India return the favor…

The tables were turned at Belfast today as it was Rahul Dravid who won the toss and sent the South Africans in to bat. The conditions favored the bowlers, and inspite of some inconsistent bowling from one end (RP Singh), the Indian bowlers made good use of the conditions. Runs were difficult to come by and it was RP’s inconsistency which prompted Jacques Kallis to attempt that fatal square drive. Kallis had been immaculate outside offstump up to that point showing great judgement of line and length. It is quite likely that had it been Zaheer bowling, Kallis might have been more respectful of that delivery. Ishant Sharma bowled like a rookie and his line and length was varied – to the point where “inconsistent” would be an inappropriate word to describe it. This was most probably not by design. However, Sharma did work up some good pace (much more than he did in the hot, oppressive conditions in Bangladesh). The South Africans put up a score on the board, thanks to the gritty Morne van Wyk and the classy Jean-Paul Duminy, with the accomplished Boucher providing the late impetus. The loss of early wickets meant the the South African’s could not attack the spinners as much as they would have liked to. Yuvraj Singh proved effective at the death and thwarted any South African hopes of a late surge of outrageous proportions.

When India batted, Tendulkar and Ganguly made great use of the easier conditions (compared to the first ODI) in the late afternoon. Tendulkar felt confident enough to unleash his horizontal bat shots against the South African pacemen, while Ganguly contributed gamely, inspite of being limited to the premeditated cover drive and some lofted strokes of the off spinner Tshabalala. This is the crucial difference between Ganguly and Sehwag – Ganguly seems to have the ability to ride tough situations unlike Sehwag and even when it is clear that his technique has been exposed, it is always apparent that he has a desperate desire to survive. Ganguly’s errors are purely technical and not temperamental – unlike Sehwag, who has acquired a self-destructive streak in his recent ODI play. A mini collapse followed Ganguly’s dismissal and it was left to India’s best ODI finisher ever to see them home. We saw evidence of Yuvraj’s steely temperament, where in even though he was not able to get the ball off the square, he stuck it out, even though it meant that an asking rate which was less than 5 twelve overs out, mounted to over 7 in the last 3 overs. In terms of the run rate, it was not a difficult run chase. South Africa lacked the Shoaibesque wicket taking menace which is required by bowling sides in circumstances where the run rate is a non-factor.

Today’s game confirmed my pre-series observation that the South African batting is a bit thin and that India would find it possible to secure a hard fought victory. If the side chasing wins again in the third game, it may not offer any real indication of the relative merits of the two teams. Let’s hope that the side batting first is able to win in the third game – that side, can say with confidence that it was the better team. More than a result, one hopes that both sides are able to pick the final elevens from fully fit and healthy squads. Reports yesterday indicated that some South African players have caught the flu bug as well.

Dale Steyn and Santhakumaran Sreesanth will add a new dimension to the third ODI. Lets hope they can make it. In the meanwhile, just sit back and wonder about 15,000 ODI runs – 11,927 of those as opener (another record he might approach quite soon – 12,000 runs as opener!), and 18 years of pure magic….

Wimbledon – From Sampras to Federer

These are the most important 8 minutes in modern mens Tennis. The great Pete Sampras playing Roger Federer in 4th Round in 2001. Also see this comparison between the careers of the two champions….

India v South Africa – 1st ODI Review

South Africa won the first ODI of the strangely named “Future Cup” at Belfast today. At the start of the day, India didn’t know what their final eleven was going to be, and they were not spoilt for choice. It was a matter of finding eleven players fit enough to play – and i say fit enough, not fit. In the end, they took field with 2 left arm seamers, an off spinner and a rookie leg spinner, in conditions where they would have fielded if they’d won the toss keeping in mind the conditions.

India lost the toss and were put into bat, and even though Pollock wasn’t playing, the South Africans still had a fairly strong (and more importantly – deep) seam bowling line up – Nel, Ntini, Langevelt, Hall and Kallis who average 27,23,29,25 and 31 respectively with the ball in ODI cricket (consider that india’s best bowler Zaheer Khan averages 28). In addition, they had the debutant Vernon Philander, who also bowls seam up. Sourav Ganguly was dropped by Kallis second ball, but with his leaden footed play, it was a question of when and not if he would be dismissed. Gambhir followed suit, and while Tendulkar was also getting beaten, atleast he seemed to display a better technique (and hence possibly gave himself a better chance of surviving). Dravid joined Tendulkar and the two ground out the bowling. Eventually their class came through, and by the time Dravid had begun to throw his bat, they added 158 in 32 overs. Thereafter, wickets were lost at the wrong time, and India ended up about 20 runs short of where they ought to have been after finding themselves at 204/3 in 45 overs on a smallish ground.

With two seam bowlers, it was imperative that both put in flawless performances, and that didn’t happen. The South African reply was a function of there being no real bowling threat that India could offer. It was left to the spinners to bring India back into the game. Without wickets with the new ball (de Villiers fell to an ordinary delivery), it was always going to be an uphill task. In the end, the South Africans made slightly heavy weather of what ought to have been a straightforward run chase keeping in mind the quality of the bowling – that can be put down to the fact that they don’t seem to play spin bowling as well as some of the other teams.

Much will be made of how Jacques Kallis played a match winning hand and his Indian counterparts – Rahul Dravid and Sachin Tendulkar didn’t, but the quality of bowling Kallis had to face ought to be noted. Kallis faced only 29 balls (out of his 116) from RP and Zaheer in conditions which suited those two, and was allowed to score on the leg side a dozen times. The rest of his innings involved facing spin bowlers (part timers and rookies included) to spread out fields. Is it any wonder that the South Africans completed the run chase?

With Sreesanth, Agarkar and Dhoni playing, India might have had a chance. As it happened, some fighting batting went in vain. This was Tendulkar’s 6th 50+ score in his last 12 ODI innings. It was Dravid’s 8th 50+ score in his last 15 ODI innings. Clearly, the pressing problems lie elsewhere. With must win games coming up, India must hope that the squad will get over illness issues as quickly as possible (may be they could mingle with the South Africans a bit – pass some of the flu over to their camp ).

Tendulkar is likely to face a lot of short pitched questions in England this summer. Batsmen can have many weaknesses, but somehow, being found out by short pitched bowling is a killer one – because it brings into question guts, temperament and all sorts of other issues, even if you are Sachin Tendulkar. In Tendulkar, we will see a great player this summer grappling with something that is a problem – and he will be more acutely aware of it than anybody else. You will see technical adjustments, tactical decisions (he may eschew the hook shot all together) and in general, a studious attempt to cope with the problem. It will also bring plenty of questions about final and irreversible decline. The murmurs have already begun. Not all murmurs will be as graceful as that one though.

The lack of quality in the bowling in the meanwhile, will go unnoticed. Time and again this reality is exposed into plain sight. Its a strange situation – the batsmen are genuinely top class and everyone is waiting for their next failure so they can pan then….. while the bowlers are only moderately good and maddeningly inconsistent (because they are ordinary), and get decent press. In a queer sort of way, i guess the press and the public do accept that the Indian bowling line up isn’t very good.

You may not see victory in Belfast, but you sure will see fight… the question is, can you identify it without getting washed over by the lack of success?

A Commentary error on Cricinfo

This is Cricinfo’s description of Tendulkar’s early dismissal in todays game against Ireland:

0.6 Whelan to Tendulkar, OUT, got ‘em! Whelan you beauty! The debutant follows up the freebie with a full delivery outside off stump that nips through Tendulkar as he flicks across the line, what a wicket for the young Irish bowler in his first over
SR Tendulkar b Whelan 4 (3b 1×4 0×6) SR: 133.33

I don’t know what the cricinfo commentator was watching, but that was a straight full ball very much in line with the stumps, which Tendulkar tried to play too square, too early in his innings and missed. There is little argument that he ought not to have missed it – but the commentator in question here is probably well versed with the “Tendulkar vulnerable to ball nipping back from outside off stump” theory – so much so that he fell prey to it purely because Tendulkar was bowled!

Tendulkar opened the batting – a sign that he is moving back up the order keeping in mind the fact that the ball will do a bit early in the innings in England. Its an interesting insight into Rahul Dravid’s frame of mind – the cautious policy of holding Tendulkar back to control the middle order is being discarded.

ICC emulates BCCI – Punitive Action against Match Officials in the World Cup Final

The International Cricket Council today took a leaf out of BCCI’s book and punished its crack team of match officials, who officiated in the World Cup Final at Kensington Oval in Bridgetown, Barbados for the next ICC event – the Twenty20 World Cup. The match officials made a mistake by discussing the possibility of having to complete the game the next day, once bad light had stopped play with Sri Lanka needing 63 to win of 18 balls with their last pair in. The playing conditions for the World Cup, if followed correctly, would have meant that at this point, the match would be awarded to Australia, as the required 20 overs had been bowled in the Sri Lankan innings.

This is just like the Indian team selected to go to Bangladesh – some players dropped, a ‘young’ team selected, only for the dropped ’senior players’ to return for an ODI series against Ireland and South Africa. The irony of the ICC appointment is that these 5 official – Referee Jeff Crowe, match umpires Steve Bucknor and Billy Bowden, the reserve umpires Rudi Koertzen and Aleem Dar, would still be available for all international cricket between today and the ICC Twenty20 World Championships! So they are considered good enough to stand in Test matches and One Day internationals, but are not good enough to stand in a Twenty20 game. Does that even begin to make any sense??? Also, they deplete the ICC’s pool of umpires precisely when it is most needed – in a tournament where games come thick and fast.

Malcolm Speed offered the following pearls on this issue: “It would have been easy to let sleeping dogs lie and pretend nothing happened,……….. But the reality is that the playing control team made a serious and fundamental error that caused the final of our flagship event to end in disarray and confusion.” The irony of this comment was clearly on him – the CEO of the ICC which conducted its “flagship” event so poorly, that it is being called the worst ever World Cup.

Like the BCCI after India’s World Cup no show, the ICC finds itself on the defensive. And like the BCCI did in response, the ICC hits out at the easiest targets – umpires who misinterpreted the playing conditions in the World Cup final. While we’re at it, lets consider how silly the playing conditions themselves were. The stipulation was that while a reserve day would be available for a match, it would be used only if a “match” could not be “completed” on the originally scheduled day. A “match” was said to have been “completed” if atleast 20 overs of the second innings had been bowled.

Now consider the following situation: Suppose Sri Lanka had need 30 runs in 18 balls, with 3 wickets in hand, and had been say 3 runs behind on duckworth-lewis when bad light stopped play (while it is the batting side which usually determines whether play actually stops, the umpires can and have in the past stopped play if they deem it to be dangerous to the fielding side). Or – what if it had rained at this point in the game? The playing conditions would have stipulated that Australia be declared the winners, and then the same commentators, (lead at the time by Mark Nicholas) would have yelled and screamed at the ICC for having stupid playing conditions.

The fact remains that Ricky Ponting’s Australians (who are no strangers to winning), jumped the gun and began their usual war dance, the moment the Sri Lankan’s accepted the offer for bad light. This was bad behaviour – even unsportsmanlike conduct if you really wanted to be straightforward. The match had not been awarded to them at that point. It was a bit like celebrating an LBW decision before it has been given! This doubtless contributed to the confusion.

Yet, the ICC, instead of conducting a comprehensive review of the situation which would have involved studying the conduct of the players, the playing conditions, the umpires behaviour and numerous other events and actually learning something from the fiasco, simply seem to have engaged in assigning blame, the end result of which is that India and South Africa will play in an ODI series shortly, where two of the umpires – Aleem Dar and Billy Bowden, are not deemed good enough by the ICC to be umpiring in their forthcoming Twenty20 Championship.

The only difference between ICC and BCCI is that ICC’s decisions are declared and explained in articulate, grammatically and politically correct English, while the BCCI’s are communicated by amateur spokesmen in poor English. The content is the same. The inconsistency of the ICC is quite glaring – in that they only punish people when they make highly visible mistakes in high profile events.

India v South Africa ODI Series Preview

India play South Africa in 3 ODI’s in England – their first ODI committment of any note after the 2007 World Cup (Bangladesh are still minnows, who nowadays achieve the odd upset). The squads are as follows -

India: Rahul Dravid(c), MS Dhoni (vc), Ajit Agarkar, Gautam Gambhir, Sourav Ganguly, Dinesh Karthik, Zaheer Khan, Piyush Chawla, Ramesh Powar, Rohit Sharma, Rudra Pratap Singh, Shanthakumaran Sreesanth, Sachin Tendulkar, Robin Uthappa, Yuvraj Singh.

South Africa: Jacques Kallis (c), Mark Boucher, AB de Villiers, Jean-Paul Duminy, Hershelle Gibbs, Andrew Hall, Charl Langevelt, Justin Kemp, Andre Nel, Makhaya Ntini, Vernon Philander, Dale Steyn, Thandi Tshabalala, Morne Van Wyk

On paper, the South African batting looks thin, with only Kallis, Gibbs, de Villiers, Kemp and Duminy playing as specialist batsmen, supported by Boucher and Hall. Langevelt, Ntini, Steyn, Hall, Kallis, Philander form the fast attack, while Tshabalala is the great South African off-spinning hope. It is a typical South African team – the sort Duncan Fletcher, with his two skills thumb rule might have been delighted with. Fitness permitting, the South Africans will have 8 certainties in their line up – Kallis, de Villiers, Gibbs, Kemp, Boucher, Ntini, Steyn and Nel.

At the heart of the Indian side are Dravid, Tendulkar Ganguly, Dhoni, Yuvraj, Zaheer and Sreesanth. The other four slots are up for grabs. Dinesh Karthik and Rohit Sharma will contest the middle order slot, while Gambhir and Uthappa will contest the other opening slot, for the privilege of walking out to bat with Sourav Ganguly. Ramesh Powar is likely to get the nod for the spinner’s slot, while RP Singh and Ajit Agarkar are the options for the third seamers slot. This will be a difficult choice, for Agarkar is India’s most successful ODI bowler ever, while RP Singh has had a good tour of Bangladesh, and has also been selected for the Test tour.

This is a small ODI series, played for the same reason that all off-shore ODI series series are played. Morocco, Kenya, Kuala Lumpur, Sharjah and now Belfast. For India though, it is an important short series. A good effort here (a series victory), would be very useful from the point of view of the Test matches against England. Even though there can be no comparison between Test and ODI cricket, and the wicket in Belfast may have its peculiarities like most other offshore venues which might decide the ODI games, India need confidence right now. Beating South Africa outside the subcontinent would be a confidence boosting effort. Making runs against the South Africans, especially Steyn, Ntini and Nel would be good preparation for facing the tall English bowlers.

Belfast will be the 98th venue at which Sachin Tendulkar will appear in an international match. When you consider that ODI and Test cricket, in the 130 years that it has been in existence, has been played at a total of 156 venues in all, this says something about the man and his era. India will also be the first international side in many many years to undertake a major international tour without a cricket head coach. It is also the first time they undertake a major international tour with specialist fielding and bowling coaches. England is no longer unfamiliar territory for our cricketers. Almost every member of the squad has played cricket in England before, be it Tests, ODIs, County Cricket, League Cricket, A team cricket or age-group matches. For Sachin Tendulkar and Anil Kumble, this is their 5th tour of England after 1990, 1996, 1999 (World Cup) and 2002. Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly have been on all those tours except the 1990 tour. VVS Laxman was in England in 2002, as was Zaheer Khan.

The South Africans are no strangers to England either. Will the conditions give them an advantage? Conventional wisdom would suggest that this is so. I am not certain, especially given the lack of batting depth in the South African line up (Boucher and Hall could smash some quick runs and prove me wrong of course). Even though the South Africans reached the World Cup semi finals, i would give India the edge – if only because Shaun Pollock is absent.

I predict a hard fought victory for the Indians against South Africa. Before that however, they take on the Irish (beat Pakistan and Bangladesh in World Cup 2007). This is the second time that a major team will have played four consecutive matches against minnow nations. The first instance also featured India when they fielded an understrength side in a triangular against Bangladesh and Kenya (they did not win all games on the occasion – Maurice Odumbe managed to beat them at Gwalior). The Ireland match is a slippery beginning to the tour, not unlike the opener against Bangladesh in the World Cup, even though elimination is not an issue.

As Yuvraj Singh noted, it is important that India start well…..

Inzamam interrogated.. a disgusting spectacle..

Inzamam Ul Haq, a great batsman and one of Pakistan’s more successful leaders, who brought some stability to Pakistan cricket after it had been disrupted by 9/11 more fundamentally than any other thing could (teams were refusing to even play in Pakistan), faces an interrogation which would be deemed offensive in any civil discourse. The subjects are usual laundry list of drivel that is propogated in the subcontinent. and Inzamam sadly is too nice and too courteous to tell the interviewer exactly where to go….. i can imagine what Rahul Dravid might have done in the face of similar questions. It is a glimpse into what every TV channel in India must have been itching to do after the world cup.

I have nothing against accountability, and i definitely have nothing against straight talk and tough questions, but in my view when such an interview is planned, it is incumbent upon the interviewer to have an understanding of cricket. This particular interviewer displays complete ignorance, and merely seems content to hurl the accusations of the loudest sections of the public at former Pakistan captain.

I don’t know if it is the theme of this show to be rude (a bit like Ryan Seacrest on American Idol or his assorted clones (a good word for Anu Malik ) on Indian Idol), but seriously – this is no laughing matter.

inzi 1
Uploaded by badar2

inzi 2
Uploaded by badar2

I hope this never comes to pass with an Indian captain.

A great ode to Monty Panesar…

I found this on Youtube… its terrific.

Thought leadership…. Open Source Cricket……

G Rajaraman questions Sunil Gavaskar’s role in BCCI Office, and makes a fine point about conflict of interest. Sunil Gavaskar has in the past and even recently used information available to him due to his official position on BCCI committees in his newspaper columns. Yet, he seems to command tremendous respect at BCCI. Gavaskar is not alone. Most of our articulate cricketers – Gavaskar, Shastri, Manjrekar, Arun Lal, Bedi, Sidhu (articulate is the wrong word for him!) and many others make their living in the press, either by television contracts or by writing newspaper columns. The ability to articulate is important, indeed i would say it is a central and non-negotiable requirement for anyone seeking to study and then describe problems and solutions for our cricket. My intention here is not to deride any of our less articulate cricketers, but to point out, that when it comes to developing any system, communication is key – something they are not very good at.

BCCI as an organization, inspite of its enormous financial wealth is beholden to successful ex-India cricketers, because the involvement of these cricketers gives it legitimacy, apart from providing the best available source of cricketing know how in India. Yet, BCCI does not hire these individuals full time, because they can not and ought not to match ESPN and/or any other news organization when it comes to salaries. In today’s age, articulate ex-cricketers are worth their weight in gold, and they know it. A work around therefore is necessary, in order to harness the strengths of our time – plenty of ex-cricketers who have opinions and know how, articulate current cricketers, the internet, enormous amount of public interest and an upcoming BCCI website – to address the weaknesses of our time – lack of apparent initiative, name calling in the press, discussion about cricket being limited to the assignment of praise or blame, and BCCI’s poor public profile.

The best possible launching content for the BCCI website would be a wiki to be developed by the likes of Gavaskar et al. where they address (through columns, notes, questions, researched responses to questions) specific issues – such as the selection of the coach, the future of ranji trophy cricket, BCCI support for local cricket, upkeep of the maidans of Bombay and other cities, coaching, fitness etc. etc. etc. – this will enable communication of the best ideas, on a forum which the public can see – which won’t require wasteful committee meetings which use up a lot of each individuals time and do not allow very effective discussion.

The electoral process, which forms the basis of BCCI, is conducive to deal making, not collaborative work. Committees are instituted so that the resulting solution will be the better than one proposed by any single individual. These committees could work virtually, whats more, the work of the committee could be viewed by by others in a non-intrusive manner. This would enable constructive discussion – far more efficiently than meeting once every 5 months in a 5 star hotel can. What will happen then, is that there will be less scope for the press to speculate, and less blind name calling. Everything would be on the table.

It would also enable the most articulate minds in India to express themselves profitably, without clashing with their other more lucrative commitments. I would in fact go further and enable these individuals as well as members of the national team to write blogs….. but that is for the future…. . Transcripts of selection committee meetings could be posted online as well.

The BCCI’s problem is putting together information and communicating it effectively. This they can do very effectively by making it visible from the source. I suspect it might be their best hope when it comes to “tackling the media” as well. It might clips the press’s wings, because TV channels might get fewer “scoops”, but good journalism will still thrive. Loaded commentary (my pet hate – that note by Anand Vasu ) will be shown up for what it is (if his view is borne out, then that will be revealed as well).

Furthermore, this would be an originally Indian solution to the issue – and thus would be something where the BCCI would be a leader, rather than being a rich follower which it is at the moment. Gavaskar’s main wish, that we ought to do things our way (there is plenty of merit to this position in my view), will have been met.

Sir Ian Terence Botham

Cricket being mainly a commonwealth sport, with many cricketing nations accepting the British Monarch as their head of state (Australia, New Zealand, many of the Caribbean Islands), means that many distinguished cricketers are recognized by the Queen of England with a Knighthood. Cricinfo provides a list of Cricketing Knights. Bradman was the first Cricketer to be knighted for his efforts as a player. Ian Botham is the latest player to join this select group. He becomes the 5th Englishman to be knighted for his services to cricket after Jack Hobbs, Len Hutton, Colin Cowdrey and Alec Bedser. Bedser and Hadlee are the only bowlers to be knighted.

Indeed, it would be possible to build a brilliant team of Cricketing Knights, it would read something like this -

Sir Len Hutton
Sir Jack Hobbs
Sir Donald Bradman
Sir Vivian Richards
Sir Everton Weekes
Sir Frank Worrell
Sir Clyde Walcott (wk)
Sir Gary Sobers
Sir Ian Botham
Sir Richard Hadlee
Sir Alec Bedser

Lord Cowdrey would be 12th man. The side would be a bit thin in the bowling department, but with that kind of batting (and Sir Conrad Hunte joining Lord Cowdrey on the bench), there is little danger of this side losing too many Test Matches. The Queen of England has chosen a great squad!