Arbitz: 2007 India VS England Test match series

India won the test series in England after 21 long years. This is a terrific achievement for the Indian team which has faced a lot of criticism, rightly so, since the early World Cup exit. I can imagine the pressure faced by the team members as they set out on this tour against the No: 2 ranked nation in test cricket. For their part, I suspect the English also underestimated this Indian side.

The Fab Four would have been an integral part of their plans however they perhaps did not account for the relatively inexperienced bowling arsenal as well as the gritty openers. The Indians did perform as a team which is very evident in the high scores game after game without a single top order batsman going on to hit a century. The fact is that this successful series has a serious chance to figure as a trivia question in the future on account of Anil Kumble’s solitary hundred. Dinesh Karthik had a very good tour, surprising many skeptics, though he would do better to concentrate more on the field and not drop dollies. Rahul Dravid had a surprisingly poor series

while Sachin Tendulkar played his recent new role of a bulwark to perfection. Laxman, as usual, didn’t inspire much confidence, though he sparkled sporadically and is still in the periphery of the test team. The most fluent run scorer had to be Sourav Ganguly who was delightful as well as effective in the series. It’s a testament to his tenacity and perseverance to see him come back so strongly after he was completely banished from the cricket scene by the powers-that-be. The bowlers, especially Zaheer Khan, did surprise the English with their variety and skill. It was a joy to see them

firing in unison and with so much passion and ability. Sreesanth would also do better if he used his fire towards improving his concentration and bowling skills rather than mouthing off as though he was a Dennis Lillee (which clearly he is not!!). Dhoni’s keeping was below par and I don’t buy the argument that the Duke ball was swinging a lot in those conditions. The more I see him, he reminds me of a soccer goal keeper rather than a test wicketkeeper, in terms of his technique. However, he played two crucial innings and has to be commended for that.

The English side had its moments too. Kevin Pietersen, Ryan Sidebottom and Michael Vaughan performed creditably and if a few things had gone their way, this series could have ended with a different result. It didn’t help that they got shocking contributions or lack thereof, from Matt Prior, Ian Bell, Paul Collingwood etc. The bowlers too shone only in patches and it was this lack of team effort which got in the England’s way. But that’s what test cricket is all about; it’s about taking your chances and making the best out of it, being gritty and unrelenting till the end.

One other aspect needs mentioning and it’s the umpiring. The general standard of umpiring was abysmal with appalling decisions handed out to both sides, more so to the Indians. Both Simon Taufel and Ian Howell had a bad series and gave some absolute shockers. The present situation is such that everybody including the spectators, commentators and TV viewers has access to technology to judge decisions, except the umpires. So, when an umpire makes a bad decision, it gets really magnified almost immediately. I do agree that all decisions cannot be referred to the third umpire since that would dilute the on-field umpire’s authority as well make their jobs redundant. There is an idea which can be borrowed from NFL and which has presently found its way into tennis too. One possible solution to this would be to have a concept of say maximum 3 challenges for each team for a test match. They could use them either when they are fielding or batting. So, when the umpire gives an incorrect decision, the captain of the affected team has a right to challenge the decision which will be reviewed by the third umpire. The team loses the challenge if the umpire was correct in his decision and vice versa. However, since it a maximum of 3 challenges, teams will be wise to only challenge those decisions that might be crucial to the game or involves one of their top players etc. This is an idea worth pursuing and implementing which gives the teams involved a chance to redress wrong decisions.