da prosport bet： Given India’s impressive record at home, a one-sided contest waspredicted on the eve of the five-match one-day series againstZimbabwe
da fezbet： Partab Ramchand20-Mar-2002Given India’s impressive record at home, a one-sided contest waspredicted on the eve of the five-match one-day series againstZimbabwe. Some pundits even wrote of a 5-0 whitewash for the hometeam. On the face of it, this did not seem to be far-fetched,especially in the wake of the visitors losing both Tests. But twoimportant factors were conveniently overlooked. One, that Zimbabwe area better limited-overs team than a Test side, and secondly, that theIndian team would be weakened by the absence of Sachin Tendulkar,Virender Sehwag and Javagal Srinath, all unavailable for variousreasons.In my column on the eve of the one-day series, I had cautioned thatthe Indian team would do well to not take the Zimbabweans too lightly.I had mentioned that the visitors were not the same side that had lostseven of eight matches played on two previous tours and had evenpointed out that one could not brush aside a team that had won a oneday series in New Zealand just a year ago. But even I had notbargained for a scenario that envisaged India being down by twomatches to one in the series.
© CricInfoIndeed, the fourth game too was evenly poised until Yuvraj Singh andMohammad Kaif came up with their timely rescue act. Which means thatIndia came quite close to losing a series that, according to theexperts, was to have been a romp. Rather than blame India for huffingand puffing their way to victory over opponents who seemingly were notin their class, one should give Zimbabwe some credit.I am inclined to agree with the views expressed by Stuart Carlisle.The visiting skipper said that he was getting pretty much tired of hisside not being given enough credit for their good performances.”Whenever we win, it is said that our opponents played badly. Whydon’t the same people pat us for playing well?” was the gist of whatCarlisle said. For example, when Zimbabwe won at Kochi, much was madeof the poor batting of the Indians, while not enough credit was givento Douglas Hondo’s opening burst that paved the way for the victory.Credit, however, was duly given to Douglas Marillier for playing whatwas surely the knock of the series and in a contest that saw somehigh-quality batting. A number 10 batsman hitting an unbeaten 56 off24 balls is by itself a truly astonishing statistic. What made thefeat really astounding was the manner in which he batted.The scoop – off the faster bowlers, mind you – that sent the ballhurtling past the ropes behind the wicket-keeper was a stroke thatwill not be found in any textbook. Even in limited-overs cricket,where one has become used to seeing innovative shots like the reversesweep and hitting the ball inside-out to the boundary, “theMarillier,” as it will undoubtedly be termed, was a revelation. Thathe did it repeatedly even with only the last man at the crease forcompany – gave a storybook touch. Indeed, that first game at Faridabadhad the a storybook finish, with Zimbabwe winning by one wicket withtwo balls to spare.
© CricInfoAlready without three key players, the Indians suffered anothergrievous blow when Anil Kumble was out of the series after the secondgame through injury. But overcoming these handicaps, the Indians didshow some resilience in winning three of the next four games. Thecredit should go mainly to the reserve strength. The non-availabilityof the leading players gave the chance to fringe players like DineshMongia, Kaif and Yuvraj to take center-stage, and it must be said thatthey made the most of their opportunities.There has been much talk of late that the Indian team relies too muchon the established stars, leading to question marks being raised overthe reserve bench. The three youngsters proved that there is enoughdepth in the batting should the stars be unavailable or go through alean trot. This is also a sign to the established players that theycannot take their place for granted, and this has got to be a healthysign for Indian cricket. The series also underlined the fact that,whatever his failings at the Test level, there is no mistaking AjitAgarkar’s match-winning qualities when it comes to the limited-oversgame.It must have been galling for the Zimbabweans to come so close tocreating an upset and then getting pipped at the post. But, to becandid, whatever the strength of their batting, their bowling wasquite amiable. Hondo’s dream spell at Kochi was just one occasion wheneverything came off. In the remaining matches, the bowlers made noimpression at all, a fact highlighted by the Indian totals of 241 forsix (in 48.1 overs) and 274 for six, 319 for six and 333 for six (allin 50 overs). From Andy Flower, Grant Flower, Alistair Campbell andTravis Friend, the Indian crowds saw batting of high entertainmentvalue. But in the ultimate analysis, it was Zimbabwe’s weak bowlingthat saw them lose the series.
