India v Bangladesh May 10….. depleted victory…..

An Indian team selected by BCCI to please all constituencies, beat Bangladesh by 5 wickets, after playing 3 specialist fast bowlers is conditions which were always going to be spin friendly, with the two wicketkeepers selected in the eleven playing pivotal innings, one of them one one leg after having kept for 47 overs in the sapping heat. If that can some how be rationalized by saying “but they won in the end” and that they showed “determination and steel not evident in the world cup”, then such a rationalization would ignore the fact that every single one of India’ weaknesses was on display yesterday, and the win was not so much a case of India making fewer mistakes, but of Bangladesh making more mistakes and having limited firepower. Lets start at the beginning though.

Zaheer Khan started gingerly and inspite of Sreesanth bowling well, it seemed as though the rub of the green would continue to go Bangladesh’s way with catches flying between the wicketkeeper and first slip and Tamim Iqbal playing in effect an action replay of his Queens Park Oval innings at Mirpur. By my count, 1 short pitched delivery was attempted by Zaheer against the hard charging Tamin – that one went for 5 wides because it bounced too much. Zaheer was not at his best and kept drifting on the pads every now and then. The lap scoops which all the Bangladesh batsmen seem to execute proficiently seem to unsettle Zaheer. After that, Dravid seemed to play this match with one hand tied behind his back. The best spin bowling talent he could call on was Ramesh Powar, Dinesh Mongia and Virendra Sehwag! This on a turning track. The specialist spin bowling he had in the touring squad included Piyush Chawla!

It is with this background that this result ought to be viewed. It was an important result, because the “win, or else….. ” crowd with their sting operations and punitive diktats would have found occasion to take their derisive crescendo to a new level had the run chase been unsuccessful.

A word about Dhoni – he has now made 2000 runs at 46 – with 15 50+ scores in 62 innings (17 out of 62 innings have been unbeaten), the best beginning ever by any Indian ODI player – and he has been a specialist wicketkeeper all this while. In the process he has played some astonishing innings. He is a phenomenal talent, and more crucially, a phenomenal performer – one of the finest in the world. His method may work better in certain conditions than it does in other – but it might be useful to point out that he has out performed every other Indian batsman – Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly, Sehwag…. only Yuvraj sing with 2045 runs in 59 games at 45.5 comes close.

Dinesh Karthik delivered crucial runs as well. It is clear that he too like Dhoni is a special player. After a wicketkeeper drought between Mongia and Dinesh Karthik, India now have two candidates for the position who would walk into most Test sides in the World (Australia, SL and SA excepted of course).

The specialist batting seems to have learnt nothing. Gambhir, every time he gets selected promises much but his problem of falling over and planting his front foot too far across his stumps seems to persist. Sehwag was worse if anything. The run chase was well planned and India sought to make the most of the new ball and the power plays with the wicket holding up. One of the corollaries of the “openers should go after the new ball” theory is that the openers, once set, ought to stay in, because coming in against the older ball on a slow wicket is difficult given the prospect of a 5+ required run rate. Yet, Virendra Sehwag, with 171 ODI’ s under his belt, and only the captains good word on his side perished trying to manufacture a 5th boundary in an over which had already yielded 16. The man seems to have a death wish.

I can assure you though – the next time he makes one of his whirlwind 180’s – possibly in the Bangladesh Tests, possibly in England, everyone will applaud his style play. It gives you a glimpse as to how analysis is invariably backwards (and inherently dishonest). A victory means that only favorable evidence and events will be cherry picked and mentioned, while a defeat means that only unfavorable evidence and events will be cherry picked and mentioned. Sehwag walks a thin line between recklessness and outrageous confidence – but that line sadly is drawn by journalists. Even if his definition of an acceptable risk may be different from that of an average batsman, it must surely be required that when he seems to take his eye off the team goal, he ought to be brought to book. The difference between the ODI Sehwag and the Test Match Sehwag, is that the Test Match Sehwag is well within his comfort zone, while the ODI Sehwag has no rhythm to his play – beyond a certain point he seems to want to smash everything – that has never worked – even with Viv Richards or Ricky Ponting or Adam Gilchrist. There is a method to Sehwag’s Test Match play. There is apparently none that does not amount to harakiri in his ODI play.

All in all, this game revealed the gulf between the two sides – an India squad selected punitively which played terrible cricket for 80 out of 94 overs, and a Bangladesh squad missing its strike bowler which played to its potential with the bat, but had a mixed day in the field. Results like this can often kickstart the build up of momentum for a side. India needed a break. And they got it when Abdur Razzak fumbled a return from square leg with Dinesh Karthik short by about three bat lengths.

May be India will give a better account of themselves in the coming games. But today, they got out of jail.

McGrath v (Tendulkar, Lara)

Glenn McGrath recently claimed to have enjoyed an edge over Sachin Tendulkar, more so than he did against Brian Lara. It is hard to disagree with him, because Lara did better against McGrath, all things considered, than Tendulkar did. Lara also played more against McGrath than Tendulkar did, mainly on account of the fact that West Indies played Australia in longer Test series, and while McGrath missed two series against India – 1998 in India and 2003-04 in Australia, he never missed a series against the West Indies.

Tendulkar has played 21 Tests against Australia, made 1859 runs at 53.11. In matches where McGrath has been present, Tendulkar has made 662 runs in 18 innings (9 Test matches) at 36.77. This includes the one off Test in Delhi in 1996 (Tendulkar made 10, 0), the 1999-2000 series in Australia (Tendulkar made 278 runs at 46.33 in 3 Test matches), the 2000-01 series in India (Tendulkar made 304 runs at 50.66 in 3 Tests) and the 2004-05 series in India (Tendulkar played in only 2 Tests – the last 2, making 2, 8 at Nagpur in his comeback match and 5, 55 in Mumbai – in all 70 runs at 17.5 in the series).

On the other hand, Lara has played 30 Tests against Australia and 25 of those have been against McGrath. He made 308 runs in 1994-95 (in West Indies) at 44.00, 296 runs at 32.88 in 1996-97 (in Australia), 546 runs at 91 in 1998-99 (in West Indies), 321 runs at 32.10 in 2000-01 (in Australia), 533 runs at 66.62 in 2002-03 (in West Indies) and 345 runs at 57.50 in 2005-06. That 2005-06 series also consisted of 1 great innings – 226 at Adelaide and 5 failures (which produced 119 runs). Lara’s efforts in the 2002-03 series in the West Indies have to be viewed in the context of that series – it was a high scoring series if there ever was one – the wickets were the flattest in living memory (almost reminiscent of an India – Pakistan series) – 5 Australians averaged over 55 in that series and produced 10 centuries in 4 Test matches, the West Indies produced 7 centuries in 4 Test matches. 34 50+ scores were recorded in the series. It was also Lara’s most consistent series against McGrath – 5 50+ scores in 8 innings.

These figures ought to get you thinking. The 2000-01 and 1996-97 series in Australia saw Lara play 19 innings for the West Indies in which he produced two tremendous innings – his 182 at Adelaide in 2000-01 and his 132 at Perth in 1996-97. Those two innings apart, Lara produced 1 fifty in the other 17 innings. Tendulkar has played 18 innings in all against McGrath. Lara’s 4 centuries in Australia have been made at Sydney (277), Perth (132) and Adelaide (182, 226). Tendulkars 4 centuries in Australia have been made at Sydney (148, 241*), Melbourne (116) and Perth (114). Lara’s 4 centuries in Australia have come in 18 Test matches, while Tendulkar’s have come in 12 Test matches.

Indeed if you look at Lara and Tendulkar playing against McGrath, and measure a 50+ score as a success and anything else as a failure, then Tendulkar has had 7 50+ scores in 18 innings. In 48 innings against McGrath, Lara has passed 50 16 times.

The numbers reveal that Tendulkar and Lara emulate their overall tendencies when playing against McGrath. Lara is the less consistent of the two, but more capable of mammoth scores (213, 226, 182, 153). Tendulkar is more consistent, but is less capable of churning out huge scores (241, 126, 116). Lara v McGrath is defined by two innings played by Lara in 1998-99 – 213 at Sabina Park, followed by 153 at Kensington Oval. Tendulkar v McGrath as a contest is defined by the bold LBW decision McGrath won against Tendulkar in the second innings at Adelaide in 1999 (when Tendulkar ducked into a short ball which did climb at all). Tendulkar’s innings are always methodical, Lara’s are a work of genius. Therefore, when Tendulkar rattled of a clinical 126 on Day 3 in the decider at Chennai, it was expected that he would deliver that day and he did – without any frills.

What is apparent in Tendulkar v McGrath and Lara v McGrath contests, is that no other bowler in any Australian side that Tendulkar faced could trouble Tendulkar (with the occasional exception of Jason Gillespie). Where as Lara was prone to giving his wicket away against any Australian bowler. This is especially true in Australia, where Lara made 4 50+ scores in 25 innings in Tests where McGrath also featured. For Tendulkar, the corresponding figure is 3 out of 6. Tendulkar was more likely to play a particular bowler rather than play the ball. Tendulkar’s strategy against McGrath was often to wait out a good spell, where as Lara was less likely to let a good spell go by – and this is reflected by their respective consistency levels, especially in Australia.

Tendulkar v McGrath was also a direct clash in the One Day game, because Tendulkar opened the batting and McGrath opened the bowling. This was not the case against Lara. In the One Day game, McGrath did have the better of Tendulkar. This is possibly the one thing that influences McGrath’s comparison of Lara and Tendulkar.

Given Tendulkar and Lara’s overall records, McGrath probably did have an edge of both players. However, the numbers do not reflect that Lara did better against Australia when McGrath played than Tendulkar did. He produced bigger innings, but was less consistent. Lara also never played in a winning series against McGrath, which Tendulkar did.

It is a glimpse into how a cricketer makes his judgements about his peers. It is a mistake to write off a comment by Glenn McGrath as a lighthearted one – or one designed to play off Tendulkar against Lara. It does however show that McGrath rates the genuis of Lara higher than he rates the method of Tendulkar – he felt more helpless against Lara more often than he did against Tendulkar. He felt he controlled Tendulkar (as Tendulkar felt he controlled him) and never let him get away. Where as against Lara it was a far more trigger happy contest – Lara either went early, or killed the bowling. There were no stalemates in Lara v McGrath contests. Tendulkar v McGrath was invariably a stalemate – with neither willing to bite the bullet.

These have been two of the great contests in modern day cricket.

Sting operation on the Indian Cricket Team………

The “news” channel Aaj Tak in a sting operation revealed a divided Indian team according to this story on Cricinfo. I decided to check the meaning of “Sting Operation”. Wikipedia provides the following definition:

“In law enforcement, a sting operation is an operation designed to catch a person committing a crime by means of deception.”

Even if we grant that the “committing a crime” bit is negotiable, the Aaj Tak story is a bit of a stretch. When you consider that this is one of those news channels which plays the same tape in an infinite loop for days on end for a single story, irrespective of developments in the story, the story is even more of a stretch.

The most interesting thing about this story was which word would be in quotes – sting or revealed. Instead, as you can see, i decided to play safe and apply quotes to “news”.

A format for Domestic Cricket in India

This post proposes a development of an earlier format discussed here, which was inspired in parts by the Cricket Committee proposed revision of the domestic format, the Super 6/Super 8 idea from the World Cup and the need for broader First Class Cricket with more games and a higher profile. I would refer readers to the discussion in the comments section of this post on homer’s blog. The outline is for this version is as follows:

1. The Duleep Trophy as we know it will be scrapped. No Zonal team will be constituted.
2. The Irani Trophy will not feature Ranji Champions v Rest of India, but will feature India v Rest of India, and will be a 5 day match scheduled to suit the schedule of the Test team before their international test season starts in October.
3. The Salve Challenger Trophy will also be scrapped.

The reason for Duleep and Challenger trophies being scrapped is that they consist of scratch teams, and are reduced to being rank selection trials.

A look at the domestic seasons in the top test playing nations reveals the following:

Competition, Matches per team, Number of Teams
India (Ranji Trophy), 8, 27
India (Duleep Trophy), 3, 6
Australia, 11, 6
South Africa (SuperSport), 10, 6
South Africa (Provincial), 8, 17
England, 16, 17
New Zealand (State Championships + State Shield), 18, 6
West Indies, 5, 6
Pakistan (Patrons Trophy), 7, 9
Pakistan (Pentangular Trophy), 4, 5

Australia also have a second eleven tournament parallel to the Pura Cup. The number of matches in the above list are based on the 2006-07 season (2006 for England). Pakistan also have the Quaid-e-Azam trophy in addition to the Patrons Trophy and Pentangular Trophy. It is clear that India does not play enough first class cricket. Should India have fewer first class teams? If you consider the population and interest in cricket, you might consider that India should indeed possibly have more than 27 first class teams.

In order to ensure that more Cricket is played, heres a modification to the system proposed earlier. Let the two teams be divided geographically int0 2 Zones – North and South.

Teams in North Zone:
Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Services, Tripura, Railways, Madhya Pradesh, Assam, Baroda, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, Jharkhand

Teams in South Zone:
Saurashtra, Maharashtra, Hyderabad, Mumbai, Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Andhra, Karnataka, Gujarat, Orissa, Goa, Kerala, Vidharbha.

Each Zone would have its own Round Robin League – Each side playing 13 games (in North Zone) and 12 (in South Zone) respectively. The 5 Top sides from each Zone at the end of the league phase would play in a Super League – carrying over points against the other 4 Zones in their respective leagues, and playing 5 games each in the League phase. However, a win in the Super League would be worth more than a Win in the North Zone or South Zone League. So if a team carries over 2 points for an outright win from the zonal league phase, a win in Super league would be worth 3 points.

The top 4 Teams would compete in the knock out semi-final and final. The season will begin on October 1 and the Ranji Trophy Final will be scheduled for the First Week of April (the only place India tours in the first week of April is West Indies, so Test players would be available for the Ranji Final. Most schools also complete their final exams by then). The Zonal Leagues would be completed by the end of January – each side playing 13 games in 4 months – October, November, December, January. The super league will be completed by 15th of March – 5 matches for each side in 7 tough weeks.

Each 4 day game will be followed by the corresponding One Day game for the Ranji ODI league. The National One Day Final will be the Final first class game of the season.

Is it possible to fit all this Cricket into a single season? 12/13 or 18 first class games in a season? The New Zealanders do it, as do the South Africans. English counties sides at one time played over 30 first class games in the English season – mid March to mid September – including Test Matches. Given that each association has their own Cricket ground, this is not as difficult as it looks. It will require a great deal of planning and management – every effort will have to be made to ensure that teams are not tired out by uselessly long rail journeys – there are plenty of airline options in India now. But logistically, it is not unrealistic.

Given top quality grounds, televised Ranji trophy matches, and a higher profile in general (possibly 1 overseas player per team as well – but thats a debate for another day), local associations would also be more accountable – would be in sharper focus for cricketing reasons. We may even find better attendance at First Class games if they are televised and hence given a higher profile. Local selectors at the smaller centres will be in focus – and the local associations, which currently wield enormous power (through their vote), but are never held accountable will have an audience which will question and criticize – keeping them on their toes. Also, onces these associations get into the habit of having to organize a first class match every week or every other week – 5-6 months a year, they will automatically learn better cricket management, and engage in superior professional practices.

If First Class Cricketers are gauranteed 12 First class and 12 One Day matches a year – and paid say a flat fee of say 30 thousand rupees for a Ranji match and about 18 thousand rupees for an One Day game (they probably make more now and this figure could be higher – i have only mentioned these figures for the sake of the argument), plus performance bonuses, a domestic cricketer will make 5,00,000 rupees a year atleast which is a decent income ensuring a comfortable middle class existence (its about the same amount of money that an engineer with 4-5 years of good experience makes). This is crucial if the quality of first class cricket has to be sustained. If players are forced to give up first class cricket at the age of 30, not because they’re not making runs or taking wickets, but because they need to support a family and can’t do so on first class cricket wages, then Cricket is the loser. With better pay, senior professionals from the top first class teams would be encouraged to move to smaller teams to help them out.

The point is the create a counterpoint to the Indian side as far as the abstract behemoth called “Indian Cricket” is concerned. Until this happens, the national team exists precariously, on a brittle foundation.

The Indian Test Team in the coming year……

Today is the 6th of May and India have to complete the Bangladesh tour before they embark on an England tour. India play 7 Test Matches between July and February as of now – at Lord’s, Trent Bridge, Oval, Melbourne, Sydney, Perth and Adelaide. These seven Tests present a severe Test. England have a formidable record in England recently. Indeed their efforts against each of the other Test playing nations in their latest series in England is:

2 -1 v Australia in 2005
2 -2 v South Africa in 2003
3-0 v New Zealand in 2004
4 -0 v West Indies in 2004
3 -0 v Pakistan in 2006
1 – 1 v Sri Lanka in 2006
2 – 0 v Bangladesh in 2005
1 – 1 v India in 2002

They are at this point in time unbeaten at home. They also possess a formidable bowling attack which seems to find a new gear in home conditions – Harmison, Flintoff, Jones (who is well on the way to recovery) and Hoggard supported by Monty Panesar (not India’s favorite style of slow bowler) would Test any line up in the world – indeed they bested the Australian batting in 2005 without Panesar.

Against Australia, the challenge is equally formidable. Even though McGrath may be gone, Shaun Tait and Brett Lee are potentially the quickest new ball pair in World Cricket since Lillee and Thommo in 1974-75. Holding and Marshall might have matched them for pace occasionally, and you could argue that Shoaib and Sami were capable of the same sustained pace – but Sami never distinguished himself as a Test bowler (neither has Tait – but if his World Cup is anything to go by, he is potentially capable of as much damage as Shoaib in Test cricket). With Stuart Clark supporting these two bowlers, Australia possess a bowling attack with depth and genuine pace. Contrary to popular belief however, i feel that India’s greatest challenge in Australia will be at Melbourne – indeed if they can hold the Australians at Melbourne, they have a great chance of competing at Sydney, Perth and Adelaide. Perth has slowed down over the past few seasons and Sydney and Adelaide have been happy hunting grounds for India.

How should India respond to this opportunity? Much is being made as to whether Sehwag will be in form or whether Tendulkar, Laxman and co will be up to the task. The fact of the matter is, that there will be very little (in fact no opportunity) for the selectors to gauge these players form. Efforts in Bangladesh have zero bearing on selection to England and Australia. There is no first class cricket available between the Bangladesh and Australia tours. The months between England and Australia are packed with One Day cricket. Further, domestic cricket is as valuable as the Bangladesh tour for determining suitability for an English or Australian tour.

Ravi Shastri’s first rule – which seems to have become his stock response to questions – that he will try and get India to start enjoying Cricket again seems to be a good beginning. The Indian fast attack is shaping up well – with Munaf Patel being in my view the finest Indian fast bowler since Kapil Dev, Sreesanth shaping up to be a terrific competitor and Zaheer Khan recovering his best form. Kumble remains a formidable force. The impressive Ranadeb Bose is pushing for a slot, as are the usual suspects – RP, VRV, Ajit and Ashish. Batting is another story all together. What is Sehwag’s role going to be? Will he be upto fullfilling that role? There will be very little opportunity to determine the answers to this question and many others. All things considered, India’s fortunes in England and Australia will rest on 3 players – VVS Laxman, Virendra Sehwag and Mahendra Dhoni. All three are world class match winners on their day. All three have unique problems at the moment.

VVS Laxman is perpetually on trial, and whatever feeble competition there is from the domestic talent pool will knock him off his perch before it does anybody else. He is also unsure of his role in the side, and is singularly unsuited to the number 6 role, even though he does quite well there – he can’t run too well between wickets, he can’t slog. He is not being used very efficiently there.

Sehwag is similarly safe from competition from the domestic pool, because he has been an extraordinary Test batsman in the last 3-4 years – unique amongst the world’s opening batsmen. But he is unsure of his role and in the light of the revelations vis a vis Chappell, one has to wonder how much the Chappell era affected Sehwag. The captain has backed him and backed him to the hilt.

Mahendra Dhoni – a flamboyant Test Match altering player at his best, faces the same problems which his predecessor faced – his position in the side is subject to other factors as much as it is to his form. Dinesh Karthik being selected as specialist opener suggests that he may be groomed to be Sehwag or Jaffer’s opening partner, thus enabling India to play a specialist batsmen at 6, and another specialist batsman or Irfan at 7. When Dhoni arrived, Karthik was doing well – especially in Tests, but Dhoni’s tremendous run making ability blew Karthik from the team sheet. That whirlwind century in dire circumstances at Faisalabad against Shoaib at his fiercest confirmed the management’s opinion. Karthik has emerged by sheet dint of hard work. Dhoni must deliver substantially to ensure that Karthik if selected does not tempt the selectors to leave him out.

How should India make best use of these three gifted cricketers? With Dhoni and Sehwag, it is really upto them and upto their handlers to ensure that they be given the best opportunities to flower. Subject to reasonable efforts in Bangladesh, it would make sense to retain Sehwag as opener in England. Now, the English bowlers were the first to exploit Sehwag’s weakness against the short ball in India in 2006, and Sehwag succeeding there is a long shot – but its still worth the gamble in my view. For, if India are to compete in England and Australia, they must have the option of attacking up front with bat and ball. The role of Akash Chopra in 2003-04 in Australia and Pakistan is often referred to – but what is inevitably missed is that Chopra was a foil to Sehwag. The success was Sehwag’s – because the runs came from his blade.

One would apply the same thinking to Laxman – he ought to bat at number 3 for India – and with his record and given what is apparent about his position in Indian cricket today, it would be a good idea to gaurantee him the number 3 slot for the full England tour and if he does well, for the full Australian tour – to make him the vanguard of the batting assault. Laxman is upset at being ignored for the World Cup, and would respond well to the added responsibility. That he is being offered the position currently held by his captain – the great Rahul Dravid will not be lost on him. It is worth the gamble.

You might think that this talk is all very well, and that performance in the field always trumps most strategies – but there has to be plan, and all evidence points to the fact that attacking batting is the way to go in England and Australia – not reckless devil-may-care shot-a-minute cameos, but assertive, aggressive batting that can come only from the ability to hit good balls for runs. Tendulkar at his best could execute this type of batting.

The other three slots in the batting order – 4, 5 and 6 will have Rahul Dravid and two out of Tendulkar, Ganguly and Yuvraj. This is a ticklish problem. My own preference would be Tendulkar, Dravid, Yuvraj in that batting order, but Ganguly’s runs in South African can’t be ignored.

The other joker in the Indian pack is Irfan Pathan. He needs to perform a specific role in Test cricket – 5th bowler, number 7 batsman. He must have the ability to bowl long extremely accurate spells with the wicketkeeper standing up to the stumps – kill the runs and help the captain control the game in the field. That will allow Kumble to attack more. But Pathan faces the same problems that the others do – poor form, no opportunities to prove himself. That he is out of the ordinary is however beyond doubt.

My preferred line up in England (and if all goes well, in Australia as well) would be

Jaffer/Karthik
Sehwag
Laxman
Tendulkar
Dravid
Yuvraj
Dhoni/Irfan
Kumble
Zaheer
Sreesanth
Munaf

with Tiwary, Bose, Ganguly and VRV in the reserves.

The batting order is important – in my view Yuvraj Singh is best equipped to bat with the tail, he has the best shot making ability and his experience late in ODI games and run chases should serve him well here. He also runs well between wickets. Dravid would be the fulcrum of the batting at number 5. It will give him breathing space when things are going well, and equip him well as captain to take charge in the event of a collapse.

If Tendulkar produces the runs i think he has been threatening to (looking at him batting in South Africa), then it will be hard to control this line up. In the final analysis, it all boils down to runs on the score board. But it is the batting order on the team sheet and the mood in the dressing room which define the mindset with which run scoring is approached.

Ridiculous Reporting ……. a story out of nothing…….

This absolutely ridiculous bit of reporting caught my eye, thanks to homer. I saw the photographs, but this report took my breath away. A batsman getting hit by a fast bowler in the nets is not a big deal – but just have a look at the number of conclusions that this report draws, armed with that ridiculous graphic attempting to illustrate what happened. Really, if this newspaper and this reporter was really interested in conveying what happened, they should have gotten hold of a video of the event, posted it on youtube, and then posted a link to that in their report. It would have been far more effective and far less silly.

The Calcutta newspaper seems to have been unable to hide its glee at Rahul Dravid getting hurt (if you think this is petty….. read the bit about the “Eden Jinx” – never mind that Dravid made that brilliant 180 against the Australians there, as well a hundred in each innings against Pakistan in 2005). Then there is the factual error about Dravid never being hit by Brett Lee. It happened famously when Dravid was 91 not out on the 4th evening at Sydney in 2004. He got hit on the helmet trying to hook Brett Lee, and Ganguly declared at once. This was not an obscure event – it was one of the most famous test matches India have played in recent times (they made 705/7 in the first innings), and you would think that a newspaper which takes its cricket coverage seriously enough to develop graphics about Dravid getting hit in the nets would not miss such an event.

Further, there is the ridiculously naive assertion that batsmen getting hit is a function of pace. In fact, pace – as viewed by the speed gun is relative as far as most international batsmen are concerned. How “quick” a bowler is, is for them, not a function of the speed gun, but of how well they are reading the line and length, how early they are seeing the ball, how well their own footwork is functioning. Thats why a Tendulkar can look hurried against McGrath on a slowish wicket occasionally and still play Shoaib like a medium pacer on others. An allegedly serious cricket report would allude to this.

The last line takes the cake though – that RP Singh “……would have enjoyed his dinner, though. His “feat” today should guarantee him a place in the one-dayers for which he has been picked.” !!!!!

Glenn McGrath – Master Bowler

Glenn McGrath was not genuinely quick. Neither was he a natural swing bowler. He couldn’t bowl two different types of bouncers like Andy Roberts. He couldn’t make the ball talk like that wizard Wasim Akram. He couldn’t produce magic balls at will like Malcolm Marshall. And yet, these great masters would be proud to have his name taken in the same breath with theirs.

To attribute McGrath’s success to his metronomic accuracy alone is to do him a disservice. There was much more to him. There had to have been. That is the only way to explain his astonishing record – 563 Test wickets at 21.64, 380 ODI wickets at 22.02, all achieved with unrelenting regularity. He rarely if ever had a bad year. He was devastating against all opposition – no batting side could say that they had the better of him. His great strength was his ability to determine the perfect in-between length for each batsman that he bowled to, and then hit that length at will. He got in close to the stumps, bowled a great length, had a superb competitors temperament, was supremely fit – both physically and technically. He could bowl marathon spells when the situation demanded it, and his knowledge of the mechanics of his action meant that he rarely experienced the niggles that keep lesser bowlers out of the game from time to time. He bowled better overseas than he did in Australia, and during his career, Australia lost only 5 series – and never lost an Ashes series when he was available to play the full series. England’s fortunes in the 2005 Ashes changed the moment he inadvertently stepped on a Cricket ball and twisted his ankle before start of play in the second Test. He never played in a losing home series either.

Much has been written about his contribution to the ugly Australian image – indeed as the strike bowler and leader of the attack, he was the face of Australia in the field. In my view, a lot of the criticism was down to cultural misunderstandings and the fact that the Australians were winning all the time. Occasionally, when Australia had been bested, they showed themselves to be more gracious losers than most other sides. Against India, McGrath had a great deal of success. Tendulkar had his measure, yet could never really master him. That was the essence of McGrath – his correctness and his unrelenting execution of near-perfect bowling, meant that no opposition player could ever have his measure for any sustained period of time.

I was able to watch him bowl at Brabourne stadium – sitting behind the bowlers arm in the North Stand. It was only a tour game. But it was poetry in motion. McGrath bowled from the pavilion end in tandem with Jason Gillespie for an hour before retiring to field at fine leg and mid off. It was classic bowling. I had gone to the game to watch Gillespie and Warne – McGrath was not the sort of cricketer you went to watch. He was the sort of cricketer who enforced Australia’s will on the Cricket field. Warne was the flamboyant genius, while Gillespie was the big intimidating quick bowler with genuine pace. Gilchrist and Ponting were the star batsmen, Steve Waugh was the Ice Man. McGrath made do with being known as “Pigeon”. After the game, McGrath was not the bowler who stayed in your memory. If you looked at the scorecard, that was where he featured – quiet, efficient and devastating.

His batting improved as his career progressed and he could be relied upon to keep his end up. In that tour match in 2001, McGrath stood with his captain as they played out over a session to take Australia to safety. Many Cricketers view themselves as entertainers, but for McGrath, it seemed to begin and end with “Australia Wins”. Had McGrath been a batsman, he would have been part Gavaskar, part Miandad and part Steve Waugh. I can think of no greater measure of his greatness….

John Wright’s Indian Summers……

It is quite telling that the best articulated, most careful and caring history of Indian Cricket in this decade is to be found in John Wright’s memoir on his tenure as Indian coach. Written along with Sharada Ugra and Paul Thomas, it is a superbly crafted book, where not a word seems superfluous. Even though it is co-written, the personality of the coach shines through. Furthermore, it conveys a genuine interest in India and her Cricket. Wright had the good fortune of being coach when Indian Crickets greatest generation was in their prime – Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid, Laxman, Kumble. Not since the early to mid 1980’s has India possessed such sustained quality – and even then, Sunil Gavaskar was in decline. Youngster came through – Harbhajan, Yuvraj, Kaif and a team was forged which would for a year and more threaten the best in any conditions. Ultimately, the frailties of the system seemed to come in the way.

Wright’s view of the pet peeves of many of India’s puritanical cricket fans and victory riders – the selection system and the pressures of stardom is far more nuanced and understanding. At no point does he try to create villains or heros – and yet, he does not mince his opinions. Nothing seems to be left unsaid, and nothing is revealed simply to promote a sale. Wright’s thesis – that the cricketers face unreal pressures and lead starry lives, often to the detriment of their existence as normal individuals (and yet seem to be able to retain their equanimity), would seem obvious to anybody who thought things through. His thesis about the the zonal selection system is even more interesting. It was in his book that i first read an account of the selection system which drove home to me a problem with zonal selection. It also brings home to you the wisdom of appointing selectors for two year terms.

These two core problem areas drive home the point that the only way to improve Cricket in India is to reduce the difference between playing First Class Cricket and playing for India. There has to be a strong, popular, well-followed, rigorous First Class tournament in India. A format has to be set which provides the opportunity for plenty of first class cricket and has to be adhered to for a longish period of time so that it can take root. The Indian Cricket Team is a minor problem compared to that of First Class Cricket.

Wright also acknowledges that results dried up in his last season, at the end of which he decided to quit. However, especially in One Day Cricket, one might have argued that the problems began immediatly after the World Cup. It was interesting to note that the next major ODI tournament India played was the VB series – where the record was 4-0 against Zimbabwe and 1-5 against Australia. This was followed by a 3-2 win in Pakistan – which, while it was creditable had one game where India made 350 and won by 5 runs, another game were Pakistan were reduced to 59/4 chasing 250 and still won. It is quite telling that the next Indian visit to Pakistan against an arguably superior Pakistan ODI side (in 2004, the Pakistan side was still reeling from its World Cup exit and a slew of retirements – Anwar, Akram, Waqar), resulted in a 4-1 win, inspite of the fact that two of the batsmen – Sehwag and Kaif were mainly passengers. Wright does make an oblique reference here, when he says that the players, returning from a long break, especially after a successful season/series, tended to be off form and fitness, with the exception of the “real professionals” (such as Dravid and Tendulkar, according to Wright).

All in all, i cannot think of a more sincere view of an Indian Cricket Team ever being written in the form of a book or in the form of newspaper columns. There is a difference between describing a team dynamic without mincing words or facts, and revealing nuggets designed to fulfill voyeuristic desires of cricket fans. Having followed the first draft of the history of Indian Cricket regularly over the past 5-6 years, this superbly crafted account is a godsend…

If i was a book reviewer id give it ***** out of ***** 🙂

On Gilchrist’s batting Gloves…

The story goes that Adam Gilchrist used half a squash ball inside his batting gloves and that this was the most telling reason behind the Australian wicketkeepers whirlwind epic in the World Cup Final. What makes this story even more compelling is the fact that Gilchrist’s batting had been lacklustre in the lead up to the final and the use of the squash ball may have been a tad illegal. Nobody has actually seen a video demonstration of how the squash ball is used in the batting gloves – the best we have is Michael Slaters animated description (minus batting gloves and semi-squash balls…… which i thought was bizarre given the preference TV commentators have traditional shown for props). Vijitha gave an equally elaborate description in a comment on my previous post.

As far as my reading of the laws goes – it is not illegal. The comparison to the Woolmer-Cronje wireless link or Dennis Lillee’s aluminium bat is tenuous at best. Gilchrist has also been using batting leg guards which do not have the traditional flap and are more like a wicketkeepers leg guards. This definitely gives his greater mobility, but lesser protection. As for the effect of the squash ball, i think the controversy will die a natural death the next time Gilchrist makes a low score using the squash ball. Wicketkeepers have long been placing raw steak inside their wicket keeping gloves to soften the blow of having to keep to genuine pace all day long. Andy Sandham – Test Cricket’s first triple centurion used a shirt with a foam vest stitched to it by his wife for better protection against the pace of Manny Martindale during a West Indies tour in the late 1920’s.

Players will try and in my view ought to be allowed to try out modifications to their equipment as long as these are not in explicit contravention to the rules. In any event, no modification or innovation should be viewed as being laden with the intent to cheat. It may just be that the squash ball is particularly effective given Gilchrist unique grip on the bat, and that for a traditional grip it is not as effective. Sachin Tendulkar uses ulta-light weight leg guards. One of the lesser known side benefits of these leg guards is that the ball flies further off these leg guards than it would off the traditional heavier, ribbed leg-guards. In fact, Tendulkar’s dismissal in the 1996 World Cup semi-final was attributed to this. Tendulkar was run out by the wicketkeeper Kaluwitharna when a ball hit his pad and he took off for a single confident that the ball had travelled far enough and had enough on it to enable a single. That was what he had come to except and experienced from his leg guards. As it happened the ball did not travel too far, and Tendulkar was run out trying to scramble back into his crease.

So it can work both ways. Batsmen routinely use reinforced batting gloves against quicker bowlers – does that give them unfair protection? Does close in fielders using all sorts of protection given them an unfair advantage? These are all interesting questions – ones which are viewed as being pedantic in some quarters, valid and consequential in others….

In my view, unless it is established that the use of a certain innovation gives a bowler or a batsman undue advantage – in so far as it skews the contest between bat and ball decisively in one direction, these innovations should be welcomed.

Bad Light in the World Cup Final…..

The World Cup Final involved two issues where there is doubt as to whether the correct decisions were taken – the first, relatively minor issue being about Adam Gilchrist using a squash ball inside his batting gloves. The legality of this has been questioned. The second and more consequential issue pertains to the decision of the Umpires to require 3 overs to be bowled in very poor light after the light had been already offered to the batsmen. Typically here, the purpose of the press has been to find a scapegoat (the question they ask is “Who was at fault?”. In my view, what they ought to be asking is “What actually happened?”). As it happens, they have found a scapegoat – Jeff Crowe. In this post i will try and describe what happened and hopefully be able to invoke all the relevant laws to explain why the so called “fracas” occured.

The Playing Conditions for the 2007 World Cup includes the following Clause (21.6.2) pertaining to Law 21 in the Laws:

21.6.2 “If the innings of the side batting second is suspended (with at least 20 overs bowled) and it is not possible for the match to be resumed, the match will be decided by comparison with the D/L ‘Par Score’ determined at the instant of the suspension by the Duckworth/Lewis method (refer Appendix 2). If the score is equal to the par score, the match is a Tie. Otherwise the result is a victory, or defeat, by the margin of runs by which the score exceeds, or falls short of, the Par Score.”

Further, the reserve day rule is clarified in clause 12.1.2 and 12.1.3:

12.1.2 “All matches shall have one reserve day allocated on which an incomplete match shall be continued from the scheduled day.”
12.1.3 “Every effort will be made to complete the match on the scheduled day with any necessary reduction in overs taking place and only if the minimum number of overs necessary to constitute a match cannot be bowled on the scheduled day will the match be completed on the reserve day.”

The light at the time was clearly poor and was clearly getting worse. These three clauses read together, suggest the following:
1. There was no necessity of returning the next day to complete the game.
2. The match could have been awarded to the Australians by the referee and the umpires once they judged that the light was not good enough for them to continue.

It is clear that the Umpires decision to request the players to return to the field and complete 3 further overs and complete the match was not the telling mistake. The mistake was that they did not exercise their authority to say that

“We have completed the minimum requirement for a completed match today, and since we deem that the light will not improve, and no further play will be possible today, the match is awarded to Australia as they are ahead as per the Duckworth-Lewis chart at this stage”

By asking the players to return, and having the Sri Lankans face slow bowling for 3 overs, the umpires in fact ruled that the light was good enough for play to continue with three overs to play. Ponting agreed to bowl three overs. What might have happened had Ponting refused to bowl three overs of spin and handed the ball to Shaun Tait? The Umpires might have offered the light to the Sri Lankans yet again, and the Sri Lankans might have accepted it again. Here is the catch though. We might have reached a stalemate, unless one of the captains had refused to take the field. Had Ponting refused to take the field or if Sri Lanka refused to take the field, the Umpires and the Match Referee would have been forced to award to match to one of the teams in accordance with Law 21.3(a) and Law 21.3(b) as modified in the World Cup 2007 playing conditions.

The Umpires and the Referee, the Australian and Sri Lankan team, the broadcasters and the Press were the agencies involved in decision making and communicating this event to the general public. Lets have a look at how each acquitted themselves:

1. The Umpires and Referee were faced with a tricky situation, and made a mistake, even though technically they were right – because they decided that play would continue until the overs were completed, and both teams agreed to play (there by agreeing that the light was good enough to play – no complaint about the light was made by Sri Lanka or Australia in those three overs). They should have deemed the light bad enough to end play for the day, and hence award the match to Australia based on D/L, but they didn’t. They chose a second, more convoluted route instead.

2. The Australian celebration was premature and began the minute Sri Lankan batsmen accepted the light. At that point, there was no decision by the Umpires that no further play would be possible on the day. The Australians made this assumption (and possibly so did the Sri Lankans). Technically, this was a mistake. But given the occasion it is understandable.

3. The Sri Lankans accepted the offer of the light, and in the end were the only party to emerge out of the confusion without any blame. The Australians should not have celebrated before they had been awarded the match, and their celebration probably contributed to the confusion. It was left to Jayawardene and Ponting to agree to play out the remaining three overs.

4. The broadcasters smelt an opportunity to abuse the ICC and did so with gusto. There was no calm explanation of events. (All the information in this post was available in that commentary box – the playing conditions as well as the laws.). The attitude was not “Lets try and find out and explain what happened” (communication with the umpires and/or referee would not have been necessary to explain the position as per the law and the playing conditions), it was ” Lets try and milk this, because fueling controversy and blaming the ICC for destroying cricket is far more compelling than something that can be simply explained on account of the laws. The point should have been to explain what was happening, before laying the blame.

5. The press called it a farce. In so far as the fact that the umpires chose not to conclude that no further play would be possible that day, they were right. However again, it was too good an opportunity to practice throwing tomatoes and ridding the fridge of old useless eggs.

The casualty as always, is the game. The “real” world does not do it any favors. It was in the end a simple case of the Umpires making a mistake and choosing a tedious course of action, when the law in fact allowed them greater control over proceedings. The delicious technicality that the subsequent completion of the three overs ironically vindicated the umpires stand that play had merely been “suspended” and that the days play had not been deemed over, was missed by observers.

As always, it all boils down to how you look at the game. If you look at it as a fundamentally positive thing, where unless there is cheating, there is no cause for complaint, and any technically/legally complicated situations reveal nuances and a balance of authority which is fascinating (the Oval controversy was one such – sadly, it rarely went beyond name calling and “inside scoops” in the mainstream press), then you can’t lose watching cricket. If instead you get your kicks out of calling the very people who entertain you names at the first available opportunity, then the press and the broadcasters will never disappoint you…..

Its a choice – was it a case of a debatable bad light decision, or was it an incompetent farce by the “ICC”? The commentators invariably choose the generalization by blaming the ICC – because they would look like fools if they complained against Bucknor or Dar or Koertzen… three fine umpires who do a very difficult job with far greater integrity and skill than most people off the field of play can even imagine is possible.

The Referee’s is a difficult position – he does not have the authority and the respect traditionally accorded to the umpires. The Referee is an imposition on the game by the ICC – and the constituent nations agree that the position is necessary.

I believe that there is a severe need for a counterpoint to the mainstream broadcasters and the press. I aim to provide it whenever i can. For the most part though, the idea is to describe the cricket that takes place. And until the press regulates itself and is willing write about coverage of events rather than merely writing about events, the use of the generalization “the press” is valid in my view.

The press and the commentators were technically right. Purely “technically” however, the umpires were not “wrong”.