Sub-continent sides - are they mentally weaker?

Perhaps a tad controversial and at first glance may seem like a huge generalisation, but before I start let me say that absolutely no offence is intended to anyone hailing from that part of the world, and this is more of a look at why spectacular batting collapses seem to be happening all the more frequently of late.

I'm thinking of writing a piece on this very subject, so as usual the thoughts of you chaps would be appreciated.

In short, it seems to me that the likes of India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh (though the lack of ability may be more prominent in their case) seem to struggle mentally as soon as the chips are down and things aren't quite going their way. Sri Lanka have provided us with an example against South Africa today, as have India's bowling attack. Harking back a few months, one instance in particular that stands out was during India's tour of England when they took a decent first innings lead following a sub-par total from England. However, a couple of enormous partnerships from the England top order saw them set an imposing total for India, after which they promptly 'gave their neck' and collapsed.

Is this purely coincidence that such a cluster of performances have been produced by sub-continent sides in recent times, or are there further reaching reasons. Is there too much of an emphasis on limited overs cricket in that part of the world? Is their view of the game, and ability to tough it out, maybe different to that of the more 'in your face' types like England, Australia and South Africa? Are there any other reasons why scoreboard pressure or any other kind of adversity tends to see them crumble?

Don't get me wrong, these sides are made up of incredibly gifted players, so the frequency of such occurences of late has made me ask this question. Your thoughts would be both interesting and appreciated.

I would'nt say mentally weaker, it just happens to teams in phases. In Englands recent past, they were well known for spectacular collapses and recently WI, Aus and SA too. Before T20, all teams had phases of collapses and will do so in the future. Just one of the joys of cricket.

You're up for a fight , aren't you Fists?

Guess your name is a dead giveaway...

Must say I think India has been a bit lacking in backbone lately - is it too harsh to say the leadership may have to shoulder some blame here? Not that I think Dhoni is mentally weak himself , I think him a bit of a fighter actually , but he hasn't managed to project that in his captaincy , in my view.

Of course any team can look a bit "weak" when it is put under consistent pressure by a stronger opponent - I'm sure some people will be quick to remind England fans of some scorecards from 2006/7 in Australia for example...

Suppose we should also remember India is one of the few teams to come back after following on over 270 behind and win , as they did against a strong Australian team at Eden Gardens in 2001.

I'll hand you over to our Indian members now

I think there are a few reasons for them not performing as well away from home or at least outside of Asia.

The pithces in Asia are more dead and easier to bat on, excepting the fact that they are accustomed to playing spin as the dirt tracks encourage spin more than pace.

Perhaps more to do with skill and technique against fas bowling than mentality.

The truth of the matter is if the specialist batsmen struggle in these conditions what chance do the bowlers have to play well? Hence the batting collapses, especially the last 5 wickets.

Here is a look at 4 top batsmen from Asia.


Sangakkara at home average 62.06 and away from home 47.35 in asia 61.5
Jayawardene at home 62.92 and away from home 40.42 in Asia 57.22
Sehwag at home 58.19 and away from home 45.71 in Asia 60.91
Gambhir at home 43.29 and away from home 51.81 in Asia 45.65

Gambhir seems the exception to the rule, and Tendulkar also has a similar performance outside of India as in India.

It is not only in their batting and bowling, but also something that is visibly noticeable in the field. They stick their hands in their pockets, their shoulders sag, heads are down, there is no energy, they're deathly quiet. All of these things seem to happen to sub-continent sides when the chips are down, whereas the likes of Eng, Aus, SA will ALWAYS be fighting to correct it, always encourage each other and keep up the intensity levels.

Tempremantal would be one word to describe SOME sportsman from the sub con.

Without wishing to cause offense, I found playing against an Asian football team to be a strange experience.
They had plenty of skill but if things went against them, then the toys would be thrown.
I'm not generalising but this is a trait that may count against you.

It is an interesting question and worth debating.

My view is it is not so much a case of mental strength, but fitness. Sides from the sub-continent (and of course West Indies) have always placed less value on fitness than those from Australia, England, South Africa and New Zealand. It is a cultural thing, we see it here in France with expats from those countries. They have been brought up with the notion that cricket is about batting and bowling, and because these regions seem to produce talented cricketers at will, this has mainly been enough.

With the game now moving into the professional era, they have been somewhat left behind. Take this (very good) Indian side: I was astonished to read in cricinfo that there were only 6 fielders who would still want the ball to come to them after a long day in the field and listed Dhoni, Kohli, Gambhir, Shewag, Sharma and Tendulkar. Now the first two I agree with, but not the last 4! The fact is, Cowan and Hilfenhaus (probably the least athletic of this Australian side) are more athletic than any Indian player apart from Kohli and Dhoni. Compare the fitness of Ponting and Tendulkar, of Hussey and Laxman!

I commented on the match thread that Clarke and Hussey were still pushing for 2s well into the afternoon (indeed Clarke ran a tightish 2 to long-on when he was passt 300). Could anyone see (to take similar ages) Shewag and Laxman do the same?

Now the simple thing is, if you're not fit enough you can't be in a good mental shape. If you're struggling to run, you can't want the ball to come to you. There was an interesting piece of research published at one of the Ivy League universities (may have been Chicago, not sure) which essentially said technique and mental strength are easier to teach than fitness once someone has finished his learning curve (about 17).

This also applies somewhat to batting collapses: if your body's not in the right shape to bat for hours, then mentally you're not up for it, and hence you're more likely to throw your wicket away.

Put this way: if you don't feel in good shape physically, you can't possibly be in the best place mentally.

There is some hope for India with a few of their youngsters particularly in the one-day side (Raina, Yuvraj pre tumour, Sharma, Jadeja, these are all good athletes), and signs that the new generation does understand the importance of fitness. I think Fletcher may also make a difference, although this may put him on a bit of a collision course (as it did with Chappell)...

FoF your statement is slightly strange. The only two sides that all ways give 100% all the time are South Africa and Australia. England only recently have show some 'backbone'.

Believe you may have hit the nail firmly on the head, Mike.

Demon Racer wrote:FoF your statement is slightly strange. The only two sides that all ways give 100% all the time are South Africa and Australia. England only recently have show some 'backbone'.

A period of about 3 years is more than just 'recently'. Not overly suprised to see you making an appearance just to have a dig at England though, it seems to be your calling card.

The only team to have escaped from multiple batting collapses in the recent past are England.

WI, Aus and SA have all had several spectacular batting collapses in the last 18 months.

Fists of Fury wrote:

Demon Racer wrote:FoF your statement is slightly strange. The only two sides that all ways give 100% all the time are South Africa and Australia. England only recently have show some 'backbone'.

A period of about 3 years is more than just 'recently'. Not overly suprised to see you making an appearance just to have a dig at England though, it seems to be your calling card.

Sure pal, England rise has only been due to redevelopment of other teams. Australia are on the way back. South Africa are all ways there or there's about.

What utter tosh. England's rise has been due to excellent management, consistency, and possessing a collection of the worlds finest players, as seen when taking a look at the ICC rankings for batsmen and bowlers. India haven't redeveloped, we just crushed them. Anything else you wish to make me laugh hysterically at?

Fists of Fury wrote:What utter tosh. England's rise has been due to excellent management, consistency, and possessing a collection of the worlds finest players, as seen when taking a look at the ICC rankings for batsmen and bowlers. India haven't redeveloped, we just crushed them. Anything else you wish to make me laugh hysterically at?

Finest players? Who you kidding? Bunch of journeymen like Strauss, Cook, Bell, Bresnan etc.

Dear lord. Ian Bell is as good a batsman as absolutely anyone in world cricket. Alastair Cook is the best opener in world cricket at this moment in time. Any more stupid remarks you wish to make before I put in the call for you to be sectioned under the mental health act?

Fists of Fury wrote:Dear lord. Ian Bell is as good a batsman as absolutely anyone in world cricket. Alastair Cook is the best opener in world cricket at this moment in time. Any more stupid remarks you wish to make before I put in the call for you to be sectioned under the mental health act?

You poms make me laugh. Steyn's coming in the summer, he'll sort out these journeymen.

Just like he did last time he played against us, eh? I may be wrong but I'm quite sure that Steyn's record against England isn't quite as good as it is against others.

When we swat Sotuh Africa into oblivion next summer, will you then be quiet?

Fists of Fury wrote:Just like he did last time he played against us, eh? I may be wrong but I'm quite sure that Steyn's record against England isn't quite as good as it is against others.

When we swat Sotuh Africa into oblivion next summer, will you then be quiet?

England's pop gun attack will be slaughtered by Amla, Kallis and AB.

Steyn averages 36 vs England, similar to Anderson's average vs SA. Steyn is all over Anderson...

I used to think Bresnan was a bit of a trundler. Then I watched him bowl.

Anyway, let's try to stay on topic eh?

Kallis' record in England isn't the best.

Just wish we had five instead of three tests.

In England Mr Anderson is the finest bowler in the world, simple as that. Steyn is magnificent in almost all conditions, I'm not doubting that, but nobody masters swing like Jimmy A does when it is on offer.

Should be a great series and very close, but it will be much less fun if you are here for the duration, telling us just how bad we are and just how great you are.

Yeah, back on topic now please gents - apologies I was as much to blame as Demon for taking it off on a tangent!

Demon, should you wish to continue in your poor winding up effort, please create a new thread to do so.

You were mentally weak then, Fists

The great thing about the present England team is that if one, two or even three fail there normally is still one or two that come to the party and gain them victory.

But a lot of the time most in the team are are song and collectively this makes them a very strong team.

And the best team in the world at the moment.

Skyeman
Good point - the current England team finds a way to get things done, even if on occasion its the runs of Broad or Bresnan.

As for the initial question, it's certainly an interesting debating point, and perhaps is one of the (probably less significant) contributory factors in the inconsistency of the sub-continental sides.

I do think though that the biggest issue for the batsmen is technical rather than mental - relatively few of the SL, Indian and Pakistani batsmen are good at adjusting their techniques to play on either fast and bouncy wickets or those offering swing and seam. Then again, England still need to demonstrate the ability to bat well on slow, low and turning wickets, so we don't want to get ahead of ourseves.

Bowling - again, its a case of technique and particularly the type of bowler that is developed. There's little for an Indian swing and seam bowler in home conditions, and Pakistan seem at the moment to be without a truly express pace bowler at Test level.

Fielding and overall fitness do play a part, and in that respect the professionalism of England, Australia, SA and NZ leave the Sub-Continental teams and the Windies behind. It's something that can be worked on and improved, but probably needs improvement at the top of the cricket administration before the highest levels of professionalism are introduced to the playing squads.

As an aside, could some of the apparent mental weakness be because the players are not as supportive of each other as (say) England are? I understand that both Sri Lankan and Pakistani cricket adminstration is hugely political, and this must have some knock-on effect into the squads.

Interesting point regarding team spirit and unity, dummy.

The politics certainly are more prominent over there, and it must surely seep down in to the playing staff and have an effect one way or another.

FoF
Of course I should also have included the Windies in any consideration of political interference from the board having a detrimental effect on the team morale (oh, and not getting paid what you've been promised cannot be a good thing).

Brad Haddin on the Indian team:

He believes India "break quicker than anyone in the world" when the run of play is against them. Haddin has turned up the heat on India ahead of the third Test in Perth, describing MS Dhoni's men as being "as fragile as any team in the world".

He also said that they can turn on each other and the media turns on them pretty quick. (which is certainly true).

Of course this is him trying to play mind games, but does anyone think that this is particularly true of India, or for several other teams.

true of both India & Sri Lanka recently, playing as though they were just waiting for the declaration

I saw that, Skye, Haddin's comments support my point somewhat!

Think Haddin’s just coming on a bit tough but there is no doubt in my mind that India don’t travel well, certainly recently. They appeared to fall victim to the moving ball last summer and apparently by bounce, pace and above all accurate bowling in Aus. I’d compare how India are doing in Aus to how well we did; it’s pretty much the same home attack (Pattinson excepted) and they’re making it look world beating. I think there are problems in the camp, they certainly don’t look a happy group on the field, and would suggest that the biggest elephant in the room in Sachin’s 100th ton.

I must admit, that with Clarke and Hussey going so well on the third day's play, there was zip encouragement from anyone in the Indian team and Dhoni's face was all doom and gloom, just waiting for the end.

But would not most teams appear this way when the opposistion are 5-600/4.

I don't think India necessarily travel that badly, did well on their last tour to SA, were competitive on their previous tour to Aus & have done well in Eng before, they just seem to give up when things aren't going their way & there's no controversy to wind them up.

bradman99.94 wrote: it’s pretty much the same home attack (Pattinson excepted) and they’re making it look world beating. I think there are problems in the camp, they certainly don’t look a happy group on the field, and would suggest that the biggest elephant in the room in Sachin’s 100th ton.

That is an oversimplification of the problem (like saying the attack Aus faced in '05 and then '06/07 were basically the same - true in personnel only): Hilfenhaus has found a yard of pace and zip off the wicket, Siddle is bowling a much better length, Lyon is considerably better than any spinner Australia used last time, and of course Pattinson is bowling as well as anyone in World cricket has for the last year (which wasn't the case with Johnson last time around, or indeed Harris although the latter bowled some good spells).

I agree entirely with your last point though. Everybody thought it was wonderful when the Indian side carried Tendulkar around the ground after the WC win. I thought it was celebration of the individual to the detriment of the team, something you'd never find in an Australian side for instance.

If you look at statistics from the nations when they play away from home since Jan 2000. This is excluding Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

Oz played 60, won 33, lost 16, drew 11 success ratio 64%
SA played 53, won 19, lost 19, drew 15 success ratio 50%
ENG played 64, won 18, lst 24, drew 22 success ratio 45%

Then comes the rest.

India played 62, won 15, lost 26, drew 21 success ratio 41%
SRI played 43, won 8, lost 23, drew 12 success ratio 33%
Pak played 52, won 13, lost 26, drew 13 success ratio 38%

It is easy for the bowlers to look like they have reinvented themselves when they're up against a fragile batting unit though, Mike. Hilfenhaus and Siddle didn't bowl like this to England because every time they tried something different it was met by a flashing blade and a vapour trail all the way to the boundary edge.

Oh come on, when England were dismantling this (same) Indian batting line-up (minus Shewag) everyone was telling us how great the English bowling line-up was. True, in part the English success last winter was in part down to players (Trott and Cook in particular) having the patience to get through the tough spells and then cash in, but even when India were in the process of getting to 200/2 in the first test they bowled far more consistently and far more dangerously than they did against England.

biltongbek wrote:If you look at statistics from the nations when they play away from home since Jan 2000. This is excluding Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

Oz played 60, won 33, lost 16, drew 11 success ratio 64%
SA played 53, won 19, lost 19, drew 15 success ratio 50%
ENG played 64, won 18, lst 24, drew 22 success ratio 45%

Then comes the rest.

India played 62, won 15, lost 26, drew 21 success ratio 41%
SRI played 43, won 8, lost 23, drew 12 success ratio 33%
Pak played 52, won 13, lost 26, drew 13 success ratio 38%

A very telling stat about the flat pitches of Asia.

There is a difference here, though. India arrived in England in confident mood, as number 1 side that had batted everyone into oblivion. It is much easier to knock over a side drained of confidence than it is to knock over a side that truly believes themselves to be the best, hence why England's achievements in bowling India out so easily have to be regarded more highly.

I think we're being a little harsh on Australia here. They have bowled much much better than they did against England, Hilfenhaus in particular looks to have re-discovered his "nip" which was painfully obviously absent against England. The main thing though has been that India haven't been able to guts it out when Aus were bowling well, as England mostly managed to do.

Personally I think England bowled better vs India last summer than Australia have done so far in this series (in particular I didn't think Aus bowled that well on the first morning of the second test, but India batted like headless chickens), but there's not all that much in it. Certainly bodes well for the next Ashes series.

They had plenty of confidence upon arrival in Australia. Everyone was talking about a "refreshed" indian side, with their best chance to take a series win against an "out of sorts" Aussie side. There weren't many "experts" giving Australia much of a chance. It is easy to say in hindsight etc. but this has been a great performance by a young Australian attack, led by a 21 year-old who is showing as much promise as anyone I've seen in recent times. On the other hand, many on this board understood that this was an Australian side picking itself up, and showing signs of progress, whereas India still relied on a few key performers. Whoever won the battle of the strengths (India's batting and Australia's bowling) would prevail.

Anyone watching will have noticed the difference between this Australian side (and indeed ever since Clarke took over) and the one which faced England: this side seem to be supporting each-other and enjoying their cricket, even when the chips are down (e.g. Melbourne first innings and in South Africa at times) and the press is baying for blood; the one which faced England particularly at Melbourne and Sydney just looked jaded and fed-up with life.

Fists of Fury wrote:There is a difference here, though. India arrived in England in confident mood, as number 1 side that had batted everyone into oblivion. It is much easier to knock over a side drained of confidence than it is to knock over a side that truly believes themselves to be the best, hence why England's achievements in bowling India out so easily have to be regarded more highly.

I agree with that, but the Indians in England were beset with problems throughtout the tour and the team and fans came up with many excuses for being utterly smashed.

But for Aus they (the Indian team) seemed to be very confident about winning their first series ever, because they had their #1 line-up, but so far the results are going the same way.

Did you know that in Sachin's 20 years, and then later with Dravid and Laxman in the same side, India have only ever ever managed to win TWO major away series. Eng 2007 and NZ 2009.

Clearly a case of away day blues.

they're not mentally weaker, they just struggle against moving ball which is understandable, as most nations who arent in sub contient struggle against spin, and therefore struggle on the sub contient.

cricketfan90 wrote:they're not mentally weaker, they just struggle against moving ball which is understandable, as most nations who arent in sub contient struggle against spin, and therefore struggle on the sub contient.

True Cf, but Bb's stats quite clearly show us that Aus, Eng and SA adapt to all conditions slightly better than India, Pak and SL do.

Why - is another question.

probably because our domestic systems are much more competitive than other nations

could it not be the professionalism of the Westernised countries that are a level higer. The reason why I say that is if you look at the fielding of SA, OZ and ENG, it is vastly superior to the asian nations, it only leads me to beleive that these countries are not as comprehensive in their training methods.

I know it is only one aspect of cricket, but surely it does indicate a more comprehensive preparation?

I think it is more their reliance on the flatter pitches. they struggle in general more on Eng's, SA's and Australian pitches than those mentioned do on Asian pitches.

I have seen recently many calls from ex players and fans for sub-continent pitches to be more varying, to give the next generation more of a chance in all countries. That might be the answer.

That kinda covers what I was saying about fitness and athleticism biltong.

skyeman wrote:I think it is more their reliance on the flatter pitches. they struggle in general more on Eng's, SA's and Australian pitches than those mentioned do on Asian pitches.

Surely that shows that it goes beyond matters of technique and skill, and that mental toughness (in particular adaptability) which I think follows from fitness plays a part.