English conditions, Indian victory…..

If a dispassionate view of cricket in England were accepted, people would be amazed by how many games between evenly matched teams are decided by the timing of presence or absence of a cloud cover. Today was one such day. England were without Flintoff, but the weather and the reputation of Headingley was enough for Paul Collingwood to do a Dravid – to win the toss and field. If the first 5 games have been anything to go by, this by itself might have provided a glimpse into what might transpire.

As it happened, Tendulkar and Ganguly walked out to bat, and before long the sun decided to see for himself what 26000 ODI runs, nearly 700 ODI games, 152 fifties and 63 centuries look like on an international cricket ground. For much of this summer, apart from a few stray glimpses, we have been reminded that even great cricketers are human. Today however, we learnt that they have a keen memory too. Five years ago, Tendulkar and Ganguly put on 249 for the 4th wicket at the famous ground, 96 of those came in 11 overs at the end, after an impressive day long display of patience. Today, they watched the first 5 or so overs, before Tendulkar decided to assert himself just a wee bit. The honest push to cover was replaced first by persuasive open face, then by a coercive closed face. At that point, Jon Lewis threw in the towel. The square cut to the rank long hop and the leg glance to the mistake down the leg side was the victor’s plunder. From that point on, England were sent on a leather hunt, and it didn’t matter whether or not the sun shone. The last 45 overs of the Indian innings produced 315 runs. Gambhir, the sixth batsman, came in at number 3 and gave a demonstration of why he remains on the fringes of selection for India for 4 long years despite averaging 21 against non minnow opposition. Yuvraj Singh was his usual imperious self. Dravid’s bat seemed to possess only the middle, and Dhoni swung with unambiguous gusto.

When England batted, there was the usual patchwork of mixed bowling, good length, bad length, missed catches, good catches….. the end result, England reached 242 in 39 overs despite their best stroke player being dismissed for zero, but lost 8 wickets in the process. Ganguly found something in the wicket that no other bowler had been able to find and with an inspired Dhoni standing expertly up to the stumps, broke the back of the English middle order.

Even though his problems with rotating the strike remain, there is little doubt that Ganguly is a versatile ODI cricketer. His 300th ODI game was a memorable one. A must win game, where he scored a 50 and took two wickets. He also enjoyed his 19th century stand with his great friend and opening partner of old.

Reality must still be faced though, and the fact remains that only 1/3rd of the job is done. The thing to do however seems to me to make sure they bat first in the next game, pray that the sun makes his appearances only when it is most propitious for India and then pray further, that India find someone in their eleven who make telling use of the generosity of the Sun God.

India have stayed alive, but they haven’t won the series…… yet!

Damned if you do and damned if you don’t…… the story of a historic Test series win….

India won in England for only the third time in 75 years and there has been much rejoicing. The twist in the tale has been marked by Rahul Dravid’s decision not to enforce the follow on at the Oval Test. He has said much in explanation of the decision, and opinions have been formed based bit and pieces of what he said. What hasn’t helped matters is his reference to the World Cup. That still touches a raw nerve and all the usual arguments about endorsements, shame, betrayal, etc. make their insalubrious appearance. If you think that short list is an overstatement, then think again, because thats precisely what is said about our sportsmen.

The story of Kabir Khan of Chak de India – “an Islamic last name and a meteoric temper make for a media-unfriendly mix” confirms the vindictiveness of the Indian public, represented by the usual suspects – the electronic news media, political organizations and other players. This was supposed to be a inspiring, feel-good movie by all accounts. Yet, it is one of the most disturbing movies in recent times in my view. It brought to the fore a host of prejudices more starkly and more vividly than ever before, and that in my view is the greatest value of the film. That there was little comment of the work of the news media (homing in on an innocent handshake at the end of the game), and merely referring to the subsequent inquiry. That was not the subject of the movie – the movie was about the women’s hockey team. But even so, that the initial castigation was cast in those terms and neither the director nor reviewers of the film sought to pause for a moment and refer to it, except as the starting point of the narrative, is a comment in itself. That is how the director saw India, and the public seems to have accepted it unquestioningly. This characterization has attracted none of the mob fury which a film like Water seems to attract. Nobody’s sentiments seemed to have been hurt by Shimit Amin’s portrayal of Kabir Khan’s disgrace. It suggests sadly that the writer of the film hit the nail squarely on its head.

In Chak de India, it was the muslim last name and the meteoric temper. In Cricket, the muslim last name is replaced by a whole host of myths – endorsements, commentary about ego’s, selfishness and a host of other issues which feed the meteoric temper, fuelled by the TRP crazed news media.

The whole issue about the follow on at the Oval has caused debate not because the follow on was not enforced, but because Rahul Dravid actually tried to explain it without the usual gratuitous, apologetic politeness which accompanies these explanations. He actually tried to give some credit to the naysayers by simply pointing out that he, by virtue of his position had access to information which they did not – namely the state of his bowlers, and his view of the opposition. This was followed in short order by the comment about the World Cup. The response to that has been quite swift – with references (unfair in my view) to the fact that Dravid and his teammates benefit the most from the “unhealthy obsession” with the world cup. None of the players pine for this kind of frenzy. Indeed, if we can refer back to Chak de India for a moment – the Australian penalty taker who missed that last penalty – the reaction in Australia to that miss might have been a telling counterpoint to what Kabir Khan faced.

Ian Chappell in his series review makes a pointed observation about another aspect of the Kabir Khan/Cricket World Cup 2007 mentality –
“However, being captain of India isn’t as straightforward as leading, say, Australia. If Ricky Ponting makes a poor judgment, as he did during the 2005 Ashes series, his effigy isn’t burned in the streets or his family threatened. This is why an Australian captain is able to challenge his team to become better, which gives him a considerable advantage over his Indian counterpart.”

(Contrast Chappell’s opinion with Mandira Bedi’s disgustingly juvenile assertion after India had recovered in the 2003 World Cup that the effigy burning along with vicious criticism by people of her ilk might have spurred the Indian recovery. She said this on national TV, and it attracted little criticism)

Further, lets actually examine some cricketing evidence. If England had followed on on the fourth morning, on a wicket which wasn’t doing a great deal, even in overcast conditions, they would have started 300 runs behind with 170 overs left in the game. If they had matched or even slightly bettered their first innings effort – making say 450, it would have left India with a tricky 100 runs to get. Whats more – 170 overs offered ample time for these 550 runs to be scored at normal Test match pace on the fast scoring Oval ground (India made 664 in under two days). By batting again, India left England 500 to make in 110 overs. This has never even been approached in 140 years of Test history. Teams have however been dismissed many times in 40-50 overs. So purely from a cricketing perspective, Dravid’s judgement was sound. He chose to put the game completely beyond England’s reach. Further, if you think about the fact that Zaheer Khan was suffering from a bruised heel and had left the ground for treatment on the third evening, it is not hard to guess what Rahul Dravid meant when he said he knew the condition his bowlers were in.

If you think back to the first Ashes test at Brisbane this year – Australia batted first and made 600, England were bowled out in 61 overs for 157. Did Australia enforce the follow on? No! They batted again, made 1/202 and then bowled England out in 100 overs.

India left themselves 110 overs to bowl England out. They got 6 wickets in 110 overs. That gives you a clue as to how difficult it might have been trying to dismiss England a second time (especially with Zaheer injured) on the fourth day. Was Zaheer injured? Did that affect his bowling? Did it affect the way in which he was used by Dravid in the 4th innings? Without any definitive answers coming from the team its hard to say. But lets look at some other evidence. At Lord’s, Zaheer Khan bowled 18/91 overs (20%) and 28/78 overs (36%) of the overs bowled by India in the first and second innings. At Trent Bridge, these figures were 21/65 (32%) and 27/104 (26%). At the Oval, these figures were 22/103 (21%) and 20/110 (18%). Zaheer was India’s spearhead. Yet the conditions and possibly his own fitness meant that he was used sparingly in the 4th innings at the Oval.
Lets look at one other factor – the effectiveness of Anil Kumble in 4th innings overseas. Anil Kumble has bowled 15 times in 4th innings in Away Tests. His bowling average in these innings is 31.34, worse than his career average. On good wickets overseas, he has never won a Test match for India in the 4th innings. He has had two 5 wicket hauls in overseas Tests (outside the subcontinent) in the 3rd or 4th innings. Both came in low scoring games. The first in Johannesburg in 1992 where the highest innings total was 292. Kumble took 6/53 in 44 overs to help bowl South Africa out in the 3rd innings and restrict their lead and the time they had to bowl India out. The second was at Kingston Jamaica in 2006 where he took 6/78. That was a low scoring game on a minefield of a pitch (India made 200 all out and 171 all out and won!). And Kumble’s 6/78 came in a West Indies 4th innings of 219.

So there was little evidence to suggest that the Indian bowling attack, with Zaheer Khan not at 100%, on a good Oval wicket which showed no sign of disintegrating, would be able to bowl England out cheaply the second time around. Dravid as captain would have an extremely realistic judgement about the quality of his bowling line up. By any prudent cricketing yardstick, Dravid’s decision to bat a second time at Trent Bridge must be viewed as a sound, responsible, hard nosed, bloody-minded, professional decision. It is no surprise then that Michael Vaughan agreed with Dravid’s decision, as did most other commentators. Even those who disagreed with it, conceded that they saw his point.

Conversely there is the Kabir Khanesque view – even in victory, where motives are questioned at every turn and no allowance or consideration is made for possibility that our best sportsmen are human. There is little doubt that Rahul Dravid is absolutely right in his assessment that the obsession with the Cricket World Cup in unhealthy. Yet, instead of the unhealthiness being the issue, the issue is that he thinks it is unheatlhy. Therefore, comment is directed at him, rather than at his opinion.

Sadly, this is not the work of a lunatic fringe. The framework for sport in India has not been set – not by a long way. The vacuum is filled by a sensationalist press and journalists interested in juicy stories (read – stories which are abusive of individuals). Chak de India has cast a harsh spotlight on this vacuum – possibly unintentionally. Cricket, as the one sport where India compete on equal terms with the best in the world (the argument that there are only 10 test playing countries – 8 good ones and 2 poor ones is a ridiculous one in my view – 10 is about the number of high quality national teams around in any sport in the world), has been the context in which this vacuum gets exposed after every series – even in victory. How is the treatment of Kabir Khan in Chak de India different from comments about “gutlessness”, “shame”, “betrayal”, “selfishness” etc etc etc which so dominates the discussion about cricketers whenever India lose? Nobody cares about the actual contest.

Until a healthy, sporting view of sport is taken, sportsmen will continue to engage in a futile (as Dravid must have found out time and again) dialogue. Sport is first and foremost about sport. It is not about winning and losing (this is a simple fact – it isn’t some wistful bit of mush). There can be no discussion about sport which disregards the conventions and nuances about the sport. In the absence of this perspective and this context, it becomes a classic case of damned if you do and damned if you don’t – overseas Test series wins are worth nothing outside the cricket community. It is the exposure of this reality that is the finest gift from Bollywood and Cricket in this 60th Year of our Nation.

If only we would see it that way…….