Melbourne Test – Review

Australia beat India by 337 runs to take a 1-0 lead in the Border Gavaskar Trophy on Day 4 at Melbourne. The story of Day 4 of the Boxing Day Test was much like that on Days 1, 2 and 3 – Australia dominated. India were outclassed with both bat and ball in this game.

Reports will suggest that the Indian bowlers did well. But on a suspect wicket, Australia managed 40.82 runs per wicket (694/17 in the match) against the Indian bowlers at almost 4 runs per over. How many sides have won Test matches after conceding those many runs? When India batted they encountered a bowling and fielding unit that was relentlessly top class. The Indian batsmen never mastered Stuart Clark and Brett Lee, and Mitchell Johnson was able to bowl well enough to keep the batsmen quiet. The slow outfield further accentuated the difference in fielding level between the two sides. The current Australian side is possibly the greatest all round fielding side in Test history. Symonds, Clarke, Hussey and Ponting are all world class fieldsmen in the Jonty Rhodes class. Bradley Hogg is not far behind. Brett Lee is probably the finest fieldsman amongst the fast bowlers of the world. Mitchell Johnson is probably a better fielder than any Indian barring Yuvraj Singh and Sachin Tendulkar. It’s easy for Australia to hide Stuart Clark in the field. Only Tendulkar and Yuvraj amongst the Indian top order have an eye for the quick run comparable to any of the Aussies.

These are just all the generic realities which were in evidence in this Test. In addition to all these shortcomings, India’s most dependable batsman overseas finds himself in a terrible bind form wise. He can get the ball off the square. What’s more, India have asked him to open the batting! This gets him stuck, and also gets the other batsman stuck. Whats more, with his tenacious desire to not throw his hand away, he prolongs the agony for himself and his side, and allows the opposition to get on top. Any bowler will tell you that the best possible thing to do is to bowl at a batsman who is out of form and can’t get the ball off the square. Further, they are uncertain of their bowling combination. Harbhajan Singh is not quite the bowler he once was. RP Singh has looked ineffective. Further, they lost an important toss on an iffy wicket (more about the wicket later).

This series is looks like it will go exactly as every other home series under Ricky Ponting’s captaincy has gone for Australia – an easy triumph. Ponting has not lost a single Test match as captain in Australia. This is now his 4th home season at the helm. What do the visitors do from here?

The Indian strategy was always going to be to try and stay with the Aussies, especially in the first innings and to wait for a moment to sneak into a potentially winning position somewhere. They have failed to do so at Melbourne. The turning point was Tendulkar’s wicket at 3/120 in the first innings. He was batting like a bomb and had managed to overcome the early advantage which the Aussies had achieved thanks to Rahul Dravid and Wasim Jaffer’s inability to rotate the strike (the quality of the Aussie fielding had something to do with this). Had he gone on to make a hundred, India might have accomplished their task of competing on the first innings. The key advantage of competing on the first innings, is that it puts the Aussies under pressure at the business end of the game. They would not put in the same clinical world beating flawless show that they did today if they had the pressure of the scoreboard and a realistic threat of defeat. India have to find a way to compete on the first innings.

Tendulkar, Ganguly and Laxman all look in reasonably good form. Yuvraj Singh and Mahendra Dhoni never got going, so no real conclusion can be drawn as to their position. Rahul Dravid is obviously struggling and his cause has not been helped by him being asked to open the batting. Wasim Jaffer has had one of his characteristically ordinary Test matches. Going by his track record since his comeback against England in 2006, he ought to make runs in atleast one innings at Sydney. Sourav Ganguly is batting too low in the batting order given his terrific form. VVS Laxman is not quite the batsman he was in 2003-04, and may not be suited to number 3. In fact, even in 2003-04, Laxman’s success came at number 5.

As i see it, India have only 2 realistic options going into the Sydney Test, given their squad and the current form of their players. In batting order, these would be

Jaffer, Karthik, Ganguly, Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Yuvraj, Irfan, Kumble, Zaheer, Harbhajan

OR

Jaffer, Karthik, Ganguly, Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Irfan, Kumble, Zaheer, Harbhajan, Ishant

The latter option would be a bold move – playing 5 bowlers, giving India a chance to compete with the ball, because let’s face it, India are not going to win too many Test matches conceding 41 runs/wicket. There are those who will argue however, that playing 5th bowler who is not exactly Wasim Akram won’t be much use from the wicket taking point of view. They would be making a good point.

RP Singh has not looked threatening and doesn’t quite possess the required variety of arrows in his quiver to make him a truly threatening bowler in conditions where the ball doesn’t seam all day. Besides, there is a sameness to the Indian attack with Zaheer and RP playing in the same eleven.

Harbhajan Singh’s form has been patchy, but India will just have to hope he comes good. It can’t do his confidence any good that the Australian left handed opening pair were able to sweep him against the break without once lobbing the ball up in the air. That he was bowling without a short fine leg, suggests that he didn’t expect the traditional miscue either. If the Sydney wicket is like it is reputed to be (Melbourne did not behave like it was supposed to), he might get an opportunity to come good. Speaking of wickets, if a Melbourne like wicket had been offered in India, one can imagine the furore that would have ensued against BCCI.

Using Ganguly at number 3 would break up the string of right handers which the Australians are able to bowl at in the current line up. Besides, he’s in form and has hinted more than once that he would prefer to bat higher up the batting order.

It would however be a mistake in my view to persist with Rahul Dravid opening the batting, especially given his current form. I suspect though, that India will persist with him. There is no pressure to leave him out of the playing eleven, not when the available option is Virender Sehwag, whose form if anything has been even more woeful. If Sehwag has to be played, he will be played at the expense of Wasim Jaffer. Sehwag brings his off breaks to the side in addition to the possibility of a swashbuckling, aggressive century.

The magnitude of this defeat dictates significant changes for Sydney. It may be too late from the point of view of the series by the time the Perth Test comes around. It remains to be seen how the Indian team management reacts. Will they gamble with Sehwag? Or will they go back to the tried and tested combination of Jaffer-Karthik and leave Dhoni out? Do they consider leaving Dhoni out to be an option at all?

Whatever the answer to those questions may be, the great lesson of the Boxing Day Test is that Australia are as world class as ever. Their batting is as strong as ever, as is their bowling depth. Their Test match fielding is unparalleled. All in all, they are the best team in the world by a long margin.

Well played Australia…..

Melbourne Test – Day 3

India’s only hope of ending Day 3 on even remotely even terms with the hosts was to bowl them out cheaply in their second innings. At 4/161, India seemed to have made some progress in this direction. Andrew Symonds came along and produced a quick fire 42 which reduced India to waiting for the declaration. India could not find their Stuart Clark – someone who could run through the lower middle order. Anil Kumble and Harbhajan Singh toiled manfully as India hoped to delay the Australian declaration. It was all in all a difficult day. When bowlers toil manfully, it usually means they’re fighting a losing battle. The bowling attack has been bested. India showed in the first innings of the match that they had the ability to keep the Australian batting in check. However, the manner of the Australian dismissals indicated that the Aussie batsmen contributed to the dismissals as much as India’s bowlers. When India batted, their batsmen were bested by the quality of Clark and Lee. Tendulkar and Ganguly apart, all the other Indian batsmen were beaten and dismissed. At the end of Day 3 of the boxing day test, it is fair to say that India have been outclassed with both bat and ball.

Australia added to the “aggression” myth by declaring with 8 overs to spare on the third day – a useless declaration in my view, with two full days remaining. These decisions seem to be mainly for public consumption. They reinforce the perception of a relentless juggernaut, not willing to concede an inch. If it was simply a case of wanting to win the Test match, they could have batted tomorrow until they got bowled out and still won it. After all, is anybody arguing that they may bowl India out in 188 overs but not in 150? If the declaration was supposed to have surprised the Indian batsmen, im almost certain that it didn’t. India knew at tea or even earlier that such a declaration was a possibility. Further, given Rahul Dravid’s terrible form, would it not have been better to declare overnight and let Dravid walk out tomorrow with the prospect of having to survive an entire day, without giving him the benefit of an easier target – that of having to bat out 8 overs? As it happened, he walked out, took first strike and played out the day.

Whatever happens tomorrow, what one hopes for is that India are able to make the Australians sweat for their wickets. Test matches are rarely won in 4th innings run chases which are the result of declarations. In fact, the only time in recent years when this has been accomplished successfully was when Graeme Smith made a quixotic declaration on the last day in desperate quest of a series leveling victory. Ricky Ponting on that occasion played a brilliant innings (in his 100th Test match) to win the game for Australia. So chances of an Indian victory are slim.

My hopes, strangely enough, are pinned on Rahul Dravid. He’s out of form, low on confidence and has looked quite ordinary at the crease. He is a great batsman however, and i want him to do well very badly. It would be a shame if he lost his place in the side if India lost tomorrow itself. He has shown a lot of character in resigning from the captaincy, accepting that he was not enjoying the job and that it had had an adverse effect on his batting. This is of course in sharp contrast to his predecessor who was clearly in denial when he was dropped in 2005. To this day, Ganguly maintains that “the manner of his dismissal” was not right. This of course begs the question – how would he have liked to have been brought face to face with reality? It would be a shame if Rahul Dravid were unable to find second wind from somewhere and come back from the brink. He is not given to such dramatic streaks. His has been a steady, relentless ascent to the pinnacle of batsmanship. He deserves a break.

It is with this naive hope that events will break in India’s and Dravid’s favor, that i look forward to Day 4 of the Melbourne Test. On Dravid’s accomplished shoulders lie the hopes of India in this series opener. They may be out of rythm right now, but they are also best suited to guide an Indian revival. There is on other suggestion. The in-form left handed Ganguly at number 3 would test the Australian bowlers and given them the challenge of bowling to a left hand right hand bowling combination. Promoting in form batsmen to number three has traditionally worked for India in the past as Ganguly will know.

India have been well and truly beaten so far in this game. With the weather set fair for days four and five, an inconclusive result is out of the question. Australias batsmen looked untroubled against the Indian bowling today, and India will take heart from that.

Melbourne Test Day 2

Day 2 began promisingly for India, with Zaheer Khan dismissing the last Aussie batsman for the addition of only six runs to the overnight score. Still, 343 was a good total. The moment of truth arrived when Rahul Dravid and Wasim Jaffer walked out to bat for India to face Brett Lee, Mitchell Johnson and Stuart Clark.

This was the first of India’s gambles for this Test, with a scratch opening combination. They had discontinued the Karthik-Jaffer combination. Karthik had struggled against Pakistan and a fifty in the middle order on the last day at Bangalore did not help him. This shift to Jaffer and Dravid as i wrote before was a risk compared to the tried and tested Jaffer-Karthik combination. If it worked, the reward would be significant too. Australia tend to be at the best when the ball is new, and one school of thought would say that this should be tackled by making the batting order deeper, rather than by propping it up at the top. Another would say that India should play the strongest possible opening pair to tackle them head on.

As it turned out, a woefully out of form Rahul Dravid was faced with an Australian opening bowling pair in crackling form. An inform Dravid might have taken to Mitchell Johnson, who bowled an impeccable line (to his field), but in his current form, with his judgement and confidence outside off stump in tatters, he was reduced to leaving everything he could. When he did try to attack, he played an missed many times, was dropped at third slip once, was caught at second slip off a no ball once, and had one successful stroke for two, and that too only when Johnson came round the wicket. It was as good as batting blind for Dravid. Sadly, he seemed to set the tone for the rest of the innings. There is much criticism about the tactics – that he wasn’t looking to push singles, but i don’t think it was a matter of him not trying, it was basically a matter of him not being able to. What we saw was a perfect storm created by the big occasion, a pumped up attack of not inconsiderable quality and an out of form batsman of great class being pushed into an unfamiliar role.

I looked back at the 2006-07 Ashes series for pointers. India are playing a side which has won 14 straight Test matches, and 5 of those came in the Ashes. McGrath and Warne were playing then, and so it was all presumably different. It doubtless was. But Lee and Clark formed the Australian attack in that series along with Warne and McGrath. I expected to find Warne and McGrath dominating the Australian bowling averages in that series. Clark and Lee together took 46 wickets at 24.06 in that series. Warne and McGrath took 43 wickets a 27.9. Clark led the Australian bowling averages, by a long way. He took 26 wickets at 17! Whats more, and this i always find to be the most telling statistic for a top pace bowler – he conceded 2.27 runs per over, to McGrath’s 2.4. Since that Ashes series, Brett Lee has now had 5 consecutive innings in which he’s taken 4 wickets in an innings. McGrath and Warne are clearly irreplaceable. They retired as all time greats and batting line ups around the world were happy to see them go. I just wonder, and this may be premature, whether in a few years time we will be waiting for the era of Lee and Clark to end.

Clark came on and decimated India’s middle order. He accounted for Dravid, Tendulkar, Yuvraj Singh and MS Dhoni. While Lee accounted for Jaffer, Ganguly, Kumble and Zaheer Khan. The brief period of Indian ascendancy was during the Tendulkar – Ganguly partnership. Both these players have spent most of this year either turning back the clock, or being engaged in a titanic struggle to find the ability and confidence to turn it back. Tendulkar’s battles (there is no other way of describing those innings) at Cape Town, Trent Bridge and the Oval gave way to his sumptuous ODI form against England and Australia and to his feast against Pakistan. Ganguly’s battling half centuries in South Africa and England lead to his run glut against the visiting Pakistan side.Until Tendulkar fell to one which misbehaved ever so slightly off the wicket from Clark, it looked as though we could sit back and enjoy yet another vintage stand. Both players looked in touch (in contrast to Dravid, who didn’t), and both players benefited from not having to bat with Dravid, something which Wasim Jaffer and VVS Laxman did. Neither VVS nor Jaffer were ever settled enough to be able to take some pressure off Dravid by taking on the bowling. Tendulkar might have been able to help him.

196 all out is a disappointing first innings score. India ought to have matched the Australians, or at least gotten within 50 runs of their total. As it happens, Australia end day two having taken 10 of the 20 wickets that they need to take, with a lead of 179. Australia lost 10/208 in their first innings. India can hope for a better effort in the second innings. A 4th innings chase of under 400, would be something to dream about for India. The bowlers will have to rescue India again for that to happen.

I don’t think Indian fans should throw in the towel yet. There is still cricket to be played in this game, and there is too much quality there for the result to be a foregone conclusion.

Melbourne Test – Day 1

Ricky Ponting won the toss and elected to bat against India in the first Test at Melbourne today. There was much speculation about the pitch, but India’s decision to play 2 spinners, Australia’s decision to play Bradley Hogg and Ponting’s decision to bat first, tell us what Ponting and Kumble thought about the wicket. It was not the lightning quick fast bowler’s paradise that Glenn McGrath had hoped for a few weeks ago.

Yet, in the first half an hour, the Australian openers survived on a prayer. They played and missed, edged a few, but were still there at the first drinks break. They kept going for their shots and went to lunch undefeated with a stand of 111. It was a typical Australian morning at a ground where they’ve won their last 8 Test matches. With the expectation that the wicket would ease in the aftenoon, there was much much speculation that Australia had pretty much set the tone for the series. They had a century opening stand at better than 4 an over.

The first hour after lunch changed all that. With aggressive intent came an air of casualness. Phil Jaques tried to push a seemingly harmless Kumble delivery out to mid off without getting to the pitch of the ball, only to find that the ball had sneaked past his outside edge for Dhoni to effect an expert stumping. Ricky Ponting came in and with 60 Test hundreds between the two players at the wicket for Australia on a flat wicket, things seemed to have gotten better, not worse for Australia. Zaheer Khan had other ideas however, for he produced the ball of the day to dismiss Ricky Ponting. It was a beauty from round the wicket, pitched on a perfect length which drew Ponting into the on drive only to seam away towards off stump. Ponting was squared up and bowled. Michael Hussey came in, and now India were faced with two left handers again. But the Australians continued to convey an casual air and Michael Hussey missed straight one from Kumble and was hit on the back pad. It was one of those split second decisions from the umpire. It was a 50-50 call, but luckily for Kumble, Umpire Benson seems to be the kind of Umpire who will invariably find in the bowlers favor if the batsman is hit on the back leg and everything else seems to be reasonably acceptable. Hussey may be forgiven for feeling undone since the ball appeared to be sliding past off stump, but he will know that once he was hit on the back leg, it was more than likely that he would be sent on his way. Michael Clarke came in and began circumspectly against some tight bowling. At the other end, Mathew Hayden was nearing his hundred and raced through the 90’s undeterred by the 3 wickets which fell at the other end.

The tight bowling however took its toll. Hayden had reach his hundred in 126 balls. With Clarke he shared a partnership of 60 in 20 overs, in which Clarke made 20(60). Eventually, the right hander’s patience ran out and he chased a wide one from the persevering RP Singh and was on his way once VVS took a smart catch low down to his right at second slip. RP Singh didn’t have his best day, but if he erred it tended to be towards a wide offside line, and not down the leg side. The stand with Clarke had spoilt Mathew Hayden’s rythm, and after scoring 24(58) after his century, he offered a tame catch to Sourav Ganguly at mid on off Zaheer Khan. There was a continual threat about Zaheer Khan’s bowling and he bowled better than he 3/93 off 22 overs suggest.

Once Hayden went, Kumble took charge. Symonds and Gilchrist threatened a typically aggressive stand before Symonds failed to control a pull shot of Kumble to be caught at mid wicket. It was the sort of dismissal you would see from a batsman who was being belligerent without really getting a measure of the wicket. One felt for a while during the Symonds-Gilchrist stand (they added 40 in less than 10 overs), that Kumble had missed a trick by keeping the 2 left arm pacemen on and not bringing on the off spinner while Gilchrist was new at the wicket, given the southpaw wicketkeeper’s troubles against India’s spinners in the past (Anil Kumble has dismissed him 7 times while Harbhajan Singh has done so 6 times). But Kumble’s plan worked and both Gilchrist and Symonds well trying to force the pace. This was one occasion when Australias trademark belligerence did not work.

Hogg and Lee, who are not traditional tail enders by any means (Hogg has a first class average of nearly 35, while Lee averages 21 with the bat in Tests) should have been exactly the type of tailenders to produce the kind of stand which has driven Indian captains to distraction in the past. This time however, the new ball accounted for Hogg and a Kumble special accounted for Lee.

Hogg was dismissed in the 87th over of the day. It would have been the perfect day for India had they bowled the Australians out in the 88th over. It would have meant that they would have been able to start their innings tomorrow. The Aussie last wicket pair had other ideas and their 25 run last wicket stand spoilt what would have been the perfect end to a fine first day for the visitors.

Anil Kumble and Zaheer Khan were the stand out bowlers for India. At the beginning of the day, India would have been happy to restrict the Australians to a first innings of less than 350. They nearly managed it with a rousing post-lunch come back . If the Aussie last wicket manages a further 25 runs tomorrow, then these last wicket runs could prove crucial in the context of this Test match.

The bowlers have delivered for India on Day 1. It’s over to the batsmen…

Melbourne Test – Where will Rahul Dravid bat?

Rahul Dravid opened the batting for India in the game against Victoria. The Indian team management is clearly toying with the idea of rethinking the batting order to accommodate Yuvraj Singh after his tremendous century at Bangalore. Given the composition of the Indian squad, they have a number of options available to them, assuming that they will play 4 specialist bowlers.

They could retain the opening pair of Dinesh Karthik and Wasim Jaffer. This would allow them to play 5 more specialist batsmen, assuming that Dinesh Karthik keeps wicket. The line up would then read Karthik, Jaffer, Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Laxman, Yuvraj. This will mean that Mahendra Dhoni misses out. Alternatively, they could drop Dinesh Karthik, and ask Rahul Dravid to open the batting. This disrupts the rest of the batting order, but gives India the opportunity to play Dhoni at number 7. Further, it gives India the opportunity to play either VVS Laxman or the in form Sourav Ganguly at number 3.

The first choice would be the conservative, safe option. It is tried and tested, and has worked well in South Africa and England. The second option would involve greater risk, and also possibly greater reward. The real question for India is where they want the wicket keeper to bat – Dinesh Karthik opening the batting, or Mahendra Dhoni at number 7. The Dinesh Karthik option would give them a deeper batting line up, but a weaker opening pair, while the Mahendra Dhoni will give a stronger opening pair, but a batting line up which is less deep. The first option would be considered “defensive” or “defeatist” and further fuel a growing perception amongst watchers the Kumble’s India are a conservative cricket team. The second option, where Dravid opens the batting, would be viewed as more aggressive and also fuel the legend of Dravid the “team-man”. It will be interesting to see what choices Kumble will make.

The wicket, which at this point is the great unknown may influence Kumble’s decision more than anything else. If Kumble and Harbhajan Singh both play, then India may well go with Rahul Dravid. Wickets on which Kumble and Harbhajan prove to be effective are likely to offer less help to fast bowling, there by making Dhoni more effective in the late order. If the wicket allows India to play 3 pace bowlers, then Dinesh Karthik may well play, as India will be well served with a deeper batting order. Dinesh Karthik in any case, has shown a peculiar tendency to favor overseas conditions when opening the batting. Hence, a fast bowler friendly wicket may engender a deeper line up, while a drier wicket will probably see India playing Dhoni.

There is of course the Sehwag option, which would be a big risk, given Sehwag’s lack of form and given the fact that he didn’t play against Victoria. That the tour match was rained off has not helped India. I would be very surprised if Sehwag played at the MCG.

The question at the end of the day will be dictated by the wicket. Dravid at number 3 would be the best possible option in my view. Most importantly it would be a vote of confidence in him. Sourav Ganguly though, is a man with a sense of occasion, and i wouldn’t be surprised at all if he bats at number 3 in his 100th Test match and makes a century in front of a full house at the MCG!

That would be some story….

India arrive in Australia

As tours go, this is not what Fred Trueman would have called a “cream and jelly tour” for India. Runs, wickets and victories will have to be earned the hard way, while the hosts expect to win as a matter of course. I suspect that public expectation and public opinion in India about this tour ranges somewhere between “we’re going to get hammered” and “we’re going to be very competitive”. This is of course amongst those who are actually interested in the cricket.

“Australia” is not the sparsely populated island continent in the Southern Hemisphere, it is gold in terms of all things cricketing for most cricket fans. The bouncy pitches of “OstraliaandSauthafrica” test our batsmen, as though playing on wickets in India or Pakistan or Sri Lanka is some how a lesser challenge than playing in these Southern cricketing paradises (i know it sounds funny in plural, but it seems especially appropriate that way). India have already shot themselves in both feet by producing flat, slow and low pitches in Kolkata and Bangalore. How could they not have thought about the MCG and Perth?

Then there is speculation about a drop-in pitch. This dropping, unlike the bird variety, can be controlled to a fine degree – or so everybody thinks. Drop-In pitches are prepared in what might be considered pitch laboratories, in controlled conditions, with the result that well-prepared pitches can be ensured, and more importantly, the behaviour of pitches can be effectively predicted. Since nobody really knows how this yet to be concieved pitch will behave, and since Australian Cricket people are not of the shy variety, there is plenty of un-shyness flying around. Glenn McGrath offered the ultimate McGrathesque opinion that Australia should abandon the idea of playing a spinner, and simply play four quick bowlers. Even he doesn’t know how many birds he killed with that one stone. Im certain he intended it to be a prolific effort. Andrew Hilditch (he who lost his Test place in the Australian side of the mid-eighties because he couldn’t resist playing the hook shot straight down fine-leg’s throat), now one of the three wise men for Australia, is worried about whether or not the pitch will yield reverse swing for Tait and co.! Stuart Clark, who actually played at the MCG (im not sure if it was drop in; im not even sure if drop-in is optional) a few days ago couldn’t hide his disappointment. He said the pitch was the kind where “after 10 overs of the new ball there was 1 slip and short covers everywhere”. One assumes this was due to the lack of lateral movement, and not because of an endless barrage of half volleys. Currently, its all up in the air.

Bradley Hogg is likely to play and Harbhajan Singh thinks he isn’t good enough to be bowling in a Test Match. I suspect that many of the Indian batsmen can’t pick Bradley Hogg from the hand. Stuart MacGill has opined that they don’t actually care what a spinner is bowling from the hand, but i think this time around they will have to be watchful. The difference between Test and ODI cricket though, is that in ODI cricket, with the field spread, if a spinner bowls 3 half volleys and 3 good deliveries, it is entirely likely that the three half volleys will be tapped to the deep-set straight field for singles and the three goodish length balls will go to cover or mid-wicket and be “dot-balls”. In Test Cricket, thats a bad over, for at least one of the three half volleys is bound to be hit for four, and the six balls are likely to convey absolute dominance of bat over ball. Hogg will have to overcome this, and i suspect this is what Anil Kumble was referring to when he said “Test Cricket of course is a completely different ball game”.

The Indian pace attack is nondescript as usual. I wonder when we in India will find our Stuart MacGill who will finally admit that the Australian batsmen don’t really seem to care what the Indian pace attack delivers. This time around though, the Australians may be in for a surprise. Zaheer Khan was brilliant in England and was reliably accurate against Pakistan until he broke down. Irfan Pathan worked up a surprising amount of pace against Pakistan at Bangalore, if the admittedly erratic speed gun at the Chinnaswamy is to be believed, and RP Singh will hopefully be fighting fit come boxing day. Whats more, even if one of them is not fit, Ishant Sharma looked quite good and for once, i hope that the wishes of our “OstraliaandSauthAfrica” crowd vis a vis the bounce in the wickets is true. Of course, he might bowl short and wide and get hammered by the “cut and the pull” or the “horizontal bat shots” which the Australian school of batting seems to thrive on. For once though, India will travel to Australia with a pace attack which has actually won a series for India in overseas conditions. It must bring higher expectations, though if Australia make 500 in each of their 4 first innings, do you know who will be blamed for India not winning? It is to them that i now turn.

India’s middle order is on its 3rd tour of Australia. Tendulkar apart, the other three have improved with each tour. Ganguly, Dravid and Laxman struggled in 2000 (apart from 1 innings by VVS), but made 5 Test centuries between them in 2003-04. In addition to these four stalwarts, India have also selected that other marauder from 2003-04 – Virender Sehwag. He may feel slightly anemic right now, but if he strikes form against Victoria, it will leave Anil Kumble with a pleasant headache (apart from confirming Dilip Vengsarkar as one of the greatest hunch selectors in the history of India’s selection). Ideally, only one out of Dinesh Karthik and Mahendra Dhoni should play. With Yuvraj Singh and Virendra Sehwag (and his off spin) in India’s ranks, it would be silly to play both wicketkeepers in the eleven. Yuvraj is a better Test batsman than Dhoni. If Dinesh Karthik opens the batting, it might be possible to play Yuvraj Singh at number 7.

India will have to watch out for the left handers in the Aussie line up. Left Handers have done well against India in recent times. It is ironic that the greatest left hander of them all did not quite take advantage of this weakness. Mathew Hayden, Phil Jaques, Michael Hussey and Adam Gilchrist will test them. Then there is Ponting. Michael Clarke, if i could put it this way, is the weak link in this Australian batting line up. He of course made 155 against India at Bangalore on Test debut three years ago.

Realistically, one expects India to be competitive – to stay in the game and hope for a chance to break through the Aussie line up like they did on that amazing 4th day at Adelaide 4 years ago almost to the day (On 15th December 2003, Ajit Agarkar took 6/42 to bowl Australia out for 196 and set up a famous Indian victory).

Having conceded the Border-Gavaskar Trophy to Australia at Nagpur in 2004, this will be a formidable challenge – one worthy of India’s greatest cricketing generation.

Learning from the Australians…

There has been much talk in the press after the just concluded ODI series in India, about the Australian cricket team and their behaviour. Behaviour is a broad term – everything from comments made by individual players in the press to comments made (allegedly) by them on the field have been the subject of discussion. This is a peculiar relationship – for on the one hand we seem to find nothing good about the Australians, and yet, which is the one team which Indian fans would like India to be like? Australia. Every shortcoming – real or percieved is attributed first to the Indian “system”. This is followed by offering the the Australian “system” as an example of how things should be. “They have an assembly line of players”, “their system makes them a strong team” – “we should field like the Australians”, “we should drop our batsmen and bowlers and replace them with players who can field like the Australians do”…. and other refrains are one stop solutions to the “problems” that plague Indian Cricket.

Yet, in terms of behaviour, the “ugly” Australians are not good role models. This seems to become the accepted point of view every time they hammer us (and defeat some of our weaker players in the mind). Our crowds try to impose from the stands what our players cannot with bat and ball. In doing so we end up revealing ourselves in the worst possible light. We end up losing not just the game of cricket, but our self-respect along with it. Andrew Symonds came to India, batted like a God, toyed with the Indian attack and won the series for his team. The best we could offer was a racist taunt in what is supposedly the cricket capital of India. Clearly, the ugliness lies on our side of the boundary rope.

It is my contention that nearly all of the general reactions to the Australians are without basis. The Australians are no better or worse than any other team in terms of on-field behaviour. Their success has little to do with their “system”, just as our defeats have little to do with ours. The aspiration to be like the Australians is in my view unrealistic as well, especially if it means looking, behaving and playing like them. The first suggestion is in my view self evident if you accept that winners usually have more to say than losers. Since the Australians win more, they eventually have a better record to defend and therefore have more to say. So when Ponting says that Australia “want to win every game, and will aim to do in India as well” – he’s merely stating what is a fairly realistic goal for this Australian side. When his players make pointed observations about the opposition, they put their records on the line, and nearly always back up their words with bat and ball. So they win more, and they say more…… and everybody hates their guts. It doesn’t mean they are “ugly” – it means that they are successful.

My second contention probably goes against the grain much more fundamentally. The Australians are a “great” team. Their success is down to this greatness rather than to any method. They are blessed with once in a generation players in atleast 5 different positions – making them a hard team to beat on the best of days. Gilchrist, Ponting, Hayden, McGrath and Warne are all very special players and Australia have been lucky to see them emerge at the same time. The lasting impact of this kind of quality is that other players aspire to be like them. They create models of extraordinary success – breaking new ground and setting new, higher standards. It has happened in India as well. Tendulkar emerged and changed the whole outlook of batting in India – from Gavaskarean orthodoxy (Sandeep Patil and other aggressive batsmen were viewed with less than total favor, even though their talent was beyond question) to a more aggressive model of batsmanship. He pioneered modern one day batting in India and in the last few years, aggressive opening batsmen are dime a dozen.

Do “great” teams emerge from great systems? There is no evidence to suggest this. The great West Indian teams of the 1960’s, 1970’s and 1980’s emerged inspite of the fact that no “West Indian” system existed. Players emerged from their local clubs – raw, ridiculously gifted, hungry for success, and honed their skills in English county and league cricket. Was English county cricket as a system producing great English teams, while it was shaping great West Indian teams and tremendous Pakistani talent? No. The West Indian greatness was down to the extraordinary gifts of a handful of cricketers. They were lucky enough to see these players emerge with regularity for nearly 25 years. When that talent dried up, especially in the fast bowling department – West Indian decline set in. If systems were all that were required to produce “great” cricket teams, then the current English team, with their supremely well honed system should have been atleast as good as the Australians. But they are not – not by a long way. If systems were all that were required to produce quality, then England had no business losing to India (no system whatsoever) this summer, even without Andrew Flintoff and Steve Harmison. Was Bradman’s team of 1948 the product of a “system”? Bradman himself was nearly 40 years old at the time – no “system” would have allowed a 40 year old to captain a cricket team on an important tour.

“Systems” keep teams competitive at best. “Great” teams are the product of great, extraordinary talent. This is what we can learn from the Australians. Australia’s lesson to the world is not about “winning” – it is about the wonderful value of talent. India cannot be Australia or Bradman’s invincibles or Lloyd’s West Indies – those are fake targets. The results India achieve are commensurate with the ability that they possess in their ranks.

Getting riled up about insufferable Australian behaviour is pointless. We can take heart from the fact that it is almost certain that every Australian fast bowler will not be McGrath, that every Australian batsman will not be Ponting and that every Australian wicketkeeper will not be Gilchrist. At the same time we must remember that every Indian batsman will not be Tendulkar. This is what sustains sport and keeps it interesting, especially for those who follow it for its own sake, and not out of any patriotic angst.

Australia will inevitably climb down from their current lofty perch. Will we then claim to want to be like the crack “system” of the post-Australian era? Or will we sit back and enjoy the amazing talent showcased in international cricket, without obsessing about India winning?

Are we missing the whole point of sport by insisting that India should win every time? When this drives us round the bend to the point where we collectively abuse opposition cricketers, does the “passion” show signs of going sour?

If we can begin to address these questions, instead of splitting hair about the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the Mumbai crowds behaviour, or racism and other such loaded concepts, we might just have learnt the most valuable lesson that the Aussies have to offer.

Australia v India: The series in review…..

India beat Australia at Mumbai. It was a dead rubber, and most people will not attach too much significance to the result. However, there were a number of significant things about the result and the game which point to larger themes, and so it is worth discussing the last game for a moment in the series review.

India were lucky to win. The rub of the green went their way. At least 3 Australian batsmen fell to errors which India did not induce or even do anything to deserve (Gilchrist, Symonds, Hogg). India’s batsmen had a lot of luck with outside edges, inside edges, plays and misses – something that points to poor Australian luck, simply because they induced all those edges. It points to the high quality of their play – of their bowling in particular, that they were able to induce those many errors. Contrast that with Indias effort. Zaheer Khan had a good day, but RP Singh seemed to struggle to control the swing. Inspite of the promise of swing and seam afforded by the unique Wankhede conditions, Australia reached 60 within the first 10 overs! Without Murali Kartik’s midas touch (Kartik, Australia, Wankhede – theres something there ), India appeared to have blown this ODI game as well. With the bat, at 6/64 im sure many people were wondering about the wisdom of leaving out Rahul Dravid (out of form or not).

The amazing thing in this game was that India were competitive, inspite of so many of them being so sloppy and so many of them being bested. It points to the importance of the successful bowler. A successful bowler on a good day can dismiss half a side very cheaply – a successful batsman on a good day, rarely scores half the runs that his side makes. In fact, in over 2600 ODI games, a batsman has score 50% or more of his teams runs only 80 times. On the other hand, there are 180 instances of bowlers taking 5 wickets in an inning if you consider only those bowlers who have done so atleast twice in their career. I couldn’t find stats for bowlers who have done it only once in their careers. So it can be safely said that there are more than 180 such instances. A team has lost inspite of a bowler taking a 5 wicket haul only 46 times. So a 5 wicket haul by a bowler means that his team has at least a 75% chance of winning the game. Of the 80 instances in which one single batsman has made atleast half the total numbers of runs by his side in the innings, only 31 result in wins, while 41 result in losses (with 8 no-result/tied games). So the corresponding win percentage is 39%.

So, it appears that bowlers, in purely cricketing terms are the true individual superstars – the most important playmakers. There is a perception in India, that batting is glamorous, while bowling is not. This perception is usually blamed for the fact that we have poor bowlers. This seems to be a classic case of putting the cart before the horse. Public perception of glamour does not determine what discipline a cricketer chooses to excel in. His heroes do to a great extent. So the quality of Sachin Tendulkar’s play, or Rahul Dravid’s play or Sunil Gavaskar’s play has set a standard, which cricketers can aspire to. Amongst spin bowlers – there are role models, even though these role models are fast fading away into history. Kumble will remain a colossus. But even so, the general standard of spin bowling in India can be said to be reasonably high. This is largely due to the fact that not all teams in the world can boast of a decent spin bowler. Amongst pacemen, there are no comparable role models.

What this series points to, is that the current India side is fundamentally a good ODI side. They possess most of the ingredients, in terms of talent to be a competitive ODI side. If you consider the last 5 matches India have played against the other 7 top Test playing nations, they have won 18 of those 35 matches. If you consider only the last 3, then of those 21 games, India have now won 13. This is the same as the number of games Australia and SA have won out of their latest 3 games against each of the other top 7 sides.

This points to a couple of things, which Australia’s overall competence and their World Cup victory mask. The first is that Australia are not quite an invincible as they were even 3 years ago. This has as much to do with Australia falling a notch or two, as it does with other sides improving. What the year 2007 has shown is that the transition to Cricket 4.0 is now complete, with England coming on board. Skill levels still differ, but the approach to ODI cricket from all sides is quite consistent. Australia are better at it, since they pioneered it. But that advantage is on the wane.

India have overcome a number of bogeys in this series. They beat Australia for the first time in over 30 months, and more importantly have beaten Australia batting second for the first time in nearly 10 years. In fact, since India’s win at Indore in early 2001 (Tendulkar made his 10,000th run in that game and made 139), India have beaten Australia 4 times (including the two wins in this series) and lost 18 times. So, as far as India are concerned, despite the problems with the fast bowling (Cricinfo reported that India had lost the pace battle), some progress is clearly evident. Robin Uthappa has been a gain in the middle order and has shown a liking for the short cameo in the middle or late overs. He might be better suited to this role than to open the innings or batting at number 3, given his technique and his preference for front foot play. Irfan Pathan seems to have returned reasonably well. His batting did not come to the fore, but he offers crucial balance and enables the side to play 5 bowlers. Murali Kartik adds much needed variety to the spin bowling department. Harbhajan Singh, like Irfan has returned well, inspite of letting himself get distracted by some Aussie jaw.

If you really think about it – penultimate game was lost by only 18 runs. A half decent effort by the pacemen there would have given India a real chance of sharing the series with the world champions. Thats how close this series has been, and more importantly, thats how close the two sides have been, notwithstanding Australia’s more consistent pace bowling and superior fielding. Australia were without Michael Hussey and also missed Mathew Hayden, Nathan Bracken and Ricky Ponting at various times during the series. For India, Rahul Dravid has been out of form.

The Mumbai match, and the manner in which India won it, point to Australian fallibility and the overall quality of the Indian side. India were not overmatched in this series, neither were they exclusively reliant on a couple of players. Indeed, given the Australian problems with fitness etc prior to the series, and India’s terrific home record in the recent past, one felt that India were slight favorites to win the series. But India proved to be too erratic in the field.

Several crucial decisions will have to be taken in the near future and this Australian series have provided clues for that – Uthappa and Kartik have solved a couple of problems for India from the balance and variety of bowling point of view. Pathan, in my view has done well enough to go to Pakistan. Sreesanth and RP have not sealed the new ball slot. Neither has Zaheer, but it is unlikely that India will ignore his claim to a spot in the starting line up any time soon. Munaf has shown a glimpse of what he can do in the Irani Trophy. Fast bowling is clearly a problem area at the moment. The batting for the moment looks quite settled. Dravid’s form is a worry, but his place in the squad is not threatened in anyway.

The other important question – is that of the Test captaincy. Dhoni is not quite ready for the Test captaincy, and should not be a candidate for the job, because keeping and captaining at the same time in a Test match must be ridiculously difficult – a completely different ball game from Twenty20 or ODI cricket. Concentrating for 6 hours different from doing it for 50 overs or 20 overs. Besides, with Dinesh Karthik doing well opening the batting, and with Yuvraj Singh getting better and better by the day, India have a real choice of asking Karthik to keep and playing Yuvraj (or a 5th Bowler – Pathan) ahead of Dhoni. On the flat wickets in Pakistan, the latter may be a really good option.

The key questions in the coming weeks will refer to fast bowling and test match captaincy. The Australian series has settled a number of other issues for now….

Series defeat: Bowling flops again

Anand Vasu writes about the 6th ODI, which India lost by 18 runs to suffer their first series defeat at home since Pakistan won 4-2 in early 2005. India have conceded 280+ in 5 out of the 6 games, and in the one game where the batting failed, they conceded 6 an over in the Australian run chase. The new ball bowling has been ordinary and none of the new ball bowlers have distinguished themselves. That has been the sole reason for the Indian defeat. You can bring up Dravid being out of form, Dhoni’s captaincy decisions – none of those things have been significant.

This is easy to establish just by looking at the Australian side. Hodge has not distinguished himself, and the one time his bowlers had an off day, Ponting’s Australia lost. They field better than India, but the point is that with poor bowling, the effect of the fielding wears off. This is fairly straightforward as well – if a bowler bowls the occasional bad ball, and someone fields brilliantly to save a certain four, then pundits claim that “it adds to the pressure on the batsman”. This is an incomplete description, because what adds to the pressure is the fact that here was a rare scoring opportunity, where the batsman was denied because of great fielding. The operative word being “rare”. With poor bowling, the problem is that scoring opportunities are a dime a dozen (10 out of 12 – a faux statistic to be sure, but close enough). Therefore, the value of a great bit of fielding in the broader contest between batsman and bowler is diminished. It might be argued that poor fielding hurts poor bowling less, than great fielding benefits accurate bowling.

Dravid’s poor form and the fast bowlers poor bowling are not comparable problems. The former is temporary while the latter has become habitual, to the point where poor fast bowling is considered routine. Even if the wickets don’t assist fast bowling and the batsmen are of high quality (as the Australians are), the bowling can still be “good”. By this i mean, that Ponting and Gilchrist and Hayden and Symonds must surely be required at the very least to demonstrate their best form and their best skills in order to score runs at the rate that they do. There is a difference between going for 12 runs in an over conceding 2 backfoot cover drives played on the rise and two straight drives played on the up down the ground for twos, and going for 12 runs an over bowling wide half volleys and half trackers. The Australians have been consistently allowed the runs in the latter way, while the Indian batsmen have to score their runs in the former way – because that is the difference between the Australian and Indian bowling.

Compare Rahul Dravid’s poor form, which has been a matter of concern (though muted by respect for the great man), and Zaheer Khan’s performance in the last 13 ODI’s that India have played (7 in England and 6 in India). Zaheer Khan has possibly been the “best” of the three Indian pacemen who are had use of the new ball for India in those games. He has taken 11 wickets at 54.81, going for 5.58 runs per over. Dravid has scored 284 runs at 25.81 in that period – poor returns. But, has Zaheer Khan’s record invited the same scrutiny that Dravid’s has? In my view, Zaheer’s record in cricketing terms is worse than Dravid’s – he hasn’t taken enough wickets and he’s gone for too many runs. But, for Zaheer and India, his performance seems to be par for the course.

That is the issue. The fast bowling is consistently poor and the bar is set so low for them, that they are viewed either as hapless victims of batting bullies or heroic crusaders who are full of machismo – returning stares with interest.

Given the records of our bowlers, they should not be engaging even in eye contact with batsmen. Or maybe they should, because batsmen are likely to smirk at them and lose concentration – probably the best chance our bowlers have of getting them out! Andrew Symonds and his ilk, who talk the talk after performing on the field (Symonds scores in this series have been 7, 87, 89, 75, 107*, he also averages 41 with the bat after 176 ODI’s in the middle order and has a career strike rate of 93) are viewed as villains, while questioning jaw-jaw from Sreesanth supposedly amounts to putting him down! It is not surprising that the two loudest and silliest Indian bowlers in this series – Sreesanth and Harbhajan went for 120 in 16 overs for 2 wickets. India fell short by 18 runs. Inspite of playing 5 bowlers, M S Dhoni was forced to use his fifth bowling option for 6 overs – and those overs were cheaper than Sreesanth and Harbhajans – they went for 35. Harbhajan to a lesser extent that Sreesanth, because Harbhajan has at least established a record that commands some sort of respect.

I may be accused of going on and on about Sreesanth – but he happens to occupy one of the two most important slots in the ODI side – 10 overs of fast bowling (the other important slot is his new ball partner’s). Those must be bankable overs for a captain. Yet, for 13 straight games now, those overs have been liability – in Sreesanth’s case misguided, ill-focused, ill-mannered liability. It is not surprising that India have won 4 out of those 13 games and lost 8. Unless the new ball pair can be relied upon to bowl well, the other problems become irrelevant. Dravid will recover form, the the fielding is still quite safe (India don’t drop catches any more or less than any other team), but the new ball pair gives no indication that they know what they’re doing.

Unfortunately, opinion on this seems to follow the premise of the tipping point like most things. The “blame the batsmen and complain out athleticism” argument has been bandied about so often, that it has almost assumed the mantle of being the truth. Evidence suggests however, the the lack of quality in the fast bowling department has been much more perennial, and there is little quality to fall back on in the fast bowling as there is with the batting. Cricket suggests that quality or batting and quality of bowling are far more important than quality of fielding (or else Zimbabwe would be amongst the best teams in the world).

The value of quality fast bowling has to be considered when assessing performance. Just because India don’t have quality fast bowling, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t matter. Until this is realized, Symonds and co. will continue to make hay, Sreesanth will continue to look like a fool, and India will keep clamoring for “quality fielding in the inner ring”. India will also continue to lose, for sooner of later the quality of the batting will surely fall from todays dizzy heights.

2007-08 Cricket Season: The story so far….

The first skirmishes of the 2007-08 cricket season are nearly over. England have indeed turned the corner, continuing their impressive ODI year with a series victory over Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka. South Africa have won their first Away series victory against a top team other than the West Indies since they won in India (Cronje led them). India have reached a point in their home series against Australia where they can at best draw the series.

Inzamam Ul Haq’s career which had to have a sadly leased ending, ended without a bang. It was all set up on the last day, but the underrated Paul Harris snared him second ball. It also brought Inzamam’s career average below 50 – compounding the injustice on the great man. The last former captain to be selected for a game on the understanding that it would be his “farewell” game was Mohammad Azharuddin at Bangalore against South Africa, and he made a century.

Paul Harris was South Africa’s bowler of the series in my view. He took 12 wickets at 20.66 (the numbers matter – he took lots of wickets and took them cheaply). This in my view ought to get all those Indian fans who were so abusive of a couple of very skilled batsmen during the Cape Town second innings think. Harris is turning out to be a really good bowler.

India should have been favorites for the home series against Australia, but proceeded to concede 280+ in 4 consecutive ODI games (this is becoming such a habit, that nobody thinks conceding 280 is the result of poor bowling anymore), losing 2 of them (would have lost 3 if it hadn’t rained in Bangalore). Yet, typically, the debate amongst the pundits is about “carrying” the seniors. The way ahead apparently is to phase out the seniors to compensate for the poor, inconsistent showing from the fast bowlers – which is the weak link in the current Indian side. The one time when that weak link demonstrated that it was not quite so weak, India won in England. Contrary to phasing out the seniors, the idea ought to be to find ways to lengthen the careers of the seniors – by allowing them to pick and choose tournaments (ODI games, not Test matches), so that India don’t get hammered too often and yet give themselves the opportunity to find new players. That Australia lost the one game where they matched India’s bowling in terms of profligacy, should merely underline the fact that the bowlers have let India down in 11 consecutive ODI games now – 7 in England and 4 in India. Even by playing two spinners, and even if those two spinners bowl reasonably well (and they have), India cannot hope to carry two new ball bowlers and win an ODI game against good opposition.

Rahul Dravid is short of runs in Tests and ODI’s, after 7 phenomenal years where he established himself as one of India’s finest ever batsmen. It would be foolish and shortsighted to drop him in favor of someone who hacked his way to fame in Twenty20 and is not worthy of cleaning Dravid’s boots as far as serious batting stakes go. There ought to be no question of dropping him. Dropping Dravid won’t be the “hard” decision that so many claim it will be. It will be a silly decision, which will hurt India. This business of giving youngsters “chances” – is as damaging to the youngsters as it is to the Indian team. Spots have to be earned. If a young batsman comes along with 1500 runs in this year’s Ranji season and a century against a touring side, and then makes the squad (not the eleven mind you, the squad), that will be how it should be. Utthappa, Gambhir and co have done nothing to deserve Dravid’s spot in serious cricket. We have to realize the phenomenally high standard which has been set in the Indian middle order. Yuvraj Singh is approaching that standard. The Indian middle order batsman has to be amongst the best in the world. In my view, at the moment we have two candidates for middle order slots who are head and shoulders above the rest – Yuvraj Singh and Virender Sehwag. Both have proven their ability in international cricket and have a good claim on a middle order spot. Badrinath, if reports about him are true, may follow. But “isko bhi chance do” is a one way ticket to cricketing mediocrity. We ought not to confuse form with class and quality.

Speaking of quality, Munaf Musa Patel destroyed the Mumbai line up on the third day of the Irani Trophy at Rajkot to set up a thumping win for Rest Of India. Badrinath and Kaif didn’t make too many runs. Parthiv Patel made a terrific century, and we might soon see the bizarre phenomenon of an Indian side with three wicketkeepers in it! One has to commend the selectors eye – they picked him at a very young age as a prodigious talent, and even though his wicket keeping went downhill, he keeps providing evidence that he is above the level of the average Ranji cricketer. That Patel opened the batting is indicative of his clear eye on Dinesh Karthik or Wasim Jaffer’s spot.

England showed the value of quality fast bowling in Sri Lanka. Their bowlers rarely let three high quality batsmen – Jayasurya, Jayawardene and Sangakkara dictate terms to them, and their sustained accuracy brought them wickets and control on the run rate. Yet, these were the very same bowlers that Zaheer and co. out bowled in the Test series in England recently. Can we really refrain from asking serious questions of Venkatesh Prasad any more? It is time for India to find a head coach and possibly a replacement for Venkatesh Prasad – his public rant against Munaf Patel should have been the telling straw.

India tour Pakistan next, England and Sri Lanka play a Test series and South Africa and Pakistan play an ODI series. Pakistan have cleared the ground for Shoaib Akthar to be available for that series. The “one last chance” saga continues. It is amazing how everything else recedes into the background when India play Pakistan, even though it is true that this series is gradually losing its edge.

The biggest story in the last two weeks though, is Inzamam Ul Haq’s retirement. I leave you with Osman Samiuddin’s comment about the dazzling batsman’s reassuring presence. Several former players bid him farewell. An era has come to an end for Pakistan cricket….