In less than 48 hours, Anil Kumble's men will have to brace themselves up for a fresh wave of Aussie fire at the Sydney Cricket Ground. One school of thought believes things can only get better after the pummelling at the MCG! It's a joke unlikely to go down well with the Indians.
Apportioning blame when a side has, over two innings, lasted just 145.1 overs and painstakingly eked out no more than 357 runs is certainly not the way to go. Even in debilitating defeat, Kumble has made sure the blame game hasn't begun within the rank and file, though scapegoats within the team are being hunted out by extraneous forces.
The only reason India must dwell on the MCG fiasco is to understand and analyse where they went wrong, and ensure those mistakes aren't repeated. The universal view, despite the collective failure of the middle-order, is that India's batting suffered due to the lack of a good start in both innings. Logically, therefore, one would have to start at the start.
It was Wasim Jaffer's first Test on Australian soil, and Rahul Dravid's first Test as opener in more than 20 months. The latter gutsed it out in both innings, but with little to show for long stretches of application. Jaffer, by contrast, was guilty of poor stroke selection early in both essays. It didn't help the team's cause that neither man -- indeed very few through the Indian order -- relies heavily on the turnover of strike. India are essentially a side of boundary-bashers, and when they are deprived of boundaries through a combination of factors, they allow themselves to be bogged down in a defensive mire from which there simply is no escape.
The effects of maiden after maiden over on the psyche of the batsman can never be quantified. Those in the hut are affected even more than the men in the middle so that by the time it's their turn to take strike, frustration is almost boiling over. The Aussies, almost intuitively, can sense discomfort and uncertainty. Half the battle over, even before taking guard!
Kumble will have a tough call to make over the next couple of days. Essentially, there lie two choices ahead of him -- either change things up slightly to infuse more urgency into proceedings, or stick with the flock rolled over at the MCG in the belief that this was identified as the best combination less than a week back, and therefore deserves one more go.
What he and the think-tank will have to take into account is that India cannot afford to go Perth, and the third Test, 0-2 down. That's as good as game over. Whatever is to be done has to be done at Sydney.
A calculated gamble won't be such a bad option, come to think of it. Admittedly, Virender Sehwag has neither form nor confidence behind him. But what he does possess is the potential for damage at the top of the tree -- which is more than you can say for most of the rest, including Dinesh Kaarthick, also picked in the party as a specialist opener.
The Jaffer-Kaarthick combine has served India outstandingly well this year. Kumble will have to first decide if the opening combine needs to be changed and if so, which of Kaarthick or Sehwag should come in. Go with Sehwag, Anil! It's a gamble worth taking. He has done well in Australia, and has a point or three to prove. If he does bat for any length of time, he will score, and score quickly. But will the Aussies let him?!
For Sehwag to come in, Yuvraj Singh -- out of his depth in the first Test -- must warm the bench. Perhaps a touch unfairly, some might feel, but the left-hander didn't exactly look the part at the MCG.
Where does that leave Dravid? VVS Laxman showed signs of settling in nicely at the number three spot. Should he be shunted down? Or should Dravid cede number three to the Hyderabadi and instead bat at six, like he so famously did in the second innings at the Eden in 2001? Questions, and more questions. Kumble sure has his hands, and head, full!
