What is the new Coach supposed to achieve?

If Captaincy is difficult to gauge, then Coaching is even more so. Captaincy takes place in the full glare of the playing field, coaching happens the in the dark confines of the dressing room and in the lonely arena of net practice. What does a coach do? How do you differentiate a good coach from a bad one? What can a coach contribute to a side, and more importantly what can’t he contribute? These are questions which have not been answered satisfactorily so far and indeed are probably not being asked, except rhetorically.

Harsha Bhogle suggests that a quiet achiever is what India needs, not a messiah. Sunil Gavaskar, a member of the committee which is charged with recommending a coach to the President of BCCI, apparently feels that an Indian should get the job this time around. The players feel exactly opposite. This in itself seems to be an unhappy situation – for one of the two parties is going to be aggrieved in the end. I see no mythological Narasimha-like being on the horizon who can be neither Indian, nor foreign, neither quiet achiever, nor messiah. What is also clear, is that whoever takes up the job next, is going to be human – even Dav Whatmore, the miracle worker from Sri Lanka and Bangladesh is capable of a colossal yahoo like he did recently in the Mirpur Test – c0-authoring a decision to field first – which meant that his side spend two days in the field for 3 wickets. Does that become a black mark against Whatmore’s tactical acumen? Sure it does.

A good coach will not be selected, if his role and his goals are not clearly understood by all parties – the coach, the team and the BCCI. The selection of a new coach has to be part of a larger overhaul of the Domestic Cricket and the international calender. The BCCI has the means to do this – they do not lack money or clout. One wonders whether they realize that this is necessary. The problem with Chappell, and to a lesser extent with John Wright (and this extent was in my view a function of their individual personalities) was that their goals and their plans were not supported by BCCI. There was no coherent effort from BCCI to buy into and support Chappell’s plans for player development. When the going got tough, BCCI and the Vengsarkar Selection committee – for better or for worse, shrank from standing by their coach’s policy. Not only that, there was no significant communication between the BCCI, the selectors and the coach which ensured that they were all on the same page – indeed, there was no page to be on.

A Coach alone will not make India the best team in the world – if that is the expectation, then a quiet achiever or a big name – both will be viewed as messiahs. Make no mistake about it, Wright was viewed as much as a messiah as Chappell was – the difference was that Wright did not carry the baggage of having averaged 53 in Test Cricket and did not have his own website. The decisions about domestic cricket, the national coach, the selection committee make up, the selection committee tenure, the international calender – these are not independent decisions which have no bearing on each other. Taken together as part of one coherent strategy, they can and probably will make India the best team in the world within a reasonable period of time. Taken independently, they will merely prove to be fertile ground for endless parasitical speculation until they lose steam and wither away.

If the expectation is that any individual will come along and turn this group of players into the world’s best, then thats unrealistic. Bobby Simpson, the first high profile coach of an international cricket team began a process which came to fruition only 13 years later, and that too only because of the serendipitous accumulation of extraordinary talent in Waugh’s team of 2000-2003 and Ponting’s subsequent team. It would be a mistake to assume that Indian Cricket can some how perform a miracle in a year or so.

Whoever becomes coaches, whatever his personality may be, will fail unless the BCCI backs him to the hilt – and that means addressing the domestic format, the international calender and ensure that more domestic cricket is played with Indian players participating – more reasonable international cricket is played (detours to Scotland should really be scheduled better than between an important tour match between the second and third tests and the third test v England). Thats more important than the identity of the person who becomes coach.

An Annual Cricket Calender – Urgently needed…..

Every now and then, an Indian captain complains about “too much cricket” or “crammed schedules”. These are interchangeable complaints and the ensuing sparring between the board and the captain usually covers these two issues. Now it has happened with Rahul Dravid and the undaunted Mr. Modi of the Sharad Pawar BCCI. The following is a count of Test matches and ODI’s for each calender year in this decade.

The numbers for Pakistan ought to be viewed in the context of the impact of 9/11 on Pakistan as a venue. There is some truth to Mr. Modi’s contention that India have not played more cricket than Australia or England. Infact, England have played more Test Cricket than India have.

The BCCI is a rich, powerful board, but seems unable to use this power and influence to establish a definite Indian Cricket calender. I agree that it is difficult, given that India share their season with every test playing country except England. With a well defined season, with some amount of cyclic regularity, will ensure that there isn’t the adhoc bunching of series with 18 month “seasons”, followed by 6 month breaks, which are then filled with off shore games.

Clearly, this has to be the most pressing need of the board, in addition (and possibly allied to) the revamp of domestic cricket. This would be a worthy fight for Mr. Modi to wage. Without this, every captain (or in some cases, the same captain every few years), will continue to complain, with undeniable merit, that the cricket schedule is too cluttered.

"Slow" Batting and the nature of Cricket Analysis…..

I was contemplating a follow up to the earlier ramble about percieved “flair” and “imagination” in Captaincy, when i came across this article about Tendulkar’s slow batting. It is my contention that analysis about a particular player/team is cricket is a function of how much is known about that particular player/team. Some teams are more minutely analyzed and written about than others, as are some players. These teams and players (they include most of the top test teams and most of the top players) therefore fall prey to stereotypes – because beyond a point, analysis refers to previous analysis and not current performance. Now, that previous analysis is invariably dipped in the euphoria of a great victory or in the despair of crushing defeat. The Cricinfo article is a classic example of an imagined stereotype about Tendulkar becoming the dominating reference point for discussing his innings against Bangladesh.

Bangladesh as an opposition were irrelevant – that was the expectation given that they were minnows, and that became evident during the series. They have only 2 players who can threaten good opposition – Mortaza and Ashraful, and Ashraful has serious problems with temperament. So, as a series to determine the quality of any Indian cricketer, this was quite irrelevant. Four Indians made hundreds. Wasim Jaffer’s was a typical understated innings – the innings of a seasoned first class cricketer. Nothing excites or bores him enough to disturb him. Dinesh Karthik was like a Cat on a hot tin roof, and like anyone on a hot tin roof, he exhausted himself very quickly. Rahul Dravid was the luckiest of the lot. He played the post tea and pre lunch sessions against a tired and demoralized attack and made the most of it (made 88 runs in the 37 over post tea session, if he had known, he could have joined Farokh Engineer in making a hundred in a session in a Test). Tendulkar played two consecutive sessions, and like every other player who did so, suffered in the process. The first session brought him 54(91) while the post lunch brought him 38(79). The post team session brought him 21(25). He was clearly tiring in the post lunch session and against fields set purely for containment on a slowish wicket, it was tedious going.

The Mortaza – Tendulkar contest was intriguing, in that Tendulkar was unwilling to hook the short ones. This was possibly due to the fact that the bouncers were not quick, indeed the ones that he left were loopy, there by indicating that it might have been hard to time a hook shot. It was by Tendulkar’s calculation an unnecessary risk. Increasingly, that has been the hallmark of Tendulkar’s play – calculation. His batting is extremely measured – mindful of his own limitations and constantly referring back to his own experience. His has been troubled by SLA bowlers before – bowling into the rough. The most intriguing contest in England will be between Tendulkar and Panesar. Panesar’s predecessor Giles was content to be bull-headed and attack leg stump from over the wicket – a SLA’s leg trap if you will, while Panesar, especially without the influence of Duncan Fletcher, might be unwilling to do that.

In essence, the Cricinfo article suggests that “this is not the old Tendulkar”. They are quite right. Today’s Tendulkar is not quite the rich mans Mohammad Ashraful that he was 10 years ago. If analysis involved what analysis should involve, then this reference to the Tendulkar of 1997 of 1998 might have been easily dismissed. When Tendulkar says that he plays for the team and that his role has changed, it seems to be ignored. The evidence suggests that he does indeed play for the team, and that he has changed his role, keeping in view his declining competence. What we are seeing in the case of Tendulkar is accumulated experience trying to compensate for the wear and tear of time. That in itself is rare.

Now, you might think that i am trying to paint Tendulkar’s efforts in a brighter light than they command, and if you have observed the decline in his batting as i have, then you would probably be right. But it is here that the crux of the matter lies. You might ask – If he is in decline, should he really even make the Indian side? Now, that is not a useful question – because his selection to the national side depends on whether or not he is better than anyone who he might be replaced with, not on whether he is as good as he was 10 years ago. Tendulkar is in decline, but ever the student, he is attempting to be a different batsman, and not just a lesser batsman. That suggests that he still really does want to play. Add to that the fact that he is still miles ahead (thanks to his experience and his understanding of his experience) of next batsman in India (barring Dravid), and it is clear that his place is not under threat. Put very simply, if the realistic range of results which Tendulkar is capable of achieving is superior to that which anyone else is capable of achieving, then that is the framework within which Tendulkar’s place and his quality should be discussed.

If you extend that to captains – the argument becomes very simple – any discussion about the quality of captains which ignores the realistic range of results which the batsmen and bowlers in the captains team are capable of achieving, does not do them justice. Because this range is a difficult and complicated reference, stereotypes cast in hackneyed prose are the norm. Thus Tendulkar is slowing down, Dravid the captain is unspiring and every other cricketer who ever achieved anything is one thing or the other……

Flair, Imagination and Captaincy

Rahul Dravid lacks flair and imagination. Ganguly had the personality of a leader. Ponting was a poor captain at the beginning of his tenure. Fleming has been a fine innovative tactician and captain. Imran Khan was a great leader. Sunil Gavaskar was a cussed, defensive captain. Mark Taylor was a brilliant captain. Steve Waugh was not quite so brilliant (in his case his personality as an individual cricketer more than made up for this in people’s minds). Every commentator, every fan… even people who are not particularly interested have an opinion about this.

Part of it is because the Captain and Coach are the faces of the side. When a team wins, its the match winning innings or the match winning bowling spell which gets the the plaudits – it is rarely the captaincy. When a team loses however, it is the captain and the coach who must come forth the face some fairly shrill music. The public’s ire is directed at the easiest target. As the most visible target, the Captain is also the most analyzed. His personality often defines how he is viewed as captain. Thus Brian Lara is invariably viewed as self centered and a poor man manager, Tendulkar was viewed as someone easily frustrated by the lack of ability and performance from his teammates.

In part, it is true that personality does contribute to the way an individual captains a cricket team – in the case of great players, their approach towards their own specialist skill may often guide their approach to Cricket. What seems to dominate however, is that their percieved personalities are somehow invoked in order to explain the results teams achieve on their watch – thus, a defeat under Ganguly was never because Ganguly was staid or unimaginative – it was invariably because the team looked “flat” on the day, while a defeat under Dravid almost always involves a line about “unimaginative, uninspiring captaincy”. Steve Waugh always took fewer risks than Mark Taylor and Taylor was always ice cool and in complete control in delicate match situations. Vaughan is more aggressive than Hussein was. When it comes to coaches, it is even worse, because nobody is able to place their involvement in events.

I cannot help but feel that these “personalities” are media created archetypes which tend to caricaturize cricketers – the image overtakes reality. Let me give you an example – Rahul Dravid’s great 233 at Adelaide is invariably described as “determined, steely minded…. marathon” – in my view it was one of the finest displays of classical strokeplay in recent times. Very few batsmen play the cover drive as classically as Dravid – with the full stride forward to the pitch of the ball, the ball played close to the pad. The same is the case with the on-drive. His square cutting off the spinners is the result of a masterful reading of length and the break off the wicket. He plays all the strokes in the book, and in that particular innings he matched VVS Laxman run for run. He reached his hundred with a slightly miscued hook for six for Jason Gillespie. Yet, the one thing Dravid’s innings are never known for is decisive attacking intent – which is the hallmark of his batting in my view. The very fact that he attempted a hook off Australias best bowler bowling with the new ball is a signal of the intention to dominate. Take Brian Lara – his innings are invariably strokefilled, but most people ignore the fact that he has unbelievable fitness and powers of concentration – and a very tight defense, which are as crucial to his run making as his strokeplay.

This is just batting – which is far simpler and probably involves fewer dimensions than captaincy. Captaincy is truly complex and is in essence a managerial and directorial task. Success in captaincy is a function of other peoples performance. By definition it is a function of other people’s efforts. Now, obviously a captain has an influence on that performance – in the sense that some captains inspire more loyalty and therefore greater effort than others (all though i would venture that in these instances it is the entire situation, of which the captain is a part – that inspires that little bit extra from the players).

What i want to do, is put in perspective the captain’s situation in international cricket – he wields limited influence compared to that by each individual batsman, bowler and fielder – the captains effort is simply to manage the show. Can captaincy influence the outcomes of games? Sure it can – if gambles pay off. Are some captains better than others at weighing the odds – i have seen no evidence to suggest that any captain’s ability to weigh the odds in favor of or against a particular decision is better or worse than any other captains. Every international cricketer can read a cricket match better than almost anybody else who is watching it. But every captain may not necessarily have the means at his disposal to effectively deal with that read. This is in fact true in most cases. Captains end up making the best of the resources at their disposal – but they only have the resources at their disposal and no more. So a reference to Rahul Dravid as uninspiring and unimaginative because Zaheer Khan, RP Singh, VRV Singh and Ramesh Powar did not possess the wherewithal to break the Mortaza – Hossain stand, is a bit silly, and more than a little bit unfair. One look that these bowlers records will reveal that they haven’t had a great deal of success with the ball in Test Cricket. Or commentary about Ricky Ponting and Steve Waugh’s captaincy, as compared to Taylor’s – even though both have achieved far superior results compared to Taylor is simply the result of a stereotype surrounding their respective personae.

My point is – if batting is so sadly misunderstood – then, the next time you read about someone making an observation about any captains “captaincy” or saying that such and such captain is “unimaginative and uninspiring”, take a moment and think to yourself whether such a sweeping comment is at all reasonably possible. I enjoy reading and writing about cricket as much (probably more) than the next guy, but i am weary of commentary tending to characterize what a player is about. Stereotypes exist in newspapers and news-magazines, not on the cricket field…..

Chittagong Test Review….

The Chittagong Test ended in a draw, only 219 overs of play was possible out of a possible 540 overs. India went into the Test with nothing to gain and everything to lose. A fight put on by Bangladesh would have reflected poorly on India and the Indian captain’s tactical acumen. The perception that this was somehow a “win or else…. ” series for India, in the immediate aftermath of the World Cup is hard to dismiss.

Add to that, we had an already rookie (albeit promising – Munaf and Sreesanth are good bowlers) Test bowling attack further depleted – first by injuries to Sreesanth and Munaf, and later by illness to Anil Kumble during the match – which a prescient Team management had accounted for by picking 5 bowlers. If you look further at the Indian side, it might have been hard to determine whether it was India or Bangladesh who were the minnows. A makeshift opening combination – where the specialist opener got a pair, a pace attack where the established first team bowler bowled rubbish and one of the fill in bowlers bowled superbly. It would be safe to say that the Test squad was in disarray – thanks to selection, injuries and form and a traditionally weak pace attack.

And yet, India were able to declare twice in the game – which just goes to show what a mismatch it was against an upstart opponent. Bangladesh are at a peculiar stage in their development. They have seen glimpses of what their future can be and stray elements of their team – like Mortaza and the impressive Shakibul Hassan promise a great deal. Yet, on the other hand, they are on the whole a very weak side and the self-belief/arrogance on display from the likes of Mohammad Ashraful (an under performing disaster if there ever was one) means that they are currently sprawled across the chasm between the wannabe Test team and the actual Test teams. The young Shahadat Hossain seems to have the ability and the attitude worthy of a pace bowler, and indeed in this game, new ball bowling was the one area where Bangladesh might have infact enjoyed an edge over India. Of course, this was masked, and masked effectively, because Mortaza and Shahadat came up against Tendulkar and co., while the Indian pace attack was able to scalp Habibul Bashar and Mohammad Ashraful and co. The contest is hard to describe, because it is hard to identify in the first place. The Indian batting seemed to play within itself, and the team selection betrayed a patched up Test team (that was a job well done).

In terms of the numbers – Tendulkar and Ganguly helped themselves to runs, and in Tendulkar’s batting one sensed a little bit of the certainty which has been apparent since the overseas leg of the 2006-07 season began in South Africa. He is such a superb player – a master – that it is hard not to sit up wondering what he might achieve in England later this year. Hopefully, the flurry of injuries are a thing of the past – the vice-captaincy should help him get back that edge which seemed to be missing in his play. He is now clearly one of the elder statesmen in the game and his demeanor on the field betrays it. Ganguly made runs, but if you watched those last 20 runs that he made on the third day against Shahadat and Mashrafe, full of desperate pull shots and bobbing and weaving….. culminating in that involuntary 100th run, before he was dismissed trying to pull – it is hard not to wonder he might just be the tonic Steve Harmison needs to return back to his best form. I can’t see England trying to dismiss him outside the off stump. It is easy to picture the field – 2 slips, gully, cover point, a cover (squarish), a short leg, a backward short leg, a squarish mid-wicket and a fine-leg placed for the skied hook/pull. There will be no mid-on and no mid-off, because there will be little in Ganguly’s good length area. With Ganguly’s inability to push a single to save himself, he will have to wear a lot of the bowling to score any significant runs. But, with his runs in SA and now the Chittagong hundred, he can’t be dropped and he has no choice but to face the music. What Ganguly can look forward to in England is Monty Panesar and the expectation that spin will come to the fore more than usual in the late summer this year. Dinesh Karthik will open the batting for India at Lord’s. He is being persisted with, and he has done enough to merit atleast 3-4 more Test matches.

Mashrafe bin Mortaza would walk into any Test team in the World bar Australia and a full strength England. Thats how good he is – he looks like he was born to be a sportsman and has a terrific ability to think things through as was evident during his expert handling of Ramesh Powar’s teasing offbreaks. It was not until Tendulkar came along and he and his partner couldn’t read the googlies that one felt he looked vulnerable. The wicketkeeper Mashud has a disastrous come back and i wonder why Mushfiqur Rahim is still sitting on the sidelines in the Test team. Ashraful is the most talented batsman in Bangladesh and has the skill to go with his talent but somehow you don’t feel that he will make too many runs consistently – the occasional great innings – sure. Habibul Bashar is going to retire after this series and Bangladesh will have a new team management, what with Whatmore retiring as well. Bashar and Whatmore have been good for Bangladesh and hopefully the next management will complete their journey into to league of the top Test playing teams in the world.

For now though, the current Bangladesh squad have one more Test to play against the current Indian squad.

And intriguing final day…. rain permitting….

Rain has already played spoilsport at Lords – not that the English bowling achieved anything significant in the 22 overs of play in the 4th innings – it hard to say that the rain saved the West Indies, with them at a healthy 0/89 when play ended.

The Chittagong Test has been set up intriguingly. Of the 540 overs of play possible in a Test, only 180 have been played yet, India are 193 ahead and if a full days play is possible on day 5 (98 overs), then i can see India batting for another 25 and leaving Bangladesh 70 overs to survive. It might have been even better for India at the end of 180 overs, but for the brilliance of Mashrafe bin Mortaza. His batting average might suggest that he is of modest means as a batsman, but he played with the maturity of a Miandad as he picked his spots and rode his luck. His Bangladeshi batting line up had played poorly up front at at 8/149 it looked like Bangladesh would follow on. Mortaza dragged Bangladesh past the follow on target of 187 (more about that later) and the momentum of that effort carried them 50 runs past 187 on a fast scoring ground. India tried to buy him out with Ramesh Powar for about 6 overs, before turning to Sachin Tendulkar. 9 times out of 10 Powar might have bought him out, but yesterday was Mortaza’s day. He used his ability to clear the ropes judiciously.

Bringing on Tendulkar was excellent captaincy, especially once it was established that the great man had the landing permission that he sought. He bowled superbly and nobody picked his googlies. Later in the day he was back with the bat after Rahul Dravid had been scalped brilliantly by a flying Rajin Saleh.

All in all, a fine days cricket. Rahul Dravid was right to bat on in the morning – his hope clearly was that 4-5 overs of Dhoni would mean 30 additional runs, which would have pushed the follow on target past 200. The follow on target remaining at Score – 200 puzzled me. My understanding was that if a full day has been lost, then the Test is treated as a 4 day game, and the follow on score is Score – 150 in such an instance. May be this is something that has to be agreed upon in the playing conditions prior to the series.

The Dhoni gamble didn’t work and Dravid seemed uninterested in letting the world witness the batting prowess of VRV and RP….. that is a sight best reserved for more desperate times. Mortaza and to some extent Saleh apart, the Bangladesh batting let themselves down. India caught with aplomb and Dinesh Karthik demonstrated that his wicketkeeping skills might just come in very handy at gully.

In the final analysis though, it was Mortaza’s day……

Kevin Pietersen’s illegal reverse sweep

This picture on Cricinfo reveals that Pietersen’s sweep shot strays into a gray area of the law, and given the evidence is illegal in my view.

Pietersen is a right handed batsman, and therefore the top hand on the bat should be the left hand. While playing the reverse sweep Pietersen reverses his grip on the bat playing effectively as a left handed batsman.

Here is the problem – Law 41.5 clearly states that
“At the instant of the bowler’s delivery there shall not be more than two fielders, other than the wicket-keeper, behind the popping crease on the on side. A fielder will be considered to be behind the popping crease unless the whole of his person, whether grounded or in the air, is in front of this line. In the event of infringement of this Law by the fielding side, the umpire at the striker’s end shall call and signal No ball.”

Now, technically, Pietersen and other batsmen could argue that their being right handed or left handed, is not necessarily defined by how they hold the bat but is defined by how they are listed on the scoresheet – RHB or LHB. But, if he changes hands, then what was formely his “off-side” now becomes his leg-side….. therefore, a bowling side which has a slip, a short third man and a short cover point – all behind square on Pietersen’s off side (in his normal stance) are now liable to being no-balled. Either that, or the bodyline inspired law needs to be reviewed.

Further the on-side, off-side differentiation is also relevant in the LBW law – the batsman is protected from balls pitching outside his leg stump because the ball pitching outside the leg stump is considered to be on the batsmans “blind side”. If the batsman reverses hands, and is therefore no longer blind sided by the ball pitching outside the right handers leg stump, would he be liable t being given out LBW if he misses the reverse sweep? For example – a Slow Left Arm Bowler, bowling over the wicket into the rough outside Pietersen’s leg-stump, to which Pietersen reverses hands on the bat (effectively turns around at the crease), attempts the reverse sweep, misses and his struck on the shin in front of his (formerly) leg-stump (now his off-stump) – technically, this wouldn’t even merit an LBW appeal right now…… but why not?

Umpires have called dead ball when batsmen have switched hands before – most notably in the case of Craig MacMillan where a boundary was disallowed. Has a resolution been reached since? The Laws of Cricket do not explicitly describe what by definition is a right handed batsman or left handed batsman – may be they need to revise the laws to include this.

In any case, right now, Pietersen is in effect manufacturing a free hit by employing something that is atleast sharp practice. I say so, because this is not a maverick individualistic thing, but is something which has been probably drilled into the batsmen by Duncan Fletcher – Fletcher probably identified this gray area and pounced to exploit it.

Its time the Laws were revised to resolve this – one way or the other. It could simply be a case of declaring that a batsman is a right handed batsman, unless he declares otherwise, irrespective of how he holds the bat. Now, this would be unsatisfactory from the point of view of the LBW law…. but it would simply be one more in a long series of revisions which favor the batsman.

Either ways, something needs to be done. Inconsistent umpiring, where some umpires look the other way, while others (i believe it was Taufel in the case of MacMillan) enforce the law – or in some cases, the same umpire ruling inconsistently in this matter, does not help.

Update: G Rajaraman makes the pertinent point that the “At the instant of the bowler’s delivery” clause is the key here. It is the key from the point of view of a fielder in the deep field moving around (which is not technically illegal) – but it could also be applicable to the batsman. There may be a distinction between the batsman making his move before and after the instant of delivery. This would however be difficult to gauge. Especially in the case of bowlers trying to exploit the rough outside leg-stump, this ought not to be a free hit for the batsman in my view.

Two Test Matches….. the return of the cricketing contest….

The Test Match season has begun in earnest after a brief post-World Cup lull. India are playing Bangladesh, while England are playing the West Indies. Given England’s recent Home record and given Bangladesh’s status as Test Cricket minnows, it would seem that these games are not likely to produce the most heart stopping contests. Yet, in the first two days of play, we have seen almost everything – including the classic “Rain Stops Play” line.

An Englishman made a Test hundred on debut at Lord’s – becoming only the fifth player to do so. Interestingly, other two current players to have done so, feature in the ongoing Test Matches. Sourav Ganguly reeled off a century, continuing his good Test Match form from South Africa and Andrew Strauss is Captain of England. In a significant development, especially from India’s point of view, Monty Panesar is proving to be the most effective English bowler in a Lord’s Test in May – having taken 4 out of 6 wickets to fall. Whats even more interesting is that out of the 89 overs in the West Indies first innings, Panesar has bowled 29 for his 4 wickets, while the other pacemen – amongst them Harmison and Hoggard have bowled 60 for 2 wickets – one of those being scalped by Paul Collingwood. Harbhajan Singh’s fate and form become more and more critical by the day. It is also interesting to see India’s 5 bowler strategy in this context. Ganguly becomes a vital cog in the wheel if only 4 bowlers are to be played with two of these being spinners.

The Chittagong and Lord’s Tests seem to be heading towards a draw, what with Chanderpaul and the exciting Dinesh Ramdin continuing the fightback inspired by Dwayne Bravo’s swashbuckling counterattack. This is a glimpse into the new West Indies – Dinesh Ramdin and Dwayne Bravo – two of their most promising youngsters giving a fine account of themselves with the reliable Chanderpaul occupying the other end. Hopefully at some stage during this series Jerome Taylor and Darren Powell will breakthrough similarly. A competitive series in England will enable Sarwan to establish himself as West Indies captain – and build a new West Indian side – one different from the usual caricature of powerful batting and fearsome pace.

India have similar problems and similar opportunities in England this year – but it is the fast bowling which needs to make a name for itself in England this year. Test Cricket is a far more complete arena than One Day Cricket for individual cricketers to express themselves. Take the three half centuries – by Chanderpaul, Ramdin and Bravo for example – a fine example of team play, with each individual playing a distinctive role – Chanderpaul playing the classic batsman’s innings, wearing down the bowling to enable Bravo and Ramdin to demonstrate their youthful strokeplay at the other end. On another day, you might see the Chanderpaul pull out his array of strokes, like he did once on his home ground.

This is possible in Test Cricket because it is a contest between bat and ball. Tendulkar and Ganguly’s runs yesterday were made in contrasting styles. Ganguly’s was built on expansive strokes and boundary hits (13 fours and 2 sixes – 64 run in boundary hits), while Tendulkar’s was apparently more sedate (9 four – 36 runs in boundary hits). Yet, both ended with identical strike rates. It is a glimpse into the new Tendulkar. I don’t mean this in the hackneyed sense – and i don’t mean it simply because it worked. I am endlessly fascinated by how top batsmen build their innings and how their method of building an innings evolves over the years. Most commentary usually brackets batsmen into “dominating” and “gritty” (broadly speaking, i am not for a moment suggesting a lack of nuance amongst commentators 🙂 ). Batsmen who “dominate” are super talented, near geniuses (Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting), while “gritty” batsmen are less gifted, “making the most of their talent” (Dravid, Steve Waugh, Chanderpaul). This classification is false in my view, because it seeks to place cricketers into straitjackets which Cricket as a sport does not yield to too happily.

In my view most (if not all batsmen) attempt to build an innings in a test match. How that innings gets built depends on many many factors – the match situation, the nature of the wicket, the strategy of the fielding side, the quality of the bowling, the batsman’s own form… watching an innings being built is as fascinating as watching a great contest between a batsman and a bowler or a batsman and a strategy designed to counter him. Like fast bowling, speed is relative. You could have a fast bowler busting his gut, hurling thunderbolts at 95 miles an hour, and find that the batsmen are playing him easily, because they are “watching” the ball really well, while at the other end you could have a more sedate medium-fast bowler who is troubling the very same batsmen. Similarly, you could have batsmen scoring at a run a ball and find it extremely boring (the middle overs of a One Day game), but later, find a batsman playing watchfully, seeing off a good spell by a bowler and find it gripping. The suggestion that Waugh and Dravid are someone ordinary players who have made it big thanks to some superhuman effort is a bit far fetched – it is as far fetched as saying that Tendulkar or Lara are so gifted that they could not help but be great batsmen. There is a method to every one of these players, and it is that method which Test Cricket tests.

Test Cricket reminds of a great story i heard once. A wise man was once asked “How is the earth supported in space?” He replied “A tortoise sits below and holds it up”. The next question came quickly – “Who supports the tortoise?”. The reply – “Another tortoise sits below the first one and supports both the first tortoise and the earth”. This went on, and all that the questioner got in response was tortoises.. finally he asked “But what lies at the bottom?”, to which the wise man replied – “Oh… its tortoises all the way down”.

The same cannot be said of One Day Cricket.

Update: Just as i finished writing this, Dinesh Ramdin fell to a fine catch by Paul Collingwood of Liam Plunkett at the end of day three, to leave West Indies 7 down, still trailing by 190 with 2 days to play. One wicket, and they are looking very vulnerable. Chanderpaul will have to dig in and hopefully extend the West Indies effort as close to lunch time on day 4 as possible…. This is ODI cricket in reverse – he needs to play as many overs as he can…

Seeking balance amidst imbalance……

The playing eleven for India’s first test against Bangladesh raised many eyebrows – VVS Laxman and Yuvraj Singh were dropped, Dinesh Karthik opened the batting, five bowlers were picked, and to add to the misery, Munaf Patel joined Sreesanth on the sidelines. If you really think about it though, this is the best possible squad that India might have picked.

The Bangladesh series involves back t0 back Tests, and in this oppressive weather, it makes sense to play 5 bowlers to share the bowling. Playing three seam bowlers is always a good idea, because it gives the captain more options to play with. With Munaf and Sreesanth on the sidelines already it made sense to play the extra bowler.

Coming to the batting – one has to start off by accepting the ground reality that the best batsmen in India are middle order batsmen. Had it not been necessary to pick opening batsmen, or batsmen for the specific task of opening the batting, Wasim Jaffer might not have made the Indian squad. The six top batsmen in India right now are Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Yuvraj, Laxman and Sehwag. Of that there is little doubt, whatever their form at the international level suggests. Gambhir and co are not in the same class, and Jaffer is the best amongst that lot.

Dinesh Karthik queers the pitch a little bit. However he has been picked on potential and is being groomed as a specialist batsman. One of the things that is missed about selection is that it is individuals who are ultimately selected – not batting averages or batting techniques. The ones who get selected to play for India are as cricketers, a class above the average first class cricket – expert eyes can pick out something special, and the art of selection is about identifying someone special and then determining how best that talent can be roped in to contribute to the side. Dinesh Karthik is one such selection – he was a special cricketer, who unfortunately found himself competing and getting blown away by another exceptional talent – Dhoni, and then, instead of sulking, got cracking on improving his batting (which was promising enough to begin with – his hundred in a Ranji Final against Bombay and his 90 odd against Pakistan at Eden Gardens were memorable innings). The selectors have made a leap of faith and accepted that he be viewed as a batsman – and a possible Test opener at that. Tacit in this acceptance is the reality that India’s domestic cricket will never produce good quality opening batsmen because it is not designed to do so. The press and the public haven’t yet made that leap of faith. Rahul Dravid still has to clarify that Karthik has been picked as batsman, who can also keep if required.

All in all this is a good selection – given the inherent imbalance of the squad. There is definitely a glimpse of sanity in the selection of this playing eleven. A few questions are worth asking, and might be addressed in England –

1. If Dinesh Karthik can keep wicket, then would VVS or Yuvraj be better batting options than Dhoni?
2. Should Rahul Dravid bat at number 3 or should a more aggressive batsman (Yuvraj/VVS) take his place?
3. If Dinesh Karthik does the job as Test opener, should he also be asked to keep wickets?
4. Should India always go in with 5 bowlers?

and the last question – important because these are two special talents we are talking about –

What of Sehwag and Irfan Pathan?

The Zimbabwe situation… An atypical case..

There are three main characters in this story – the cricket team, the cricket board and the government of the country in question. Each have an opinion about Zimbabwe. The players, in their individual and collective opinion feel that a stand has to be taken against regimes like Mr. Mugabe’s – their friends from Zimbabwe Cricket (Flower, Olonga and co.) encourage them to take such a position. Governments can’t have personal opinions, and Government’s rarely take stands based on simple morality. A rigorous, dispassionate assessment of self-interest and the consequences of taking a purely moral stand is conducted, and most often, we find watered down or even plainly confusing opinions emanating from these sources.

The English situation during the 2003 World Cup was similar – the British Government in its infinite wisdom suggested that they agreed in principle with the boycott of Zimbabwe as a venue for World Cup matches played by England, but did not think it right to order the ECB to boycott Zimbabwe. In short, they didn’t want to take a stand. Hiding behind civil liberties and the “traditional role of the British Government” was ridiculous given that when it suits them, they trample over all manner of civil liberties anywhere in the World. Most Governments do that – not just Britain.

The ICC, as the governing body of Cricket, finds itself caught between the clear-headed moral position of the players and the astutely weighed positions of Governments. They cop the flak – it is not their place to pass judgement on political issues, and it is unreasonable for the ICC to act against the Mugabe regime when the British Government has been unwilling to do so. At the time, the players were caught in the middle, and with last minute death threats, ridiculous amount of suffocating security cover, and consistently fumbled positions and opinions by the powers that be, found that their own credibility was challenged (many people thought that the last minuted death threat was made up because nobody was willing to admit that there was a boycott on). Nasser Hussein’s autobiography has a detailed account of this episode.

Yet, the general public almost never holds the Government accountable – if Cricketers want to ignore the politics and just go there and play cricket (as the Aussies did in 2003), they get criticized. If they are let down by the powers that be and forced into impossible corners (as England were in 2003), they are criticized. If their Government does take a stand, and orders them not to go (as Australia have done in 2007), even then, they are criticized – this time for taking their eye off the welfare of the game. India have been remarkably lucky in this matter, because the Indian Government has rarely been shy of expressing an opinion about a particular cricket tour.

The irony in all this is, that it is the Mugabe Government which ought to face all the criticizm. In my view, it is upto Governments to decide whether or not their national cricket team should tour a particular country. The ICC policy in this regard is absolutely spot on – the only pretext under which a tour may be curtailed or cancelled is security. The players are blameless as well, and most cricket boards are reasonable about allowing individual players to miss a particular tour in such circumstances.

All in all, i think the Australians have done well to boycott Zimbabwe.