Wednesday, March 29, 2006

India's Reliance on Pathan

Increasingly it is becoming clearer that when Irfan Pathan does well with the ball India are in good shape. When he does not, we struggle.

Let us rewind the clock back to September-October 2005 when Rahul Dravid took over. Since then here is a summary of the performances of Irfan and the effect it had on India.

ODIs

v SL at Nagpur - Pathan picks Atapattu early - India win
v SL at Mohali - Pathan picks 4 - India win
v SL at Jaipur - Pathan has an off-day, India still win thanks to a magical innings by Dhoni
v SL at Pune - Pathan is average picks late wicket but India win thanks to Agarkar's brilliance
v SL at Ah'bad - Pathan rested, India LOSE
v SL at Rajkot - Pathan picks 3, India win
v SL at Baroda - Pathan picks 3, India win
v SA at Hyd - Pathan flops, India lose
v SA at B'lore - Pathan picks 3, India win
v SA at Eden - Pathan flops, India humiliated
v SA at Mumbai- Pathan picks 3, India win
v Pak at Peshawar - Pathan flops, India lose
v Pak at Pindi - Pathan picks 3, India win
v Pak at Lahore - Pathan picks 3, India win
v Pak at Multan - Pathan picks 3, India win
v Pak at Karachi - Pathan rested, India still win thanks to the great efforts of Dhoni and Yuvi
v Eng at Delhi - Pathan picks 3 India win

So you see in 17 matches India has won 13 and lost 4. Out of the 13 wins Pathan has played a role by picking up an early wicket or 2 on at least 10 occasions. Out of the 4 losses Pathan has been wicketless (or not played) And make no mistake invariably at least one if not 2 of his wickets is an early one - within his first 2 overs.

Digest some of these facts.
1. Track back through the last nine ODIs, dating back to the first game against South Africa, and you find that Irfan Pathan has broken through in his first or second over on five different occasions. Here, he made it six in ten.

Courtesy Prem Panicker on Sightscreen

2. One Wicket in his 1st over of a odi : 8
Two Wickets in his 1st over of a odi : 2
One Wicket in his 2nd over of a odi : 13
Two Wickets in his 2nd over of a odi : 1
14 times wicketless...india won 3 lost 10 n/r 1
Overall record for india :-
Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St

overall 53 706 83 27.15 0 4 91 5/27 24.61 1 8 0
matches won 29 260 83 37.14 0 1 65 5/27 16.30 1 5 0
matches w/ no result 1 - - - - - 0 - - 0 0 0
matches lost 23 446 65 23.47 0 3 26 3/34 44.07 0 3 0

When matches won he averages 37 with the bat and 16 with the ball..when we lose its 23 with the bat and 44 with the ball...

Courtesy, Saurabh Malhotra, of SachinTendulkarFans.

Now often people in discussion groups have lambasted Pathan for his so-called lack of pace and a couple of average results particularly in the Pakistan series. What they forget is for now Pathan is India. Munaf and Sreesanth may be good but so far they have not been able to make the difference consistently like Pathan has. RP Singh IMO can never be anything more than a support bowler.

Now turning our attention to test cricket and this is what first brought this topic to my mind - the question of why we are doing so averagely in test cricket while being brilliant in ODIs - this is exactly where Pathan has been less successful. However note that the 2 disasters that we have had in recent times, Mumbai and Karachi (second innings) was when Pathan was unsuccessful as with the couple of drawn games in Pak. He gave us the early breakthrougs in Mohali (first innings) Nagpur and in the Sri Lanka series. In fact the second innings of the Mumbai and Mohali tests were the only exceptions where Pathan flopped and we still restricted England. Unfortunately in Mumbai too much damage had been done in the first innings. And in Mohali that was not the case precisely because Pathan had delivered the breaks early.

Such is the reliance on Irfan Khan Pathan, 21. I think we need to give the chap a break. Stop worrying about his "loss of pace" and leave him alone. He is far from perfect but he has the golden touch and he will deliver more often than not. And when he does India will prosper, as has been proven above.

No comments: