IANS
London, Aug 17: Contradictory signals have emanated about Zaheer Khan's fitness.
The medium pacer has been omitted from next month's Twenty20 World Cup squad due to his bruised heel, Indian selection committee chairman Dilip Vengsarkar explained. At the same time, Zaheer was retained for the seven one-dayers against England starting next week.
Indian skipper Rahul Dravid ascribed the physical condition of his bowlers as one of the reasons for him not enforcing a follow on in the recently concluded third Test against England. Khan, however, maintained he wasn't tired.
The fact is, Khan, having surpassed himself in the second Test at Trent Bridge, was not so sharp in the third encounter and certainly bowled below his best in the second innings - this, despite the rest in between the England innings.
The issue is not whether he felt breathless on the fourth morning, when Dravid made his cautious move, but the cumulative fatigue of fairly incessant cricket over the past nine months.
Besides, the strapping around his thigh was surely not a fashion statement and S Sreesanth also had a sore ankle. Had either or both broken down in course of three days' continuous bowling and part-time bowlers been pummelled by the brilliance of Kevin Pietersen, Dravid's worst fears may have come true.
England could have got 500 in the second venture and set India a tricky task of scoring 180 runs in even time. The Indians would have been savaged by all and sundry if they did not attempt this. Yet, in so doing, they might have collapsed.
Even after the breakthrough in 1971, India capitulated for 42 at Lord's in 1974. Indeed, 11 for three in Nottingham was a hint of the spectre that's haunted Indian cricket.
The stamina of India's current quick bowlers, who are forced by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to partake in an excess of one-day cricket, which requires them to bowl a maximum of 10 overs, and relatively fewer Test matches, which demands sending down around 20 overs in a day, - with five-Test series consigned to history - is a matter for conjecture.
However, had India's specialist bowlers withstood the strain of bowling uninterruptedly for nine sessions, it is unlikely that England would either have got sufficient runs or forced the pace to the extent of cornering India.
Should Dravid have gambled for a 2-0 margin when the windfall of a series win was in the bag? Armchair criticism is easy. The Damocles' sword hangs only over a captain's head!
India's victory is remarkable because an unfancied attack delivered the goods. The exceptional movement of the ball in the air - even by English standards - generated by the after effects of a notably wet summer converted the left-armers Khan and Rudra Pratap Singh into twice the bowlers they are.
Of course, their incisiveness from around the wicket was due entirely to their credit and rather took the Englishmen by surprise. The success was also founded on the Indian batsmen skilfully negotiating from the second Test onwards the swing exhibited by Ryan Sidebottom and James Anderson, for this duo, too, were twice as lethal than otherwise.
Terminating England's six-year unbeaten run in Test series at home was no mean feat. The "poor travellers" tag is, therefore, beginning to peel off. In the past 13 months, India has won a Test series in the Caribbean after 35 years and now in England after 21 years.
In between, India secured a maiden Test victory in South Africa. In 2004, India triumphed in Pakistan for the first time ever. Dravid now has the distinction of leading India to two away series wins against major cricketing sides - an honour only enjoyed by Ajit Wadekar previously.