INDIA's 2012-13 home season was a winter of discontent. Even if some talented players were breaking through, others, most of them stalwarts, were in the December of their careers. The likes of Virender Sehwag and Sachin Tendulkar were found wanting against a bowling attack that zeroed in with the precision of a homing pigeon. One of the bowlers who led the turnaround after a beatdown in the first Test was Monty Panesar. On a turner at the Wankhede, the recalled left-armer picked up 11 wickets, including accounting for Sehwag and Tendulkar in both innings.
In that series, Panesar emerged as the third leading wicket-taker with 17 wickets in five innings. In an interview with this daily, the 41-year-old shares the gameplan going into the series, what happened between the first and second Tests and whether Bazball could challenge India's invincibility in the weeks to come. Excerpts:
What was the gameplan like going into that series in 2012?
We (Graeme Swann, himself and captain, Alastair Cook) had felt that pace (of the spinners) was going to be a big factor. But it was also about how to keep the batters quiet and put them under pressure. Our strength in England is you have to sometimes bowl a bit quicker than in India because the pitches don't spin much. We used that philosophy where it was more about containment bowling than looking to attack. But once we built that pressure, we wanted to attack. It was about bowling very tight 5-6 overs before looking to open up from an attacking perspective.
We used that same philosophy on turning pitches. When we did that (bowl tight lines and not look to attack), the ball did turn as well as skid on. Even when we didn't look to attack, we let our natural stock deliveries create attacking options (in Mumbai, for example). It was how we built our gameplan.
How hard was it to marry strategy with execution of these plans?
When Indian batters look to attack us, what happens us is they were trying to attack quality deliveries even when we weren't looking to attack. Everytime they look to attack and if we can pick up a wicket, we are in the game. If we aren't picking a wicket, we aren't going for runs, either. You have to earn the right to be slower. Bowling an arm ball, for instance, after a high-quality 4-5 overs. Now take the pace off. That was our mindset.
There were also different strategies for different batters. For Sehwag, it was in-out fields with the mid-on and mid-off being 5-10 yards deeper. For Tendulkar, it was another strategy. Also, for wicket-taking we targeted the first 10 and the last 10 of all sessions. A lot of wickets tend to fall in this phase so we were focused on picking up wickets in this part. If you a wicket in between, it was a bonus.
You weren't picked for that first Test (England played Samit Patel and Tim Bresnan)...
It was a mindset (thing), it was attacking. I did question it by saying that 'guys, if I play, it would send a message to the Indian team that we are going in with the attacking option'. When you don't pick your frontline bowlers and batters, that works may be in ODIs. But in Tests, you pick your best bowlers and batters. Then, you think about all the all-rounders. Instead, we went to cover our bases. It was more of a defensive strategy but we quickly realised that this wasn't going to work. Andy (coach Andy Flower) straightaway said 'let's go back to the traditional way of picking our best attacking bowlers and our best batters'.
Any wickets that you recall and go 'that's nice'...
That opening wicket (in the second Test at Mumbai), the one where I bowled Sehwag. It was a bit lucky but it got me going. I was aggressive towards him, wicket-to-wicket without giving him any room. I wanted him to take the risks. Luckily, it hit his his pad before hitting the stumps. With Tendulkar, I only visualised hitting top of off. I was just telling myself 'I have to bowl my best deliveries because anything less and he's going to hit me'. I don't know what happened may be because of the pace or his bat had turned towards mid-wicket... (the ball pitched on leg before spinning past the outside edge and hitting the top of off). I was just focused on controlling and building pressure.
My shape on the ball during that series was amazing. I was getting good dip, the pace and the seam was a lot harder. I was able to bowl it quicker and get the revs going. When the seam goes soft, you have to bowl it slower to let the ball be slower through the air to allow it to turn. If you beat the batters in the air, the ball doesn't have to spin quickly off the surface because there's not much work left. But when you are bowling it quicker, the shape has to be good but then it has to spin quickly off the pitch. It will only turn quickly when the seam is hard. It will be interesting to see if the seam is soft... the spinners are going to struggle. If it's going to be hard, the England spinners will be in the game.
Part two of the interview where Panesar looks ahead to the India-England series will appear tomorrow...