Ashwin Walks The Talk With His Cathartic Century

Abhijato returns with a look at Ravi Ashwin’s performance on day 3 at Chennai. England are predictably in the mire. And they’ve been put there largely thanks to a man who bats almost as well as he bowls sometimes …

The greatest advantage Ravichandran Ashwin the batsman had on a decaying Chennai pitch was that he did not have to face himself as a bowler from the other end.

When he walked out as the Indian number eight in the second innings, his team’s total stood at 106. The inimitable skipper Kohli was holding up one end with the grit which has come to define this team. The other batsmen had been dismissed to deliveries which ranged from the unplayable to the merely mischievous.

Foakes spent most of the day behind the stumps collecting one magnificent take after another, a job he’s done for many years to less raucous reception from the media in county cricket. His need to prove his athleticism further illustrated the lack of control batsmen had on this pitch over both their shots as well as their fates. It resembled a Taunton track which had been left untouched for a month and a half.

Puffs of dust exploded from the surface as soon as the morning began. Pujara was dismissed, then Rohit, then Pant, then Rahane – even a day earlier, most of the shots they played would be met with the middle of their bats. Now, playing any shot at all had become a virtual death sentence.

And yet, Ashwin played with the freedom of a man who knew the context behind the scorecard more intimately than he knew the pitch itself. He is a local boy, who grew up playing his cricket around these parts. For the better half of a decade, he also bowled for his IPL franchise Chennai Super Kings in this city during their home games. In every sense of the phrase, Chepauk is his ‘own ground’.

India also led by 301 runs when he walked out to the middle. This does not take away from the quality of his innings as much as it speaks about the opposition bowlers he faced. Moeen Ali and Jack Leach bowled like students who had done their homework, but they fluffed their lines (and lengths) every now and then – they hadn’t learnt the prose by heart. It showed.

Ashwin was generously helped out by the half-trackers and the half-volleys which were tossed up for him to sweep his way to a positive start. He took no half-measures himself. The sweep shot – just like in Root’s and Rohit’s masterclasses in this series – was the most prominent one he played. He managed to hold onto a rhythm just when his side needed it to establish their dominance. And by the time the English spinners had regained their sway over the conditions, it no longer mattered for a batsman of Ashwin’s calibre.

Even as his skipper played cautiously and with inhuman control on a pitch where every ball moved like an Indian Hyundai does in the middle of a confusing four-way street, Ashwin did what he does best. He played a balancing act which saw him attempt outrageous shots – with slaps to the offside which would look more at home with a racquet in hand at the Australian Open – and combining it effectively with his natural timing even while defending.

The skipper departed soon, but there was no stopping Ashwin.

Ishant Sharma and Mohammad Siraj represent a more optimistic version of India’s tail. Previously, it was desperately hopeless. But the incumbent lower order has now improved itself to be hopelessly desperate instead.

The English spinners let Ashwin score a bulk of the 76 runs which were made in their innings’ last two partnerships. Joe Root – renowned for his pessimistic brand of field compositions – decided to place his faith in the spinners for once. He set an attacking field with close catchers wandering around the pitch during this time. Unluckily for his side, wandering around the pitch was what they were relegated to doing for most of it as well.

It was another damning indictment of the English bowling attack that it could not extract the tailenders, or even Ashwin, any sooner than they eventually did. They took out five batsmen in a single phase of the game, as it often happens in the Indian subcontinent, where wickets fall in clumps even while you’re down in the dumps. Going by the way the Indian spinners have already become unplayable during the fourth innings on this Chepauk surface, it’s safe to say England needed to get all ten much sooner if they were to stand a hypothetical chance of winning this match.

The day – and the match – comprehensively belonged to Ravichandran Ashwin. There have never been questions about his merit as a spinner. His overarching personality and an unfortunate spate of injuries have turned his obvious claim to the spot of being the world’s best spinner into a debate. But his recent ventures speak of a clear desire to reclaim the title as soon as the time comes.

In the past few years, his batting average had fallen off a cliff. There was a lack of clarity about where he wanted his feet to be and how much of a backlift he wanted to give to his willow. It spoke in his batting numbers as well – since averaging 43.71 in 2016, he’s averaged 17.07, 20.40, 12.00 and 6.60 in the years which came next.

But the rearguard he pulled off in Sydney with a strained back has rebalanced his intrinsic desire to be the world’s best all-rounder. The bravado’s returned along with the confidence. In a press conference the day before he hit his century, he spoke about how a batsman should approach batting on a dustbowl like this – by giving themselves time to settle in, and then going for their shots, just like they would on a greentop. He’s now walked the talk as well.

Ashwin is one of the most naturally gifted timers of the ball in Indian cricket, who often made batting look easier than it was on difficult surfaces during his initial years as an international. Perhaps, these intermittent years of being lost in the wilderness were an essential part of his growth as a cricketer. But he’s given himself the time he needed to settle into his career. 392 wickets at 25.27 isn’t the worst haul he could have picked up while on this journey.

With the bat in hand, Ashwin is reopening the chapter of his career which deals with his ambitions of becoming the world’s best all-rounder. This Test century must be the most cathartic out of the five he’s scored at this level. It came at his home ground, after all.

But rather than perceiving it as a story which has come full circle, Ashwin will look at this as the beginning of a new story – one where he writes his own fate and proves the sceptics wrong with the runs he scores and the wickets he takes. He’s so much more than just one of the world’s best Test cricketers. He’s the cleverest of them all too.

Abhijato Sensarma

19 comments

  • Ashwin played a magnificent innings, and England are fairly fortunate not to be in an even deeper hole than they are. The third umpire had no option over the Root LBW because it had been given not out on the field and the point of impact was not clearly in line with the stumps, but I do not think anyone seriously believes that that ball was doing anything other than making a right mess of the stumps. Realistically the best left to be hoped for from England’s POV is that Lawrence bats decently in the company of his skipper tomorrow and England salvage some pride by producing some decent runs before the end comes.

    • “England are fairly fortunate not to be in an even deeper hole than they are.”

      True, although in practical terms, holes don’t come much deeper than this one !

      Cometh the hour, cometh the man ? Let’s hope so !

  • Very good article. That’s one of the best 100’s I’ve seen for a long time on a real bunsen by a number 8. Ok Root got a great double century in the 1st Test but it was so flat Boycott’s Grandma would have scored a hundred. Statistics rarely tell the full story do they.
    England bowled well enough but not good enough. Why change a winning side? What’s the matter with Stokes? He hardly ever bowls these days. You know the fact we play hardly any 4 day cricket between June-August (2 these summer) it’s not surprising we can’t play spin. And our “spinner” get little practice on the harder July/August wickets. One of the problems with a diet pie and chips, sorry T20.

  • There’s an argument being attempted that this pitch isn’t so bad because of the figures of England’s spinners.

    No. They leaked a load of runs in the first two sessions when the pitch was at its best and then were bowling in the second innings with their team destined for a thrashing. It’s ridiculous to try to argue that because they took their wickets at 30 this pitch somehow isn’t that bad. And for the millionth time, yes England have been guilty of the same. The point is not about whether it’s fair or not for England but that it makes the toss too important.

    What will happen first?
    1) One of the Big Three boards gets punished for a terrible pitch?
    2) One of the Big Three captains gets punished for abysmal over rates?
    3) Hell freezes over?

    • To answer your last point–judging from the statistics available on the first two, 3)!

      Captains no longer get punished for slow over rates. There is, however, a big three country whose points penalty for a slow over-rate (the replacement for banning captains) could well be the difference between them getting into the WTC final or not–which is exactly the kind of deterrent it was supposed to provide, I suspect. As far as I can remember, they’re the only country that has had points deducted in the first cycle.

      Since the ICC introduced formal pitch marking, only eight pitches have been rated poor (the worst category if a pitch is not considered actively dangerous). Four of those have been awarded against India–included the only instance of a ground having its right to host international matches withdrawn–while two of the others have been against England and Australia.

      I think you could argue, though, that punishing the board for a poor pitch–unless the country only has one ICC-accredited ground–doesn’t do a whole lot. Maybe the answer is to automatically award the match to the visiting team if a pitch is rated poor–because the reason for preparing a poor pitch is presumably to win the game.

      On over rates, I like the idea of mandating the hosting board to repay a proportional amount of the entry price to the overs lost to every single spectator–recoupable proportionally from the visiting board to the extent that they were the fielding side. That might concentrate a few finance departments.

  • Well that’s our customary collapse out of the way. Hopefully there’ll be a better pítch next time. It’s no good criticising the spinners for letting Ashwin off the hook. There was little pressure on the Indian tail, as even at 106-6 they had enough to declare. We all know our spin options are ordinary county standard so there’s no point going on about them, both bowled pretty much as expected. TINA is our situation for now.
    Not playing Bairstow, after his mature performance in Galle, was I think a mistake. Our top order is incredibly vulnerable at the moment and a bit of positivity would not have gone amiss. If we had won the toss and batted I think things would have been different, though I fear not the eventual result.
    The leaving out of Anderson is a mystery, especially with Archer injured, as he wasn’t exactly over extended in the 1st test and if he reckons he’s fit as a fiddle why can’t he play 2 tests back to back.
    Stone and Broad did ok under the circumstances but they are not in the same class as threats here and Rohit would not have been able to get after Anderson in the same way. Kholi must have been delighted. If both are fit for the next test it will be more of a test for the Indian batsmen.

    • Maybe it wouldn’t have made much difference, but I also thought it strange not to include Bairstow given that he’s one of our top three batsmen against spin.

      • He wasn’t there to be picked. They agreed before the tour started that he’d go home after the SL series to get him out of the bubble. He’s currently in a quarantine hotel in Chennai, having returned to India a couple of days ago. That’s all there is to it.

        • Hunger pang
          Yes, I realise that. My point is that I would have had him in the squad for the first two Tests in India.

  • Well whatever the arguments over the pitch it’s the sub continent and it’s to be expected. India still scored over 600 runs on it, as I watch England with one wicket left less than half that. We prepare seaming green tops, is that wrong? Australia hard pitches to suit their pace attack. Home advantage. We lost this before the start by changing a winning side, so it’s a bit irrelevant really.

    • Agreed. We don’t complain when we prepare seaming pitches for Jimmy and Broad, and bowl Australia out for 40-odd, so we can’t complain when India prepare bunsens. It’s called home advantage.

      Yes it’s extremely frustrating but it’s also a somewhat risky strategy by the hosts. Had England won the toss in this game then India could have found themselves 0-2 down quite easily.

    • I wonder about your last sentence James–especially given how Ashwin batted.

      I suspect that what we’re seeing more is that in SL only Root consistently showed a way to both stay in and get big runs. Given that SL’s best spinner has a very similar test record to Moeen Ali and that they have no seamers of anywhere near the quality of either Bumrah or Sharma (or Shami for that matter), that should have been a performance which set more warning bells ringing than it did.

      Even in the first test in Chennai, Root scored over 35% of England’s runs off the bat and only two other players in the match passed 40.

      • Marek
        I posted after the last Test that Root had scored 41% of England’s runs in the last 3 Tests and that that should be sounding alarm signals. This pitch favoured India’s bowlers, or to put it another way, they were better than our’s, but the contrast between the two sides’ batting was quite marked. We were simply outplayed in both departments.

  • Getting through India’s lower order was a major problem on the last tour (which seems largely forgotten). India broke several records that time including the first time their No.9 made a century and the first time Nos. 7 and 8 made fifties in the same innings.

    Oh, and I do wish some people would stop going on about Moeen Ali’s SR. SRs reflect how modern batsmen don’t bat time. Comparing SRs of modern spinners with pre- the 20/20 era is pointless. DRS also has had an effect on how much pad play batsmen can engage in. The days of kicking away over after Nadkarni over are gone (good!). I would agree that Ali may be a victim of an English attitude that still expects spinners to contain as much as take wickets. The fact is he still averages over 40 with the ball abroad and how many balls he bowls to get them isn’t that relevant.

    • Mind you, Tich Freeman’s average overseas was about the same as Ali’s…:-)

      Actually Ali’s strike rate is absolutely relevant to his overseas average. It’s so high largely because his strike rate–which is obviously his strong point–is much worse overseas.

      I’m not terribly convinced by your overall argument. If it was as true as you seem to suggest then any half-decent seamer (on the basis that many people only consider Ali a half-decent spinner) would be taking wickets at a strike rate of 50, and Anderson and Broad would probably be getting them at 35! You’d expect T20-style batting to have a really radical effect on strike rates based on your argument, and as far as I can see it hasn’t.

      Yes, it’s also true that DRS has really helped spinners–but then so did uncovered pitches.

      Of course comparing statistics across generations is always fraught with danger, but I don’t think that anyone’s arguing that Ali’s strike rate actually makes him a better bowler than Laker, Swann or Underwood–just that he’s rather better than he’s often painted and that his record stands up against his contemporaries with the exception of Leach, or to make the point you’ve agreed with.

      And, as you say, he’s less effective abroad–although even there his returns are wildly different in different countries.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting