The home team’s surprising collapse in the first innings of the first Test in Bengaluru was the subject of discussion amongst cricket followers in India last week.
Apart from the fact that this was completely unexpected, especially after the heroics with the willow in the series against Bangladesh, it also led to the side registering its lowest-ever total in a Test in the country. It was a shock to see a team that bats very deep and is comprised of accomplished batters going down without a fight after deciding to bat first.
What could have gone so wrong for a batting side with such a splendid record at home?
The much-improved batting performance by the hosts in the second innings supported the theory that it was a “one-off” show brought about by a specific set of circumstances that led to wickets falling in a heap. However, since this was the second time in the last five years that the team was dismissed for less than 50 runs, the subject warrants detailed discussion.
India chose to bat first on this pitch despite the first day being washed out by rain and the pitch being kept under covers during the three preceding days to avoid damage. Thus, this was a classical “sticky wicket,” which used to be the norm during the era of uncovered pitches.
Covering pitches during the course of the match, whenever the game was not in progress, became the norm in international cricket from the 1980s. This ensures that loss of playing time is kept to a minimum in case there are disruptions due to rain. It also guarantees that both sides get to bat in similar conditions, with neither being placed at a huge disadvantage on account of rain and subsequent damage to the pitch.
What is a sticky wicket and why do batters find it challenging?
A pitch that gets soaked in water or one into which water seeps through and is in the process of getting dried is called a sticky wicket. If the pitch dries slowly and uniformly, the danger of it misbehaving is less.
However, when the process of drying gets accelerated due to the presence of hot sun, then the wicket tends to become sticky, resulting in ball behaving abnormally after pitching. The bounce can get uneven, the ball may skid through after pitching, or the surface may even induce undue deviation. Batting in such conditions can be a big test for batters’ technique and temperament.
How can batters tackle bowlers on a sticky wicket?
Geoff Boycott, who played all his cricket during uncovered days, advocated playing the ball as late as possible. His theory was that on most occasions, the drying turf gripped the ball on landing, which tended to slow it down a bit.
Further, the ball might also move more laterally in these conditions and hence it was essential that a batter tried to stay on the back foot to the extent possible and not commit to playing a stroke early.
This requires the batter to possess a sound temperament built on mountains of patience, besides a tight technique and intimate knowledge about the location of the stumps.
However, once the practice of covering pitches became universal, including at first-class levels, batters lost the ability to play on sticky wickets. The advent of limited-overs cricket, where the focus is on playing strokes and scoring runs quickly, has led to a situation where the new generation of batters is hardly required to either leave the ball or play it late.
Willow wielders who specialise in hitting through the line, playing scoop and reverse sweep and other unorthodox strokes will think they are in another universe if asked to play more balls off the back foot. Except in some centres like Mumbai, where a few league matches are held on wet and drying pitches, players do not get opportunities to play in such conditions in most other places in the country.
It will be interesting to see how the batters of yore, who had to play regularly on sticky wickets, faced this challenge. One interesting incident is worth citing. India toured Australia for the first time ever in 1947-48, when they played a five Test series against the hosts.
In the third one at Melbourne, after Australia batted first and scored 394 in the first innings, it rained heavily after the close of play on the second day when India was batting. Forced to continue their innings on a sticky wicket when play resumed on the third day, India lost quick wickets.
However, at this juncture, skipper Lala Amarnath sprang a surprise and declared the innings closed when the 9th wicket fell, with the total at 291, hoping to catch the hosts on the wrong foot by making them bat on a sticky surface.
But Donald Bradman, then leading Australia and arguably the greatest batsman of all times, sidestepped this challenge by changing the batting order. He sent the tail enders Ian Johnson and Bruce Dooland to open the innings and Bill Johnston, who batted at no 10 in the first innings, followed them at one down.
Sid Barnes and Arthur Morris, the regular openers, followed at no: 4 and 5, while the great Bradman walked in to bat after four wickets had fallen with the total score at 32 runs.
By this time, the wicket had dried up fully and its sticky nature vanished, making it conducive for stroke play. Bradman and Morris struck centuries and took the score to 255 runs when he declared the innings closed, and the Aussies emerged easy winners!
The very fact that even the great Bradman was wary of exposing himself to the relatively inexperienced Indian bowlers stands as a testament for the unpredictable nature of a sticky wicket and the challenges it poses to batting.
If this was the case of top players, who were brought up in an era when pitches were left uncovered, how can one expect contemporary batters, who have little exposure to such wickets, to perform any better? This fact must be kept at the back of one’s mind while analysing the Indian batter’s performance.
The Bengaluru collapse
Now, let us examine what happened to India in Bengaluru. Rohit Sharma chose to bat first despite the start of match being delayed by a day due to torrential rains. The team management also chose to include three spinners in the playing eleven.
Thus, it was evident that the captain and the coach expected a turning track, where batting last posed the biggest challenge. Instead, they were confronted with a sticky wicket that confounded the skillsets of their batting line up. This was why Rohit spoke about “hurting a bit at the decision to bat first”.
The Kiwis exposed the Indian batsmen’s inexperience in handling top-quality bowling on a pitch that was drying rapidly. Their pacers bowled intelligently, kept the ball in the right areas, and did not attempt anything spectacular, leaving it to the pitch to do the damage. It must also be acknowledged that the bowlers were helped by some excellent catches by the fielders, besides some extravagant attempts at stroke play by the Indians.
Would earlier generations have coped with such a pitch?
A look at the game’s history shows that there was only one such occasion when India was forced to bat on a sticky wicket at home during the 1970s. This was against New Zealand in Chennai in November 1976. Here also, the first day was washed off due to rain, and the match commenced only after lunch on day two.
India lost Gavaskar and Anshuman Gaekwad quickly, both falling to Lance Cairns, but Viswanath held the innings together with a brilliant 87. India managed to reach 298, after which the spin trio of Bishen Bedi, Bhagwat Chandrasekhar and Srinivas Venkataraghavan bowled the home side to a comfortable win by a margin of 201 runs.
To sum up, one batting instance of 46 allout on a sticky wicket should not raise too many alarm bells as even the best of batters had found it difficult to cope with the vagaries of such wickets. The fact that the team was able to put behind this setback and bounce back with a strong performance in the second innings is a big positive signal, as that shows the side’s resilience.
This trial by fire that the betters had to face should stand them in good stead during the tour to Australia when they are bound to come across more daunting challenges.
(The author is a former international cricket umpire and a retired bureaucrat)
