The value of being a "profile player"

There is little doubt the if viewed dispassionately, Sachin Tendulkar’s reaction to being sawed off on 99 amounted to dissent. He first indicated to the umpire that he’d missed the ball, then walked away, then when he found from the English players’ reactions that the umpire had ruled in their favor, he looked up in surprise, threw his head back and let it sink in. He then walked away leaving nobody in any doubt that he disagreed with the call. It was only towards the end of this that his innate courtesy began to take over and by the time he had begun to walk back, he was Ok.

It is here that his reputation and his standing in the game came to his rescue. If he’d been say Gautam Gambhir reacting like that, Roshan Mahanama would have definitely hauled him up. But he’s Tendulkar and like every other player in the game, he has a reputation. Sreesanth and Nel have poor reputations i suppose, Shoaib has an iffy reputation, the ugly Australian tag hurts Australia, Michael Atherton is forever associated with dirt in the pocket, Ganguly with tardy overrates as captain. Ganguly’s is infact an interesting case. There was a time in the early years of this decade when Match referees used to watch him like a hawk. Then came a bit of a lull and he has now returned as one of the elder statesmen. Unless things get out of hand, most match referees are likely to take the view that there is little that Ganguly and Tendulkar can be advised about dissent.

It points to the few things -

1. That match referees, especially in the matter of penalizing players have become less controversial and consequently better at their jobs.
2. Teams have begun to understand the referee system better. For example, India have said nothing in the press about the umpiring. A few years ago, there would have been some indiscreet comments by an Indian captain or coach, or for that matter any captain or coach in the face of some of the rough calls. Instead, what we’ve seen this time is India having a “quiet word” about the “standard of umpiring” with the referee.

So all in all there seems to be better communication between the match managers and the teams. Things did get out of hand in the Test series and to their credit Vaughan, Dravid and Dennis Lindsay settled it exactly the way it needed to be. Sreesanth got fined for shoulder barging and he deserved it. In this second ODI Collingwood got fined for slow overrates and the rules suggested that England deserved it too.

All in all, in contrast to last years Pakistan series with headstrong characters like Darrell Hair and Inzamam Ul Haq who managed to make a pigs breakfast out of things, this time around all concerned have been sensible.

Most tellingly, Simon Taufel’s comment about being more upset about his LBW decision against Tendulkar at Trent Bridge because Tendulkar was a “profile player” was telling. It suggests that umpires and referees are not going to be wooden in their implementation of the playing conditions. Its a fine balance, and i think that the umpires and referees have got it right.

This is not to suggest that Tendulkar was not guilty of dissent. I suspect that if you lined up the ICC panel of referees, they would be evenly split in their judgement in the matter.

Its just that refereeing has evolved and seems to reach some maturity as referees become more and more experienced.

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….