Bowl India A Googly. Hit Them With Pace.

Next week England will try to beat the No.1 ranked test team in the world in their own backyard. It will be hot, confidence will be low, and the Indian curators are likely to serve up enough bunsens to stock a sizeable chemistry lab. England, I think it’s safe to say, will be under the cosh.

However, things needn’t be as bleak as they seem right now. There’s still a glimmer of hope if – and I admit it’s a big ‘if’ – England’s management team stop trying to eat tarka dal with chop sticks (as it were) and actually play to the squad’s strengths.

If there’s one thing the Bangladesh series taught us, it’s that relying on part-time spinners, or specialist spinners who aren’t good enough, isn’t going to work. England’s best bowler by a country mile was Ben Stokes (a seamer). There’s a lesson in there somewhere.

If one looks at the series averages for both Bangladesh and England, Stokes was head and shoulders above everyone. The ginger warrior took 11 wickets at an average of 10 with a brilliant strike rate of 26. The next best bowler on either side was Mehedi, who took 19 wickets at 16 with a strike rate of 35.

This demonstrates that good fast bowlers can be just as effective as spinners in dry conditions – even on raging turners.

When surfaces are dry they’re usually abrasive and encourage reverse swing. England have good reverse swing bowlers but absolutely no decent spinners. So why bother with the likes of Ansari, Rashid and Batty when fast bowling is our strength?

Jake Ball is a better bowler than any of our spinners. That’s the bottom line. Does it really matter what speed he bowls at? I’m not saying that England should pick no spinners against India – it will be hot and the attack still needs variety – but we need to focus on pace.

Trying to squeeze more and more subpar spinners into our XI – I’ve heard some pundits suggest we pick as many as four – seems counter-intuitive. What England should do is make room for more pacemen; therefore they’ll be plenty of guys to share the workload in the heat. Let’s face it, India would much rather face twenty overs of Batty than ten overs of Broad followed by ten overs of Ball.

We’re going to get hammered unless we change our approach. 888sport currently make India massive, massive favourites. The million-rupee question is whether England can, in theory, be successful with a seam-based attack? Thankfully the history books say we can. A little digging into the recent and not-so-recent past reveals that fast bowlers can do very well in India.

Before 2002, the West Indies (who have traditionally relied on fast bowlers) had only ever lost one series in India. It happened back in 1978-79 when they sent a second string side on tour. Most of the Windies’ big names were left out because of Kerry Packer’s World Series Cricket. Otherwise the Windies’ pacemen reigned supreme.

South Africa’s record isn’t quite as impressive but it’s certainly not bad: although they lost 0-3 earlier this year (when Dale Steyn got injured), they drew both their previous series in India and beat them 2-0 in 1999/00.

Even if one looks at South Africa’s recent defeat, the seamers still did a very good job. Kyle Abbott, who isn’t the world’s best fast bowler by any means, took 6 wickets at 18, Philander took 3 at 20 and Morne Morkel took 9 wickets at 21. Dale Steyn missed most of the series with injury but on South Africa’s previous tour to India he claimed 11 scalps at 20.

History therefore tells us that seam bowlers can be just as effective as spinners in India. Glenn McGrath averaged 21 in the land of the IPL whereas Shane Warne averaged 43. It’s the only blemish on the great leggie’s career. Ask Sachin Tendulkar who he preferred facing.

Although England have never had anyone quite in McGrath and Warne’s class (not in recent years anyway), our seamers have also had success out there. Jimmy Anderson has taken 22 wickets at 30 in India, Ian Botham took 30 wickets at 25, and Bob Willis took 32 wickets at 22. Even Neil Foster managed 14 wickets at 20. It’s not just the great fast bowlers who have thrived on India’s dustbowls.

England’s currently strategy – and there’s no prizes for guessing that it’s a typically boneheaded one – is to completely ignore what happened to New Zealand last month (the Kiwis were whitewashed).

New Zealand’s best bowler in the series wasn’t one of their much vaunted spinners, it was actually Trent Boult who took a respectable 10 wickets at an average of 33. Patel, Sodhi, Santner and Craig managed a miserable 21 wickets at a dire average of 53 between them. Does anyone really think Rashid, Ansari and Batty will fare any better? Jeetan Patel is far better than anyone we’ve got. The Indian batsmen eat spin for breakfast but they’re not quite so comfortable against pace.

When selecting the squads for the winter tours, Whitaker, Newell and Fraser (with input from Strauss I imagine) probably thought no further than England’s last tour to India. This seemed to lay the blueprint for success in the subcontinent.

The common perception, which is obviously true to a large extent, is that Swann and Panesar bowled us to victory. However, although Swann and Panesar topped the bowling statistics (they averaged 25 and 27 respectively), we shouldn’t forget that Anderson and Finn weren’t far behind with averages of 30. This shows that the pacemen played an important role too.

As England clearly don’t have anyone in Swann and Monty’s class this time, surely it makes sense to rely on our seamers? After all, these are the guys who gave Cook a modicum of control in Bangladesh; these are the guys that the captain trusts. The players can probably sense Cook’s lack of faith in the spinners and the resulting uncertainly permeates the team and undermines confidence. 

The current strategy of relying on part-time slow bowlers will only lead to one outcome: another disaster overseas. It’s time for the management to wake up, smell the coffee, and make the Indian batsmen smell leather.

James Morgan

Written in collaboration with 888 Sport