17 September 2007

Prasad needs to take some of the blame.

So far, I ve managed to keep my high expectations from Venkatesh Prasad intact. For the first time ever, we toured England with a bowling attack that looked capable of taking twenty wickets in a Test match. But since the memorable Test series, where Zaheer and Arpee were exceptional, and Sreesanth brilliant in spurts, the ODIs and now the T20 WC have left Prasad open for attack. Why does India suffer from what seems to be a chronic inability to dam the flow of runs at the death? Why is the vastly experienced Agarkar bowling length on off stump? Where is the yorker, the well-disguised slower ball? For all his other talents, Sreesanth's slower delivery will seem quite obvious for an international batsman. Yesterday, McMillan slapped one straight past him.

If there are bowlers who can consistently get the yorker going, should they not be preferred over Agarkar at the death? The bowling coach will also need to examine Sreesanth's decision to go around the stumps every now and then. As of now, it seems that such decisions are made at random, leaving poor Dhoni with very limited time to make adequate fielding changes. Confusion reigns, and Dhoni I had a brain explosion when he preferred to bowl Yuvraj Singh when Pathan had two overs in the bag.

And what of team selection? Should we have Chawla come in place of Agarkar. This will mean we have a wonderfully varied bowling attack - two left arm swing bowlers, one right arm swing bowler, one off-spinner and a leg-spinner.