Sure to be tested
Shivaji Sengupta - 20 June 2002

In order to win - anywhere in the world and not just in England - India need, first and foremost, a strike bowler who can run through a batting side regardless of its reputation. When India embarrassed Australia in their own backyard in 1981, it was Kapil Dev who caused the Aussie downfall, bundling them out in one innings for 80-odd runs.

At home, Narendra Hirwani took 16 wickets in his very first Test, forcing Viv Richard's West Indies to capitulate at Chepauk. Harbhajan Singh's ability to make constant inroads into the Australian batting line-up in early 2001 halted their incredible winning spree.

On all these occasions, the bowlers in questions were India's main strikers, and India won matches on the backs of their performances. But we cannot harbour similar hopes for the present Indian team in England just because, even in spite of the presence of Anil Kumble and Harbhajan, we cannot say with certainty that the bowlers will strike the hosts down.

Detractors to this theory may point out that England were able to beat Sri Lanka in two out of three Tests even without an out-and- out strike bowler. True enough, but as Partab Ramchand pointed out in a recent column, England racked up three consecutive innings totals of 500-plus, a feat hitherto unachieved in Test cricket. With those kinds of numbers, strike bowlers are a more affordable luxury.

But cannot Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, VVS Laxman, Virender Sehwag, Sourav Ganguly and Dinesh Mongia achieve similar totals against a mediocre English attack? I am not sure. Tendulkar may be going through one of his leanest periods in Test cricket, and Ganguly is sure to be tested out by England's pacers. Bowlers like Andrew Flintoff and Matthew Hoggard, at regular intervals, reared the ball up almost to the chin, catching batsmen like Marvan Atapattu and Aravinda De Silva - no slouches themselves - unawares.

On present form, it must be said that both of the above-mentioned Sri Lankans are better than Ganguly; besides, the Indian skipper and Flintoff are old foes, adding further fat to the fire. Dravid, hopefully, will characteristically graft. The batsman, in my view, most likely to succeed is Laxman, simply because of his exquisite play.

I rate Laxman in the same class as De Silva, although the Indian is perhaps not as determined as the Sri Lankan. Sehwag and Mongia may in fact be the dark horses and surprise the Englishmen by outperforming the stars.

But I worry that, over the course of four Tests, India will stumble a few times. They always do, and the only time their batting floundered during the last tour of England, back in 1996, they lost the Test. Having gotten out cheaply, India didn't then have the strike bowler to hit back, and the rest, as they say, is history.

So it is with trepidation that I view the forthcoming Test matches. About the one-dayers I am more hopeful. India should easily be able to give both teams a run for their money. Sri Lanka are a terrific one-day outfit, India have an energetic and promising young outfit, and England are on the rise again. Who will win? I don't know, but I predict an Asian final.

The views expressed above are solely those of the guest contributor and are carried as written, with only minor editing for grammar, to preserve the original voice. These contributed columns are solely personal opinion pieces and reflect only the feelings of the guest contributor. Their being published on CricInfo.com does not amount to an endorsement by CricInfo's editorial staff of the opinions expressed.
© CricInfo