India’s heavyweight middle order is full of flab, not muscle, as its record in the past three years shows
Sambit Bal at Lord's23-Jul-2007
Mahendra Singh Dhoni acquitted himself well despite his technical difficulties against the moving ball © Getty Images
Did India really deserve to save the Test? You could say their bowlers did,for after a shocking opening session when they were affected as much bynerves as by lack of practical knowledge about overcoming and using the uniqueslope at Lord’s, they exceeded expectations. You could also hand it to DineshKarthik, a young man thrust into a difficult job, who showed both skill andheart, and Mahendra Singh Dhoni, who rose above his technical difficultiesagainst the moving ball to hang in there. India owes this draw to these unlikely saviours and thebenevolence of the weather.But there is a story within a story. India’s three fifties in this Test camefrom the weakest links: Wasim Jaffer, who came to this Test on the back of threefailures; Karthik, who is not a opener; and Dhoni, who had batted like atailender in the first innings. In the end, to hold out for 96 overs wascreditable because it was always going to rain. In fact, it was asurprise that it didn’t rain sooner than it did on day five. But what of the men who were expected todeliver for India?India’s mighty middle order came up against England’s most enfeebled paceattack in a home Test since 1993 and managed only 192 runs. That’s anaverage of 24. James Anderson cannot be denied credit. He bowled withintelligence and control but the conditions, while challenging, were neverimpossible. The first-innings score of 201 was probably 150 short of what was achievable.Is it too early to make a reassessment of India’s batting strength? Wasn’tit a similar story in 2002, when the Indian middle order collapsed twice tolose them the Test at Lord’s, only to reveal its full splendour in the matches that followed? That series, in fact, heralded a golden run for India lasting about 18 months. Now that they have the breathing space of a drawbehind them, can they not be expected to flower again?They well may, for far more unlikely things have happened in cricket. Ifyou’re a betting man, though, don’t put your money on it yet. This is abatting order that has long lived on reputation; three years, to be precise.Not since the tour of Pakistan in early 2004 has India’s middle orderearned the right to be termed mighty.Let’s dispense with the numbers first. In Test matches since that series, SachinTendulkar averages 45.67, Sourav Ganguly 36.24 and VVS Laxman 33.70. Buteven these numbers hide the reality for none them has failed to cash inon weak opponents. Three of Tendulkar’s last four hundreds – including a career-best 248 – have come against Bangladesh, Ganguly has scored hundredsagainst Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, his only centuries since a stirring 144against Australia at Brisbane in 2003, and Laxman has got a hundred againstZimbabwe. Remove these runs and the story is dire. Tendulkar’s average dipsto 31.19, Ganguly’s to 29.40 and Laxman’s to 32.19.Increasingly it looks likely that this is what India’s once-glitteringmiddle order is capable of providing in demanding conditions: battling thirtiesand the odd half-century. That’s what Tendulkar, Laxman and Ganguly providedat Lord’s and that’s what they did against Australia, Pakistan and SouthAfrica in 2004-05, and against South Africa earlier this year. More than 20 Testsin the space of three years is a long enough sample period to present a pattern and,despite what the rest of this series might bring, it’s about time to bury the myth about India’s middle order.India’s batting in recent years has been about two men. One of themisn’t here. Despite his failure in South Africa, Virender Sehwag averages46.89 in Tests since May 2004 and, incredibly, his average goes a couple ofpoints higher if you remove his Tests against Zimbabwe.The other is Rahul Dravid, who averages nearly 50 without his runs against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. India missed a big innings from him in South Africa. It was the first time since 2000 that he’d gone through a series without a half-century and it perhapscost India the series. In both innings at Lord’s he was dismissed withoutgetting in, which is not something that can be said about Tendulkar, Laxman andGanguly.Batsmen who get into the 30s can’t be described as out of form. But the failure to push on from there must point to something. Has the process of survivalbecome so onerous that it is draining away the mental resources needed toconstruct more substantial innings? Can the body no longer endure therigour? Is it a combination of both?Indian cricket would be living in denial if it fails to acknowledge thedecline. Cherish their golden years but don’t expect them to light up a wetsummer.Do you think India’s middle order still has the right to be termed mighty? Tell us here