Nineteen Indian wickets fell to Sri Lankan spin at Colombo.
One match is scant evidence of a team's skill and character, and conclusions drawn from one Test are unlikely to be infallible-- yet, on July 26, one couldn't avert a deep sense of foreboding on two counts.
Sri Lanka got 600 for the loss of six wickets at a healthy scoring rate, without the really dangerous Kumar Sangakkara getting much. Four of the top six got tons; batsmen Nos. 6 and 8 played the Indians with ease, adding 55 before the ordeal ended in declaration-- or resumed after a brief intermission, and turned worse.
India made 223 and 138 on the same track. Muralitharan is a master, Mendis a wonder, and the Indian batsmen were left waving bats at thin air and the game turned into a gross mismatch.
That brings us to the second great concern: the frailty Indian batsmen display against spin with increasing frequency. Is it prudent, or correct, to claim our batsmen are the best players of spin in the world? Or are they just best in an environment of diminishing ability against spin?
Our record against the true greats of modern spin, or the best spinners of the time, is actually remarkable-- Shane Warne averages 47.18 against India and Abdul Qadir 51.51, while Daniel Vettori is worse at 55.73. Saqlain took 25 wickets at 28.28 in four Tests, which is notan adequate sample to form a reliable impression. Mushtaq Ahmed played just one Test against India.
Muralitharan's average against India dropped to below 30 only with his 11 wickets at Colombo; before this Test, he had 67 from 15 Tests at 32.47-- good, but not great. Expect that to change rapidly, for Murali's ascendance against India is concomitant with India's falling ability against spin.
On the whole, we've handled the big boys of world spin well, it's the nondescripts who've bothered us. Our batsmen have been munificent to the indigent, though honest, practitioners of spin, like Nicky Boje (Bangalore, 2000); Michael Clarke and Andrew Symonds (Sydney, 2008); Clarke and Nathan Hauritz (Mumbai, 2004); and Ray Price of Zimbabwe in 2000, at Nagpur or Delhi, where he got Sachin Tendulkar leg-before in both innings.
In slightly earlier times, we've lost matches at home to such luminaries as Pat Pocock and Phil Edmonds of England, John Bracewell of New Zealand and Iqbal Qasim of Pakistan.This is not to belittle their achievements, but just to illustrate the fact that our batting, even when packed with all-time greats, has shown occasional susceptibility to spin.
Colombo was the nadir, losing 19 wickets to Muralitharan and the debutant Mendis, and taking only two wickets with spin, at a cost of 149 runs.
Indian batsmen succeeded against men like Warne and Qadir by attacking them; this strategy is unfeasible if you are unable to read the bowler, as happened in this Test.
Toss was an advantage for Sri Lanka, and it was India's game to save after they got 600; but as my friend Venkat Ananth regularly reminds me, we don't have the skill, or the will, to save Test matches. We've not regained the art of defensive match-saving after the exit of men like Sunil Gavaskar and MohinderAmarnath, save perhaps for the exceptional Dravid
We have excellent strokemakers, but the thrills they give us are counterbalanced by their fallibility.
Perhaps there's a relation between the lack of great spin and the reduced ability against it in domestic cricket in India. Perhaps, as serious coaches warn us, Twenty20 will wipe out spin altogether from the game. If it occurs, it would be a tragic demise.
We don't need a reminder that the Indian line-up, with tens of thousands of runs among them, can bat. We'll know in the second Test at Galle whether they also have the strength of mind to rebound from this disaster.
