Column | Why we need more players in Taslim Arif or VVS Laxman mould

Does any of the followers of the game remember Taslim Arif, the Pakistani wicketkeeper and opening batsman who played six Test matches during the early 1980s? He made his debut against India at Kolkata in the last Test of the 1979-80 series scoring 90 and 46 runs in the two innings. In his third Test, against Australia at Faisalabad in February 1980, he made history by keeping wickets for 211 overs when Australia compiled a total score of 617 and then followed up by batting for 435 minutes to score an unbeaten 210. His unique record was that he had his pads on during the entire duration of the match lasting five full days, when 337 overs were bowled - first as wicketkeeper when Australia batted and then as batsman. Unfortunately he did not play many more matches after that and passed away in 2008 at the relatively young age of 53.

One happened to remember Arif in the aftermath of the defeat suffered by India at the hands of Australia in the final of the World Test Championship (WTC). Indian batsmen could not reach a total of 300 in both the innings they batted while Australia scored 469 in the first outing and declared when their score reached 270/8 the second time around. With the exception of Ajinkya Rahane and Shardul Thakur, no one could reach the half-century mark. Even worse, none of the top order batsmen, other than Rahane, could spend more than for more than an hour at the crease. There was more application in the second innings when Rohit Sharma, Cheteswar Pujara, Virat Kohli and Rahane stayed at the wicket for more then 60 minutes. But all their efforts came to naught as they threw away their wickets playing loose shots in a situation where discretion and watchfulness were the need of the hour.

This set one thinking about the days of the yore when Test matches played over five days used to last the full distance and end without a result at the end of it. The batsmen of those days certainly had strong defensive technique but their game was not focused solely on defence. Almost all of them possessed the ability to play shots around the wicket, but were more selective in their stroke play. There was no overwhelming need to dominate the bowlers and pummel them into submission. They were willing to play the waiting game, eschew all risky shots, grind the bowlers down and accumulate runs in a slow yet steady manner. One of the best innings played by Indian batsmen in the twentieth century was the 96 scored by Sunil Gavaskar at Bangalore in 1987 against Pakistan, on a minefield of a wicket where the ball was turning square. Gavaskar batted with monumental concentration for nearly five-and-a-half hours and almost took India to a win before he was adjudged as caught at silly point.

Even in the not-so-distant past, batsmen like Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Sourav Ganguly and V V S Laxman knew how to play long innings by building big partnerships. They used to take the game session by session, combining the best mix of defence and aggression. Good balls were given the respect they deserved while loose deliveries seldom went unpunished. Nothing could upset their monumental concentration as they tore the bowling attacks apart, shred by shred, and stamped their authority. One saw the pair of Laxman and Dravid do this to the Aussies at Kolkata in 2001 and again at Adelaide in 2003, while Dravid, Tendulkar and Ganguly sent England on a leather hunt adopting the same strategy at Leeds in 2002. It was not that the bowling attacks they faced were weak in any manner, indeed these runs came against the likes of Glen McGrath, Shane Warne, Jason Gillespie, Andrew Flintoff and Ashley Giles. But such was the superiority of technique and excellence of temperament of these batsmen that the bowlers could only throw their hands up in despair.

It is the inability to play the waiting game that lies at the root of difficulties faced by batsmen when confronted with bowlers on pitches that offer them some help. A batsman playing in a Test match should be prepared to tackle both seam bowlers on a green top as well as spinners on an underprepared pitch. Test matches are considered to constitute the greatest challenge to batsmen as they expose even the smallest of chinks in the armour, which the bowlers would proceed to expose and exploit with relentless efficacy. Further, there are no restrictions on the number of overs for a bowler can bowl nor are there any limitations about the number and placement of fieldsmen. Hence, there will be constant pressure on the willow wielders and only those blessed with superlative technique, abundant determination and great patience can survive the pressure cooker situation in the middle.

A couple of years ago, Kohli, when he was still leading India, had lamented on the poor technique of present-day players while defending the ball on difficult pitches. He said that the defensive skills of players had 'fallen behind' on account of playing too much-limited overs' cricket. This statement was made in the context of one Test of a series played in India finishing under two days. According to Kohli, it was not the condition of the pitch but poor batting of players from both sides that led to the match getting over so quickly. He emphasised the importance of playing the defensive shot, where the ball does not go beyond a silly point or short leg, on surfaces that offer considerable spin and turn to the bowlers. Unfortunately, this statement did not make any impact on the players, as could be seen from the record of top order batsmen of the national side on pitches helping the bowlers.

It would be too simplistic to blame the surfeit of limited overs cricket for this malady. If that were so, then it should have affected all cricket playing nations equally since all of them send teams for taking part in all versions of the game. The sad fact is that the players also contributed towards the development of this situation. Let us take the example of batsmen such as Rohit Sharma and Yuvraj Singh. No one will deny their talent, they attained stupendous success in all formats of the game by scoring tons of runs and coming good when the stakes are high. Except for the fact that neither of them could claim any amount of success while playing in Test matches abroad while batting on pitches favouring bowlers. In other words, they did not put in that extra effort required to tighten their technique so as to enable them to score runs in England, Australia and South Africa, as was done by Tendulkar and Dravid. The net result is that they remained 'flat track bullies' who score mountains of runs in limited overs cricket where pitches favour batsmen and in tests within India where the ball seldom rises above knee level but fail to repeat this magic on pitches outside the sub continent.

Unfortunately, most players of the present generation tend to follow the path of Yuvraj and Rohit rather than tread the one chosen by Tendulkar and Dravid. The overwhelming importance given to Indian Premier League in the scheme of things and the monetary rewards that await a cricketer chosen to be part of the squad of a franchisee has resulted in youngsters trying to focus all their energies on doing well in the shortest version of the game. This, along with the sustained neglect of domestic first class circuit has led to the present situation where we hardly have any batsman who can be trusted to build an innings or stay at the crease for an entire day. While international calendars are adjusted to facilitate participation of top cricketers in IPL, Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) does not insist that players turn upfor their respective states in Ranji Trophy, the premier tournament in domestic first class circuit. Hence cricketers who toil in the rough and tumble world of domestic cricket hardly get any avenues for moving upwards nor do they get financial benefits comparable to that of their compatriots in IPL. Their grit and courage remain unrecognised, their feats unapplauded and their services to the game unrewarded.

It is high time BCCI took measures to change this situation. We should acknowledge the fact that without supporting the domestic first class circuit it would not be possible to develop a top-drawer test side. We need to have more players in the Arif or Laxman mould if we are to stand a decent chance of winning WTC in the future. The sooner this realisation dawns on BCCI, the better it will be for cricket in our country.  

(The author is a former international cricket umpire and a senior bureaucrat)