Master planner that is Woolmer
The last time when India was in Pakistan, they made history by defeating the hosts 2-1 in the three match series. Then, their coach was Miandad. The team lacked discipline and control. The raw talents had no focus. Mohd Yousof was a Christian (Youhana). Ofcourse, the last statement has nothing to do with the rest.
This time around it was different. Pakistan, under Woolmer is a more disciplined and confident team, especially with a series of good performances against England.
There must have been a lot of planning happening in Pakistan, even before the Indians landed in Pak. Their strategy seems to have been well thought out by that time.
Woolmer wanted to prevent back-to-back embarassment for Pak at all cost. He did not want Pak. to lose the series in trying to win it. So he ensured that Pak would not lose in the first two tests by ordering for dead pitches where even his bowlers cannot pick twenty wickets leave alone India's. Remember the hype of preparing fast tracks to test the Indian batting line-up before they came up with feather beds? All that mind war, India did well not to fall for.
Everyone thought India came out well in the first two encouters by meeting aggressive batting with solid responses. But Woolmer had different plans. He had already set the Indians up for the ultimate encounter with orders for a green strip in Karachi.
To an extent, even he would agree, that his plans backfired on him when India, surprisingly, won the toss and when, of all people, Irfan Pathan started off with a hat-trick. At 39-6 he would have cursed himself for not being more aggressive right from the beginning of the series. However, he must have been happy to see the final score of 245 on the board and India reeling at 74-4 by the end of the first day. His plan had already worked.
Whereas, his Indian (shouldI say Australian) counterpart, Greg Chappell, overwhelmed by the record breaking performance of his makeshift opener captain on dead tracks (I still love Dravid), had no game plan whatsoever. Oh! wait, actually he did have the surprise element of sending Laxman in as the opener at Sehwag's expense. I thought Gambhir and Jaffer were in reserve just to fulfill that requirement. Didn't the Chappell/Dravid duo assess the pitch beforehand? Then why would Dravid choose to bowl when he won the toss, if they didn't after two high scoring draws? The answer is "Over confidence". Woolmer won there.
Gavaskar has a valid point.
Ordinary stuff, I tell you... Disappointingly pedestrial.
PS:- A great player does not necessarily, a good captain maketh. A great player does not necessarily, a good coach maketh.
This time around it was different. Pakistan, under Woolmer is a more disciplined and confident team, especially with a series of good performances against England.
There must have been a lot of planning happening in Pakistan, even before the Indians landed in Pak. Their strategy seems to have been well thought out by that time.
Woolmer wanted to prevent back-to-back embarassment for Pak at all cost. He did not want Pak. to lose the series in trying to win it. So he ensured that Pak would not lose in the first two tests by ordering for dead pitches where even his bowlers cannot pick twenty wickets leave alone India's. Remember the hype of preparing fast tracks to test the Indian batting line-up before they came up with feather beds? All that mind war, India did well not to fall for.
Everyone thought India came out well in the first two encouters by meeting aggressive batting with solid responses. But Woolmer had different plans. He had already set the Indians up for the ultimate encounter with orders for a green strip in Karachi.
To an extent, even he would agree, that his plans backfired on him when India, surprisingly, won the toss and when, of all people, Irfan Pathan started off with a hat-trick. At 39-6 he would have cursed himself for not being more aggressive right from the beginning of the series. However, he must have been happy to see the final score of 245 on the board and India reeling at 74-4 by the end of the first day. His plan had already worked.
Whereas, his Indian (shouldI say Australian) counterpart, Greg Chappell, overwhelmed by the record breaking performance of his makeshift opener captain on dead tracks (I still love Dravid), had no game plan whatsoever. Oh! wait, actually he did have the surprise element of sending Laxman in as the opener at Sehwag's expense. I thought Gambhir and Jaffer were in reserve just to fulfill that requirement. Didn't the Chappell/Dravid duo assess the pitch beforehand? Then why would Dravid choose to bowl when he won the toss, if they didn't after two high scoring draws? The answer is "Over confidence". Woolmer won there.
Gavaskar has a valid point.
Ordinary stuff, I tell you... Disappointingly pedestrial.
PS:- A great player does not necessarily, a good captain maketh. A great player does not necessarily, a good coach maketh.
10 Comments:
Rajesh,
By and large, agree with you. Except for the one point about Laxman coming in as an opener at the expense of Sehwag. It had to be done for the simple Sehwag was off the field for some time and the rules did not allow him to open the innings. That's why Laxman opened. Gavaskar too is right, as usual. Well, about Sachin, I will have a separate post.
Didn't know that fact. Thanx for letting me know.
rajesh,
our men in blue pathi ezhuthalaya...esp after the thumping 1-day series win...
What you said about woolmer is true but Xaheer Abbas criticized him for payint too much attention to laptops and less attention on ground.
In my view, nobody should be allowed to order dead pithes in the name of strategy if test cricket has to be saved. Pitches should not be tilted towards the bastman
You need a life, you MFer...just get the hell out
Anon,
Sorry, but it wasn't me that you saw with your mom the other night. You may wanna try this elsewhere.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
English lesson:
Say either
"A great player not necesarily a good captain maketh"
Or
"A great player does not necessarily a good captain make"
Anon,
Thanks for correcting me. I see the redundance.
I have been looking for sites like this for a long time. Thank you!
» » »
Post a Comment
<< Home