The `Dream' Indian team still a dream
Just the other day, I again went through Neville Cardus' collection of memorable essays published as `Cardus in the Covers'
Partab Ramchand
22-Aug-2000
Just the other day, I again went through Neville Cardus' collection of
memorable essays published as `Cardus in the Covers'. What a joy it
was to go through the book! Tastes in cricket literature may change
but nothing can alter the unique flavour of the mellifluous Cardus
prose and style.
One particular essay `My ideal team' caught my fancy. Cardus was
convinced - like many others of his time - that the English team that
took the field at Edgbaston in the first Test of the Ashes series in
1902 was perfection personified. It is generally considered by
historians as the strongest batting side ever to represent England -
all eleven players scored centuries in first class cricket. But with
the bowling line up consisting of Lockwood, Hirst, Braund, Rhodes and
Jackson, it is also a strong attack. Of course little need be said
about the formidable batting which included Maclaren, Fry, Ranji,
Tyldesley and Jessop with that incomparable wicket keeper Lilley
completing the side. That they could not win the match was because of
the weather with more than half the playing time in the scheduled
three day game being ruined by rain. But that was sufficient time for
Hirst and Rhodes to bowl out Australia for 36 - their lowest score in
Tests.
It would of course be next to impossible to come up with the ideal
Indian side - except maybe in one's dreams! After all India has played
nearly 350 Tests and there have always been some weakness in the
squads. Picking the greatest ever Indian XI itself would be a
difficult exercise and there really is no way that anyone could pick
an Indian side that took the field in any Test in the last 68 years
and say ``yes, this is my dream team.'' Cardus himself offers the
England team that played Australia in 1928-29 and the side that took
on Australia at the Oval in 1938 as other strong squads, perhaps fit
to rank with the playing eleven of 1902.
Narrowing the field down to touring Indian squads would perhaps make
the task a bit easier but even then it would be a herculean task to
pinpoint one. A touring squad which registered the rare victory in a
Test overseas would normally be a strong team. That is not to say
Indian teams at home have not been formidable. But with wicket and
weather conditions favourable, they have been able to run up pretty
enviable records. Would anyone in his right mind dare to compare the
Indian teams which won ten straight victories at home in the period
1988-1994 with some of those I am going to mention?
Again, this is not to say that an Indian touring squad which did not
win abroad was not a strong side. No one can say that the 1946 team in
England was a weak side. A side which has in its ranks Merchant,
Mushtaq Ali, Lala Amarnath, Hazare, Modi, Mankad, Kardar and the elder
Pataudi had to be a strong team. It's just that England, with Hammond,
Hutton, Hardstaff, Bedser, Evans, Wright, Compton and Washbrook were
stronger.
Certainly the 1946 team compared very favourably with the two sides
which won Test rubbers in England in 1971 and 1986. Indeed, the 1971
team must rank somewhere near the top - and not just on results.
Except for a weak new ball attack, it had everything - solid batting,
spectacular fielding and world class spinners. The team which 15 years
later won the three match series emphatically was just the reverse in
bowling strength - not particularly strong in spin but very effective
in the seam department. Of course, the fact that the victory in 1971
was historic gives that squad a special aura. Also, it must not be
forgotten that England were much stronger in 1971 than in 1986.
Conversely, India were perhaps a trifle fortunate in winning the
rubber on the first occasion whereas in 1986 they were a bit unlucky
not to make a clean sweep of the series.
Obviously the 1971 team to the West Indies must rank very high on the
list. Again except for a certain weakness in the opening attack, this
side too had everything. If anything, the final result came as proof -
the only victory so far by an Indian team in the Caribbean. The team
that visited the West Indies five years later was certainly stronger
in the seam department, while retaining the strengths of the 1971 side
- strong batting and effective spin bowlers. They were a shade unlucky
to lose the four match series narrowly. The 1980-81 team to Australia
was also very balanced. This time there was a good seam attack backed
by decent spin bowling with the batting being the main strength.
Incidentally it was the first Indian side not to lose a series in
Australia - and against a strong home team. A similar feat five years
later was somewhat diluted by the weakness of the Australian side.
Even the strongest Indian teams to visit Pakistan have come a cropper
- in 1978-79 and four years later - and this somewhat devalues their
strengths. The first Indian side to visit the neighbours in 1954-55
was heavy on spin bowling but with a negligible opening attack. Thirty
five years later the position was reversed. Srikkanth's side had
penetrative opening bowlers but the spin attack was hardly worth the
name. Ironically these two sides managed to come back with the rubber
shared - even if all matches were drawn.
The problem with finding the ideal Indian team is that if it was
strong in many departments, there would always be at least one weak
link - the lack of a suitable opening pair, the lack of a new ball
attack, a mediocre spin attack, slipshod fielding, a vulnerable middle
order. This has been particularly true of Indian teams in the last
decade. Even the finest of Indian sides have faced this problem
robbing us perhaps of the really ideal `dream team.' But perhaps a
dream contest between the only two sides to have won Test rubbers in
England - always the most difficult task given the change in the
wicket and weather conditions - would provide some sort of answer.