As is often the case, India were battling today to save the first Test match in an overseas series. After an underwhelming 3 days at Wellington, India were in a familiar position. A terrible first innings collapse, a large first innings deficit, followed by the quick dismissal of a "promising" new opener to an ugly fend off a short pitched delivery, one that he could and should have left alone.
That brought in Pujara. The opposition knows that when India play overseas, Pujara is the key wicket. They know this because he puts a price on his wicket, can bat forever without getting flustered or tired, frustrate the plans of the bowlers & the fielding captain, and bide his time to catch up on the strike rate.
Today he scored 11 off 81 and then got out to an error of judgement when he left a ball that was angling in, and lost his off-stump. It didn't take very long for the knives to come out. The expert on TV said something to the effect that Pujara puts pressure on himself with his slow scoring, and lets the opposition bowlers dominate him. There is a pretty good chance that when Pujara got back to the pavilion, the coach gave him some advice about "intent" and "rotating the strike".
I heard similar sentiments from one of my dear friends, a cricket connoisseur. The fact that Pujara must not play so defensively.
I am a huge fan of Pujara, so it got me thinking about how his strike rate compares with others in the game. So I dug up some numbers. The numbers surprised me. Other than Kohli, there is no one in the current team who has the experience and pedigree of Pujara, so I decided to first compare him with the batsmen from the previous era. I had to leave out Sehwag, because even the likes of Viv Richards are unlikely to be anywhere close to him in a comparison of strike rates. So that left Ganguly, Tendulkar, Dravid, and VVS Laxman.
Here's what I found on espncricinfo:
| Player | ||
*Sachin Tendulkar's strike rate is not given on espncricinfo, so I have estimated it. It won't be too far off the mark.
Honestly, when we look at these numbers, Pujara doesn't look so bad, does he?
Tendulkar and Kohli have significantly higher strike rates, about 10 points higher than Pujara. This means that on an average, Kohli takes about 86 balls to get 50 runs, whereas Pujara takes about 107 balls to make 50 - 21 balls more. You would expect that, given Kohli and Tendulkar are considered to be attacking players, and masters of strike rotation. That is why these two have played all formats successfully. They are naturally aggressive players with superb technique.
However when you look at the others, it gets interesting. Dravid was slower (on average) compared to Pujara - he took 10 more balls to get to 50.
Ganguly takes about 10 balls less - 97 on average.
Laxman takes about 6 balls less - 101 on average.
Clearly, Pujara's numbers are in the same ballpark as Dravid, Laxman and Ganguly - who are all considered to be all time greats of Indian cricket. Pujara starts slow, and then catches up on his strike rate, that is how his career strike rate is not that bad. He has this unique style of assessing conditions, and biding his time - unique because the "biding" sometimes takes a lot longer than others! But he catches up!
So why do we constantly hear these complaints about Pujara being too slow? He was even dropped by the same team management in England because he wasn't playing with enough "intent". I suspect Pujara gets a bad name because of his personality and style, and the overdose of white ball cricket that has made his breed an aberration.
Pujara is low key, and a reluctant speaker. On the field of play, he does not have the style or elegance of the others. Dravid was the articulate "wall", had magnificent square and ondrives, Ganguly was the fiery skipper, had the flamboyant off side play and the huge slogs off spinners, and who can forget Laxman's flicks and ondrives? Compared to all these guys, Pujara's style of play is downright ugly, even uninspiring!
Add to that the fact that Pujara does not play white ball cricket, has no IPL contract, and is therefore seen by many to be just an ugly Test match plodder.
How does Kane Williamson do on strike rate? He is one of the top four batsmen in the world, plays all formats, a guy no one will accuse of being slow. Well Williamson strikes at 51.55 in Test cricket, about the same rate as Ganguly. So he is not significantly better than Pujara either!
So let us value and appreciate Pujara for what he brings to this Indian side. He was one of the major reasons India won the first ever Test series in Australia last year. He is a selfless batsman who knows his limitations, and is the ultimate team man. The younger guys in the Indian team would do well to learn from him how to put a price on their wicket, and grind it out through tough periods of time.
I heard a West Indian commentator say last year "I wish we had someone like Pujara in our Test side". I suspect the thought might have crossed Williamson's mind too when his side was getting decimated in Australia recently.
Well we have a Pujara, so let us value and appreciate him while he is around. We will definitely realise his true value when this magnificent cricketer is gone.
