Former Australian captain and leading commentator Ian Chappell has said India don't have the resources to retain their No.1 spot in the ICC Test rankings for a long enough period to emulate Australia and the great West Indies teams of the past. Chappell said that India's batting alone will not sustain them and to do so, they will have to unearth a couple of champion bowlers.
Chappell and former India batsman Sanjay Manjrekar aired their views in Time Out, Cricinfo’s new fortnightly audio show hosted by the leading commentator Harsha Bhogle. India bagged the top ranking from Australia after beating Sri Lanka 2-0 in the three-Test series at home last month. India jumped from No. 3 to No.1 for first time since the rankings came into place in May 2001.
Manjrekar said a big reason for India’s success is the arrival of a strong opening pair in Virender Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir, and the ability to adjust to foreign conditions.
“It’s a huge asset to have, a stable opening pair. I noticed a change in India’s batting around the time Sourav Ganguly was leading India, John Wright was in charge, and I saw India playing on foreign pitches,” Manjrekar said. “I found that the new generation of Indian batsmen could play the pull shot, the cut shot, and they were pretty good against the short deliveries.”
However, Chappell felt that India have completed only half the job of being a well-rounded team.
"I don’t think great teams are built on opening batting partnerships. But to me, there is a far more important thing, and this is one reason why I don’t rate India as a long-term No.1, " Chappell said. "I think you have got to have two champion bowlers in your line-up to be a long-term successful cricket team. That is where India is falling down at the moment.
“When I look at the averages and the strike-rates for India in the last 12 months, I don’t see two champion bowlers. In fact, I am struggling to find one champion bowler in that line-up. They’ve got some good bowlers. Sure, they have got a very good batting line-up, but the bowling is really not good enough to see them win consistently all around the world.”
Over the last two years, India have played 20 Tests, winning nine and losing three. Three of those wins have come against Australia, including one in Perth during their last tour in 2007-08. Chappell acknowledged that India had performed above themselves in the last two tours of Australia, but their success would have tasted much better had they beaten them while they were still a major force in international cricket.
Since the collective retirement of their champion players like Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne, Justin Langer and later Matthew Hayden and Adam Gilchrist, Australia haven’t produced the same level of consistency in results.
“I would have thought it was a greater achievement if they had caught up with Australia while Australia was still very much a great side, rather than waiting for Australia to come back to the field,” Chappell said. “That to me has been the disappointing thing. It seems to me that the other teams have almost thrown their hands and said that ‘it’s hard to beat them, we will just wait for them to fall back and then we will catch them’.”
Re: "I don't rate India a long-term No.1" - Ian Chappell
I did not need to read Chappeli's expert views to know that fact. India will never be able to maintain #1 Test spot because they don't have top class bowlers. Test matches are won by taking 20 wickets and NOT by scoring 400 plus runs per innings.
Over the last two years, India have played 20 Tests, winning nine and losing three. Three of those wins have come against Australia, including one in Perth during their last tour in 2007-08.
with mediocre bowlers at that. oh massah chappal, could it be that a cohesive disciplined team is more than any bunch of talented huffy divas?
india might drop for a while, but this the way things are headed in cricket.
Chappell is right in saying that India lacks a champion bowler in their line-up but you have still got to take 20 wickets to win a test match
You want to be judged against the best in the world and India has been the most competitive of all teams against Australia in tests during the past decade. England and South Africa have the next best record against them over that period
Since 1999/2000:
Australia v India: (9-7) in 22 tests
(in Australia 1999/2000): Australia won 3-0 (whitewash)
(in India 2001): Australia lost 1-2
(in Australia 2003/4, 4 tests): drawn 1-1
(in India 2004, 4 tests): Australia (under Gilchrist) won 2-1
(in Australia 2007/8, 4 tests): Australia won 2-1
(in India, 2008, 4 tests): Australia lost 0-2
Australia v England: (15-6) in 25 tests
(in England 2001): Australia won 4-1
(in Australia 2002/3): Australia won 4-1
(in England 2005): Australia lost 1-2
(in Australia 2007/8): Australia won 5-0 (whitewash)
(in England 2008): Australia lost 1-2
Australia v South Africa: (13-4) in 18 tests
(in Australia, 2001/2): Australia won 3-0 (whitewash)
(in South Africa, 2002): Australia won 2-1
(in Australia, 2005/6): Australia won 2-0
(in South Africa, 2006): Australia won 3-0 (whitewash)
(in Australia, 2008/9): Australia lost 1-2
(in South Africa, 2009): Australia won 2-1
(ps. Both India and England have beaten Australia twice in a test series - both home wins though. South Africa is the only team to have beaten Australia in Australia during the last decade)
Re: "I don't rate India a long-term No.1" - Ian Chappell
This criteria of "two champion bowlers" is a nice one, but not sure what it is worth in the context of a number 1 test team. Dont know that either of the other two top-three teams - Australia or SA - meet this criterion. Who are the two champion bowlers for Aus? Johnson is too inconsistent, Bollinger is still new, and Siddle is just a hardworking bowler, nothing special. No real variety in their pace attack, just hit-the-deck type bowlers with limited capability to swing the ball. And Hauritz wouldnt even make it into a domestic side in India or Pakistan as a spinner.
SA attack is slightly better with Steyn possibly qualifying as a "champion" bowler, but even they lack variety, and a good spinner. For a standard 3 pace bowlers + 1 spinner combination, I'll back Zaheer, Sreesanth, Ishant + Harbhajan to take 20 Aus or SA wickets any day over their bowling attacks getting 20 of ours.
That said, no denying that bowling is a relative weakness for India compared to batting. Even on the domestic scene, we keep churning out batsmen after batsmen, but seem to perpetually struggle in the bowling dept, esp pace. Am extremely envious of Pakistan's seemingly endless assembly line of high-quality pace bowlers.
Am extremely envious of Pakistan's seemingly endless assembly line of high-quality pace bowlers.
Pakistan has always had the bowling to trouble Australia in Australia. Sadly our batting is just too erratic and inconsistent to make it count anywhere. It has not been upto the mark during the last decade or so.
SA attack is slightly better with Steyn possibly qualifying as a "champion" bowler, but even they lack variety, and a good spinner. For a standard 3 pace bowlers + 1 spinner combination, I'll back Zaheer, Sreesanth, Ishant + Harbhajan to take 20 Aus or SA wickets any day over their bowling attacks getting 20 of ours.
I agree. The Indian bowling attack could be lethal against most opponents while champion bowlers might be ineffective against the Indian batting. I think a good balance is whats required to be the # 1 side and the current Indian team possesses that balance.
I agree. The Indian bowling attack could be lethal against most opponents while champion bowlers might be ineffective against the Indian batting. I think a good balance is whats required to be the # 1 side and the current Indian team possesses that balance.
so, if mediocre Indian bowlers are actually lethal... and champion bowlers from other sides can't knock out Indian batsmen and are hence, not lethal, then, doesn't that actually mean that India's mediocre bowlers are actually champion bowlers? and champion bowlers from other countries are actually mediocre bowlers?
this implies that India not only has champion batsmen but also champion bowlers. therefore, India is the greatest cricketing side in the history of the game? now try disproving that airtight argument, beaches.
Re: "I don't rate India a long-term No.1" - Ian Chappell
We have to admit, India have been a better side in last decade than our bunch of mediocres. Period!
As far as sustaining the No. 1 position, the reality is that Aus/RSA/Ind are all on same level more or less and we will see a see-saw between these three with SL/Eng peeking here and there on the top shelves. This is going to be the case for next two three years until Tendz-Dravid get retire, like a major shake-off as Aus have gone through in last 3 years with their 6 greats retired in this time period. This happens. The good teams are those which take little time to rebuild and always seen in top 3 spots. Like Aus.
Chappel saab has simply got jeolous here, otherwise there was no need for such article from a great former player. India have been doing fine with their limited bowling resources for last one decade or so. Just imagine if Tendz, Drav, Lux, Gangz were getting backing of likes of Pakistani bowlers of that time. Aus would have been pissing in their pants.
Nevertheless, hats off to Aus for giving a dream team to world cricket that dominated over a decade in all aspects of the game. The bigger GIFT was the benchmark professionalism introduced in the game that will be a lighthouse for generations to come not for their own players but around the world. I am so so so impressed by the way run cricket affairs and the way players and team official take their job.
Re: "I don't rate India a long-term No.1" - Ian Chappell
The reason why India is number one is because all of their players finally can be themselves and play their own game. When they play they don't worry about what score they are chasing or how much they have to restrict the other team. They just know that if they play their own game, they'll win. Something that was missing in them for a long while. If they can maintain this aura in them no matter what position they rank, they'll be a threat in every tournament and against any team.
I think Ian Chappell and some of us are missing an important point here..
We can argue all day about whether India deserve to be no. 1 or whether they w'd maintain #1 ranking for long. But they are #1 and it is a part of history. No one can change that and noone can deny them that honour. If India is not worthy of #1 ranking in tests, then it clearly shows how bad others are. Whether they can sustain it long-term is besides the point....they atleast got there, right!
Without a doubt Pakistan has a better bowling attack than India but in batting India is way ahead of us. Pakistan has a balanced test attack - Asif, Sami (on present form I w'd take him over Gul), Aamer and Kaneria but our current batting is just too weak - not to mention the pathetic catching - to make it count in test matches anywhere. Even when our bowlers have created wonderful match-winning opportunities recently, our batters have not been good enough to finish the job. We need to channel our energies into something more useful and positive rather than taking delight and satisfaction always in each others' failures and miseries. Pakistani cricketers should raise their performance and aspire to get to no. 1 position so one day we can be proud of their achievements.
And to give credit to India, they have been no.1 at one time or another in all 3 formats (be it briefly in ODIs) of cricket. Not even Australia have that honour. Australia have never been ranked no. 1 in T20
Chappell is simply not happy that Australia is not #1 in tests anymore