a bowler short and with Pandya
and Jadhav putting a century stand and seeming to provide a case of dejá vú. With
Morgan forced to bring back Stokes for the slog and Indian fans gloating in
memory, first Pandya then Jadeja took one risk too many. Ashwin came and went.
Suddenly things were level again when India must have thought that the match was
won with something to spare. 27 required from 18 balls. 23 required from 12. 16
from the last 6 and Jadhav on 80* on strike? The match still provided twists
and turns, but showed how much Woakes and England have grown. Ten taken from
the first two balls of Woakes’s over. Six needed from four. Surely India’s
game? Dot ball. Dot ball. Six needed from two. Jadhav swings. Billings takes
the catch and Woakes finishes with another dot for good measure.
In a pressure
finish, with cool heads needed, England showed just how much progress they have
made. The side are far from the finished article, but can compete with the best
now. It is only a consolation win, but any win in India is hard-earned.
When Harry
Houdini died he had promised to try to contact his adored wife from beyond the
grave. To ensure that she was not conned by a fake, he gave his wife a phrase
that he would use in any message from the beyond: “Dorabelle believe”. Houdini
might well have approved of the escape engineered by England when it seemed
that another victory had slipped their grasp but, instead of directing his
message at his wife, he might well instead direct it at England’s fickle fans “just
believe”. This side will win some and lose some, but have come so far since the
last World Cup.
No comments:
Post a Comment