Archive for the 'England' Category

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

October 12, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Superior all-round depth brings England Series Victory……

September 8, 2007

India paid for their series long inability to control the runs in the field in the last game of the ODI series. Conventional wisdom would have dictated that the captain winning the toss might field first. But so dismal has been the form of the Indian pace attack, that India had long abandoned the three paceman ploy for the six batsman ploy. Dravid was left with two equal choice – to revert back to a failed ploy which had so far given him absolutely no control in the field, or to place his batsmen in a difficult position and ask of them a match winning total on a bowler friendly London morning. As it happened, he seems to have made the wrong choice. But it would be a tough (and some would say heartless) judge who might castigate a captain for failing to guess right (this was a guess in the purest sense of the word).

There was a subtle change in India’s tactics at the top of the order. Gone was the early cautiousness. Sourav Ganguly seemed intent on delivering the match winning total very early in the innings and deemed it unnecessary to get a look in, or even look at the ball at times! He was worked over with some well directed purposeful short bowling, lost his rhythm and his normal footwork and eventually offered a tame poke outside off stump after many of his involuntary hook shots missed the fielders. Tendulkar at the other end was all correctness. He was shuffling back and across to cover the ball and never missed a single scoring opportunity.

The English bowling was hostile and each of the three England bowlers – Anderson, Broad and Flintoff bowled a superb basic length and were consistently quicker than their Indian counterparts. They do have a basic advantage in height, but they made it count.

Gambhir came in at number 3, and looked accomplished. His dismissal was the sort that indicates to the experienced watcher that the rub of the green is running against the batting side today. A perfectly executed pull shot – middled, well-timed, hit down towards the ground… landed in Luke Wright’s hands. Usually they might have said “a yard on either side would have meant four”, but here in this case, a foot might have sufficed.

Dravid came and was almost immediatly caught on the crease by a vicious Flintoff off cutter. Whether or not he edged it is immaterial, but Flintoff’s line and length in those 3 early overs (remember he’s returning from injury and playing with an injection to manage the injury) was an object lesson for ODI pacemen. Here is a bowler who has the priceless ability to control the runs. Tendulkar did score two boundaries off him, but those were down to Tendulkar taking tremendous risks – backing away and hitting over the infield on the off side. Then followed Tendulkar’s dismissal. It was a difficult call for the Umpire. I wouldn’t call it the worst decision Tendulkar has had this year. It was certainly extremely good bowling – good line, good length.

Robin Uthappa came in and proceeded to play with the confidence of a match winner until he played a nothing off drive down mid off’s throat. It was a nonchalant swat – neither lofted nor grounded, and he can expect good teams to trap him in that cover and mid off area often if he keeps that shot up. 10 years ago, such a shot, in such a situation might have invited the attention of the selectors in almost all of the major test playing nations. Today, nobody is likely to bat an eyelid.

From then on, it was a matter of survival, and once Yuvraj Singh was strangled by the superbly accurate Mascarenhas (note the line and length on that ball), it was all over bar the shouting. Dhoni made 50 and gave India something to bowl at, but as has been the case for most of this series, it was not apparent that India would in fact be able bowl with too much conviction.

Zaheer Khan’s opening over to England’s Matt Prior – a wicketkeeper batsman with a pronounced tendency to shuffle across his stumps, was illustrative of the problem with the Indian bowling this series. Two out of six balls were drifting down the leg side, one went for four leg byes and the other was a wide. Five runs conceded without the batsman playing a shot in anger. RP followed this up with a wide down the off side before the first delivery bowled in earnest yielded a wicket. Later, after a brief spurt of good bowling, Ian Bell was allowed 3 pull shots off rank long hops within a space of 2 overs and the pressure had eased. England were away. Three overs later, Sourav Ganguly produced yet another rank long hop and Bell moved to 27(31), and England to 61/2. The purpose here is to illustrate the ease with which runs are conceded against a batting side which is rebuilding. The English batsmen are match fit and in good form and are unlikely to miss out on gift wrapped offerings.

This lack of control has hurt India in this series. That is the urgent review that they need to conduct. The team needs depth, not just in the batting line up, but in the ODI bowling. The fielding needs similar review. The role of both Robin Singh and Venkatesh Prasad needs to be reviewed. Especially Venkatesh Prasad, who’s public questioning of Munaf Patel’s “attitude” left a lot to be desired. Rahul Dravid has never found occasion to publicly castigate one of his players and there is no reason for Prasad to do so. Within the team, im quite sure that Dravid lets rip occasionally, but in public, he does (as he must) always back his players to the hilt and defend them when required.

All things considered, in England, inspite of England depth in batting and bowling, and superior fielding, the end result was 3-4. It is fitting that the match that turned the series England’s way was won by Stuart Broad and Dmitri Mascarenhas. They have made the difference – Broad, Mascarenhas, Bopara and Wright and given England something that India had no answer too – all round depth.

The English pace attack looks promising. That they went into the final game 3-3 without a single telling contribution from their best ODI batsman is a testament to how well their team has contributed. India on the other hand needed something special from Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid, Yuvraj or Dhoni to stay abreast of England. Ian Chappell’s “p

The better team won at the end of the day…..

Magnificient Batsmen deliver yet again…..

September 5, 2007

India levelled the Natwest series 3-3 at the Oval today chasing 300+ for a record 6th time in ODI cricket. Sri Lanka with 4 successful 300+ run chases have the second best record. India have also reached 300 batting second more often than any other ODI team. While this is an indicator of India’s formidable batting strength, it is more significantly a measure of their moderate bowling. If the Australian batting were stretched for example, they might have done better than India in reaching 300.

Today’s stirring run chase was made possibly by the bowlers committing suicide yet again after doing quite well in the first 30 overs of the English innings. England were 137/5 in 30 overs and were allowed to score 179 runs in the last 20 overs despite being 5 down! Owais Shah batted brilliantly and the bowling and fielding fell away. When it was India’s turn to bat, it was the usual suspects delivering yet again. Indeed, at 139/0 after 20 overs, India might have expected to win easily. The run chase was a great example of why the 300 score is so difficult to chase. After batting brilliantly for 25 or so overs, India were still required to scored at better than 6 an overs in the last 25 overs, and a couple of wickets at the wrong time put the skids on the Indian run rate. Tendulkar batted as only Tendulkar can and it is possibly the saddest thing in cricket in many many years, that he should have to contemplate retirement from ODI cricket just as he had managed to put together his first real continuous stint of batting at the international level since the 2003 World Cup. But even if he does decide to retire, he has in this series managed to offer glimpses of his old self – he will retire as the greatest ODI batsman in history.

Sourav Ganguly seems to prosper in the great man’s company and India’s come back in this series has been due in large part to their brilliance at the top of the order. They have now produced two consecutive century stands for the first wicket in must win games. Doubtless, if they don’t make runs in the decider, they will be accused of not delivering when it really counts (never mind that the fast bowling has not deliver in any substantial measure in any of the 6 games so far), but then again, if they played to please the public, they might not have lasted a single year, let alone 18 and 11 respectively.

Robin Uthappa, Gautam Gambhir and MS Dhoni all played their parts in the run chase with Uthappa especially finding crucial boundaries at the end.

It’s on to the decider then…. with Andrew Flintoff most likely to miss out, India will fancy their chances – provided the bowling delivers…. It is time the bowlers put together 50 solid overs of bowling.

English conditions, Indian victory…..

September 3, 2007

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!

Too many malfunctions…. handicapped India on the brink of series defeat.

August 30, 2007

Ravi Bopara, who wants to be England’s Sachin Tendulkar and Stuart Broad who wants to establish himself as an ODI all rounder produced a measured, level-headed 99 run stand in about 25 overs to steer England to an important victory at Old Trafford in the ongoing NatWest series.

Old Trafford is reputedly the quickest wicket in England these days and there was ample evidence of this as Sourav Ganguly and three Englishmen fell due to the extra pace and bounce on offer. India have had 6 performers in this series so far – Tendulkar, Dravid, Yuvraj and to a lesser extent Sourav Ganguly and the spinners. The pacemen have been dismal and the fielding has been less than fleet-footed. Against an English side which seems to discover new talents almost every game, carrying 5 passengers and 11 poor fielders has been an enormous handicap. The 1-3 score line is fair at this stage in the series.

Rahul Dravid can take whatever decision he wants to at the toss, but if his (fast) bowlers don’t support him, anything he does is doomed from the start. A great example of this no show by the pace bowlers, was Zaheer Khan’s no show in his second spell at a crucial phase in the game today. As Bopara and Broad were trying to establish themselves, much of the commentary seemed to disagree with the Indian captain’s strategy of persisting with the two spinners instead of bringing back his pace spearheads and go for the kill. I would not go so far as to suggest that this belief was based on a overly simplistic connection between pace and effectiveness, but i would suggest that peoples view of the Indian ODI pace attack (especially with the older ball) varies sharply with Rahul Dravid’s. In my view, Rahul Dravid has got it right. Why do i think so? Just take a look at Zaheer’s two over spell – overs 35 and 37 of the innings where he went for 15 runs in 2 overs. Of those 15 runs, there were two four balls – one drifting down leg (after expressly setting a field with fine leg square and the extra fielder on the off side) and the other short and wide outside off stump. Any batsman worth his salt with some batting ability (which the English tail doubtless has – more on this later) would have hit both. Add to this one unbelievable backfoot off drive which Chris Broad might have been proud of, and you have Dravid’s trump card failing him miserably. RP Singh doesn’t look like he can lead an attack and so his efforts as a support bowler ought not to come under too much harsh criticism.

In 50 overs, there is a limit to what the captain can do with his bowling changes given the 10 over restriction. The spinners were bowling well – they were beating the bat and inducing errors. With a bit of luck one of them might have broken through. It was not to be.

Should India have made more than 213? Take into account the following:

1. India’s long tail (because we don’t have a player who can bat and bowl – like Flintoff or Broad or Giles)
2. The English pace attack – superior to Indias in quality, depth and pace
3. The English batting’s efforts against the Indian new ball attack – in my view they played too many strokes and gave India too many wickets – the dismissals of Pietersen, Bell and Ganguly, and Tendulkar’s stubborn refusal to hook or pull should give you a good idea about the wicket.

Considering all that, Tendulkar and Yuvraj played terrific innings. Both were dismissed just when they were about to take the attack to English bowlers. After three good games, Dravid had a failure and Dinesh Karthik further underlined the fact that he’s not quite ready to play the number 3 role in ODI cricket. He seems in many ways to be the anti-Sehwag. Sehwag was able to establish a great batting rythm in Test cricket – his natural ability to hit the ball, along with the opportunity to bat without the pressure of the run rate enabled him to play his game in his own comfort zone. In ODI Cricket, the same Sehwag lost his ability to be discerning in his choice of balls to hit and basically tried to the wham bang approach, which didn’t work. With Karthik its the same. He seems to be far more comfortable building an innings in Test cricket. In ODI cricket, the pressure of having played out a maiden the previous over seems to get to him. This may be a hasty judgement, but like Sehwag he seems to have found it difficult to make the adjustment – albeit from the other side (if you see what i mean). Dhoni fell to a beauty from Panesar – the sort of ball spinners dream about.

There are questions about the batting line up though. The obvious question is – if Tendulkar and Ganguly were going to open the batting, why did the selectors pack the reserve batting with two opening batsmen and a wicketkeeper batsman? Should Tendulkar and Ganguly be opening at all? In Tendulkar’s case it seems Ok – because he seems to play better opening the innings. He can also play in the middle order – and do well by any standards, but as an opener he’s in a class by himself – on this England tour in 7 matches against top opposition, he’s reached 50 4 times in conditions where the new ball offers the severest threat during the innings. With Ganguly its a similar matter, but in his case his limitations with regard to rotation of strike and running between the wickets, in addition to his own obvious preference seem to dictate this. The rotation of strike issue is uncharacteristic. It seems to be a recent problem. But its serious problem for India because not only does it slow down Ganguly’s own scoring, it puts extra pressure on the player at the other end because he’s effectively denied the strike for a large number of deliveries.

India need to rethink their batting order for the next game. The Dinesh Karthik experiment is not working. Neither is the Ganguly experiment in my view. India have little choice on the 5 bowler front. It is also a sound strategic idea in the long term.

Right now though, they need to stem the rot and win something. Teamwork worked in the Test series. In the ODI game, its time for someone to put up a marquee performance in the 5th game. If India cannot find XI contributions, they must find 1-2 extraordinary ones. Like the NatWest Final in 2002. That result confirmed the reputation of Ganguly’s team. Yet that particular game was a result of India playing absolute rubbish when they were bowling and for all but 30 overs of their run chase. That win was down to the individual brilliance of Kaif and Yuvraj more than anything else. India need a brilliant hundred or a brilliant spell from somewhere. Given their recent track record, the former is more likely. And it is Yuvraj who threatens most to find an innings that will blow England away and destroy their momentum more than anyone else in the Indian line up.

Lets wait and watch……

Bowling, Fielding hurts India yet again……

August 27, 2007

The Indian bowling had a third consecutive sub-par day as India went down by 45 runs to England in the third ODI of the 7 match series. India have to win 3 out of the next 4 if they are to win this series now and if the bowling and fielding keeps performing the way it has been (more the bowling than the fielding), then there is little chance of that happening. The batsmen will have to play out of even their extraordinarily proficient skins to win with the kind of bowling that India have. India have nobody who is able to control the runs and their best bowler (Munaf Patel) has developed a problem of overstepping and bowling occasional wides – something he didn’t have earlier. He bowled 4 no balls in 5 overs today to add to the 5 he bowled in 8 overs yesterday.

India have to control proceedings with the new ball especially against a scratch pairing of Cook and Prior. It is not as though it is Gilchrist, Hayden and Ponting they are up against. England have greater fast bowling depth compared to India and even without Flintoff and Sidebottom, they are able to play 3 bowlers who are quicker than all the Indian bowlers in the ODI squad barring Patel. This pace edge is further accentuated by India not bowling as well as they can bowl. The inexperienced spinners have done an admirable job inspite of having to come on to bowl with the opposition innings in excellent shape. It would be completely different if Powar could come in at 80/3 instead of 120/1.

Just as a comparison, the the 6 (or 7, depending on how many batsmen they played) India batsmen have averaged 36.83 runs/wicket in these first 3 ODI games. In comparison, the top 6 (or 7) English batsmen have averaged 45.63 runs/wicket in these games. To put this in perspective, of the top 50 run-getters in ODI history, only 3 – Bevan, Richards and Greenidge average over 45 runs/wicket with the bat. India have conceded 280+ on 3 consecutive occasions now inspite of having good times to bowl in each of the three games. If they keep this up, people are going to forget very quickly that this Indian bowling line up took 56 out of 60 English wickets on offer in the Test series!

There are limitations with some of the batsmen as well. India have still not found a quality ODI batsman to add to Dravid, Ganguly, Tendulkar and Yuvraj. I can see Sehwag returning in a hurry if things don’t improve. Due to the performance of the bowlers, they have been forced to play 5 bowlers even though none of those 5 bowlers qualify as anything other than tailenders with the bat. It puts fierce pressure on the top 5 batsmen (+Dhoni). It forces Ganguly to hold one end up as he did today instead of attacking. 280 is not chased everyday. India keep conceding it everyday though!

There needs to be a serious rethink with the bowling tactics as well as strategy. The problem with the bowling – especially the fast bowling, is even though three pace bowlers are played, if any of them are missing for a game due to injury or illness, it cannot be said that they would be missed. Out of Agarkar, Zaheer, Sreesanth, Munaf, RP Singh and Irfan Pathan, it would be impossible as of today to clearly mark a first choice pace attack. If ever there was an example of musical chairs in the Indian pace attack, it is now. There is depth in numbers and talent, but there is no consistency. These blow hot blow cold performance must drive Dravid and Vengsarkar and Venky Prasad up the wall! Contrast this with the current Indian batting line up. If you look at the 5 mainstays – Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid, Yuvraj and Dhoni, for just the year 2007, their record reads as follows (not counting minnow matches):

Ganguly – 540 runs at 45 in 10 innings
Tendulkar – 570 runs at 47.5 in 13 innings
Dravid – 648 runs at 58.9 in 13 innings
Yuvraj – 349 runs at 49.8 in 10 innings
Dhoni – 290 runs at 41.42 in 11 innings

Those are records any team would kill for…… Yet, India have win loss record against non-minnows in 2007 which reads 8-6.

I don’t buy the argument that India play on fast scoring grounds on easy paced tracks. India plays on the same tracks that every other side in the world plays on. You don’t see Vaas or Pollock or Ntini go for 6 or 7 runs per over in every second game. India ought not to fall into the trap of lowering expectations from the bowlers simply because they can’t meet the required high standards. They won’t win consistently with bad bowling and the batting will not bail them out every time. Besides, the batting is entitled its off days as well (much rarer than the new ball bowlers having off days!).

Theres nothing India can do about their fielding, because you can’t replace Ganguly, Dravid and Tendulkar simply because they are not Jonty Rhodes in disguise. If Munaf and co were to bowl well, India would win inspite of the fielding deficit. The best way to get some balance would be to find an all rounder. Thats why Irfan Pathan is so priceless.

The outcome of this natwest series depends on whether or not India’s new ball bowlers recover some semblance of control. If they do, India will win. If they don’t then England will. India’s beleagured bowlers will do well to remember that they have yet to face the Pietersen and Flintoff willows in full cry. When that happens they might just bottom out.

The favor is returned…. bowling frailties remain….

August 24, 2007

India won the toss in the second ODI at Bristol and produced the sort of batting display that one has come to expect off this experienced line up. Playing with the extra bowler (a move which was to prove priceless later) meant added pressure on the batsmen. The Gloucestershire faithful at the County Ground were treated to some expert batsmanship. This was India’s 39th score of 300 or more in limited overs cricket, since their maiden 300+ score in 1995 at Sharjah against Pakistan. Then as now, it was Tendulkar at the top of the order who gave the innings impetus. Had it not been for his wretched luck in the 90’s, he might have had 4 international centuries during this England tour – 2 against SA, and 2 against England. This was possibly also his most commanding innings on this tour so far. Once Tendulkar had left, Rahul Dravid came in and produced the sort of innings which had made him one of the finest middle order ODI batsmen in the world in this decade. He paced his innings brilliantly without ever losing momentum. He reached 50 in 43 balls, and his next 42 runs came in 20.

There was a period during the innings, after Tendulkar had fallen where India were a wee bit careful. It was also when the English second stringers were bowling. The commentators – amongst them 2 former international captains and one former international coach, were unanimous that Rahul Dravid and Yuvraj Singh were missing a trick by not putting their foot on the pedal and letting Mascarenhas and co. As it happened, it the lull didn’t last and the four major English bowlers were taken for 93 runs in the last 10 overs. Dhoni came and went and by the end India had reached a score England had never successfully chased before.

When India bowled, it was a familiar story, but for Munaf Patel. He went for 70 in his 9 overs, but took 3 wickets. One might have said that those figures do him no justice, but for his generosity with wides and no balls. Clearly he still hasn’t perfected his modified technique and needs to work on his no balls. If you look at the 70 runs he conceded though, his wides and no balls alone cost him 19 of those runs (not counting the runs scored of the resulting extra deliveries). A further 12 were the result of inside edges (the cricinfo commentator called them “lemon” cuts). In addition to these 3 edgy strokes, he beat the bat a few other times. Other than that, he showed the priceless ability to hit any length he desired and stick to it – an absolute imperative when the ball isn’t swinging or seaming. He brought India back into the game after Agarkar had recieved his second straight hammering. The Indian catching was uncharacteristically sloppy.

That it didn’t prove fatal was down to what in my view was the ball of the match. Piyush Chawla beat Kevin Pietersen not by the straighter one, but by the in-drift in his normal leg break. The ball was delivered from reasonably close to the stumps, and drifted in towards middle stump. Pietersen was beaten by the length and was comprehensively defeated. Watch. It turned just enough to beat the bat and the pad and sneak through.

There after it was a case of ensuring that England stayed behind the eight ball. The pressure of the run rate would do the rest. India did well to stay ahead and the 9 run margin flattered England in the end. But in a sense it was fair, because what England have demonstrated in these two games is that they have superior talent lower down the order as compared to India. Chris Broad, Chris Tremlett, Andrew Flintoff and Dimitri Mascarenhas, all have all round ability. I just wonder though whether England needed Mascarenhas in their squad given that the first three were already playing. Might Monty have made a difference? The Indians would probably have played him better than the Englishmen played Powar (who bowled his classical off breaks with delightful guile) and Piyush Chawla, but even so – England lacked variety and they already have Paul Collingwood to bowl in Mascarenhas’s style. On the other hand, India at the moment seem to be a team of two halves – specialist batsmen who have done quite well, and a pace bowling department which seems to offer a choice between many equally limited options. RP Singh and Munaf Patel were accurate enough, but the senior experienced bowler – Agarkar, seems to have been targetted by England. If Zaheer is fit for the next game, it might be an interesting decision for the team management.

All in all, it was a win delivered by the batsmen and the spinners. There was little in the wicket for pacemen, and by and large they were not good enough to “not get hit” (something Wasim Akram laid great emphasis on in his bowling). He once said that his experience in ODI cricket had taught him mainly to avoid getting hit (“maar se bach jaata hoon”). It is a valuable lesson RP, Munaf and co can learn from these situations.

This series is nicely set now. England are the better balanced side, with greater depth in batting and fast bowling. They are also the better fielding side. One Day cricket allows them to still be beaten by 3-4 special performances. Today it was Tendulkar, Dravid, Munaf and the spinners who made it happen for India. Unlike in the Test series, this promises to remain the model of Indian victories in the ODI game unless India become a crack fielding outfit and a competent all round bowling outfit.

Oh yeah – and they need to keep the flu away, or atleast pass it on to the next door dressing room!

A Case Study defeat……

August 22, 2007

England beat India by 104 runs in the first match of the 7 match Natwest series at Southampton. It was the perfect home match for England. The visiting Captain won the toss under a heavy cloud cover. Consider the factors. In the test series, the red ball has swung prodigiously for the same Indian bowlers under similar conditions. The white ball swings more than the red ball. Consider also the predicted effect of the dew in the evening, which might make bowling difficult and negate any possibility of swing as the ball would get wet every time it was hit along the ground. All things considered, it probably made more sense to chase, and that is what Dravid chose to do.

For the very beginning, it was apparent that the bowlers had not turned up for the contest. There was no hint of wicket taking menace the English batsmen made merry. Alistair Cook and Ian Bell helped themselves to hundreds and Kevin Pietersen had his fun in slog. There after, it was England’s pace bowling edge (which Ian Chappell so presciently referred to) which came to the fore. Sourav Ganguly managed to run himself out and from that disastrous beginning India never recovered. With runs on the board and a freshened wicket, England’s pacemen ran in with a vengeance, as if to put behind them the demons of the Oval Test where they had been rendered so tellingly ineffective. Once Tendulkar and Yuvraj had fell in the same over from James Anderson (who seems to like the blue of India), there was no way back.

Anderson also seems to have a special affinity with bowling under lights. His career record now reads 103 wickets at 27.03, in contrast, his record bowling under lights reads 29 wickets at 20.72.

The sluggish Indian fielding side was also shown up on the larger than usual ground at Southampton. There is little that Robin Singh or anybody can do about this in the space of 2-3 weeks. What it will require is rigorous off season work directed by someone like Robin Singh. Even that will bring only minor improvements.

All in all, an off day for India. Dravid’s proud record of never having lost an ODI to England as captain was broken today. A look back at the first West Indies v England ODI earlier this season reveals that England won with similar ease batting first, only to lose the next two games when they were chasing.

Will history repeat itself?

For now though England’s pace edge has proved decisive……

Shashi Tharoor and a flawed analogy…..

August 21, 2007

Shashi Tharoor asks in his weekly column in the Times of India – Are we afraid of risks? The context – Rahul Dravid’s decision to bat a second time (or in Tharoor’s words – “After piling up a lead of 319 in the first innings, Rahul Dravid declined to enforce the follow-on against a demoralised and all-but-beaten England team. Dravid, a man I used to respect, sought to justify this pusillanimous decision by claiming his bowlers were tired.”)

The author starts by offering his vision of “new India” – in the form of Santhakumaran Sreesanth’s comically bad imitation of a kuchipudi dancer in the throes of the Ramayana War. For some odd reason, this was more than an fluke six connected by a hopeful number eleven. Andre Nel (the South African Sreesanth if you will) was allegedly trying to “intimidate him”. The “old India” in Tharoor’s view is represented by Rahul Dravid – scared of losing, diffident, cautious, all to its own detriment. His juxtaposition between the old and the new is telling and i will reproduce it here:

What Sreesanth demonstrated in Johannesburg was an attitude that has transformed the younger generation into a breed apart from its parents’. It is the attitude of an India that can hold its nerve and flex its sinews, an India whose self-confidence is rooted in the sober certitude of self-knowledge, an India that says to the future, “come on; I am not afraid of you.”

Dravid demonstrated, haplessly, that the dead hand of the older India still clings on — an India that is afraid to take risks for fear of failure, an India without the courage of self-belief, an India that is all too willing to settle for 1-0 than go for 2-0. This is the India that did a deal with the Kandahar hijackers rather than the India that threw out the intruders of Kargil. We have the capacity to be, in any field of national endeavour, both kinds of country. But I have no doubt that the attitude I saw on the fourth day of the Oval Test is unworthy of what the real India is shaping up to be.

Mind you, that last line suggests that the old India, represented by Rahul Dravid (and i assume the team think tank) is “unworthy” of what the real India is shaping up to be – Sreesanth! Now, if it seems that i am oversimplifying things, it is only to make the point that this is precisely what Mr. Tharoor has done here. He runs roughshod over some of the most complex areas of modern policy, strategy in pursuit of what is ultimately a flawed argument.

The argument is flawed, because it ignores cricket. Based fundamentally on this crucial oversight, Tharoor goes on to murder cricket and whole bunch of other things. Dravid’s unfortunate usage of the term “armchair critic” does not escape Tharoor’s attention – he suggests that if this were a valid position, then theatre critics would be completely worthless (i can see bollywood’s finest smiling inwardly at this idea). Once again Tharoor misses the point of Rahul Dravid’s comment. Dravid was asked to explain his decision to not enforce the follow on. This gist of his response (you could actually hear it in his own voice by clicking the audio link on this page) was that he took multiple issues into consideration and took his judgement based based on “what i see and know”. Now, the armchair critics line was unfortunate, but seriously – to ignore the gist of his reply and cotton on to the one little bit which is juicy (there is no other word for it) is to do the man a disservice.

By the way, i found yet another example of this kind of ridiculous cherry picking in the press. This is the transcript of Dravid’s interview to a Indian news channel, where he allegedly suggested that the obsession with the world cup was unhealthy. Here’s how this interview got reported in the press and the media. Yet, when you look into the actual transcript, Dravid did not suggest that the obsession with the world cup was unhealthy in this interview. He merely confirmed something that he had stated before, and his interviewer was aware that it was a old opinion because she brought it up!

Coming back to Mr. Tharoor’s argument, it is intriguing that he finds Andre Nel’s actions to be “intimidating”. I don’t find them intimidating at all, anymore than i thought Sreesanth’s behaviour at Trent Bridge was intimidating. Could it just be that Mr Tharoor’s article is a case of the old India writing about the new and the old India and making a case for the new?

If Rahul Dravid is unworthy of India, then India is not worth living in. I would rather be part of Dravid’s India than Sreesanth’s. The first represents world class quality, mastery of ones art, correctness, toughness, unforgiving competitiveness, solidity, reliability, an understated brilliance masked by an iron will and unbreakable discipline. The latter is an immature India, thriving on chance, unreliable, with much to learn. It is not hard to choose between the two.

Mr. Tharoor has written extensively about Nehruvian India and his column on the even of our 60th Independence Day was ironically about independence and democracy and Mr. Nehru’s work towards ensuring that a fledgling nation developed strong democratic traditions. That surely was more Dravidesque than it was Sreesanthesque. Mr. Tharoor’s point about fearlessness is well made, but he is wrong in assuming that the fear that his generation perceives is similarly percieved by Dravid’s. If he were to take a moment and think about it, there were equally good and equally manly arguments (the choice of adjective is admittedly a tad uncharitable here) for and against enforcing the follow on. There were also very sound cricketing arguments both in favor of and against enforcing the follow on.

I offer the following with great deference to the views of India’s candidate (withdrawn because there was no prospect of winning election) for the high office of the Secretary General of the United Nations. Of course i do not take into account high politics, diplomacy and statecraft in making this reference – but that sort of thing seems to be optional:

What i would like to see is an India which has the wisdom to accept both decisions with good grace, without dragging a great player’s name through the mud (“Dravid, a man I used to respect…………”), regardless of the result. If we could in addition to this simple courtesy also refrain for misrepresenting nuanced positions by cherry picking from them, it might make us better than we are today.

India v England, ODI Series Preview…….

August 21, 2007

The longest bilateral One Day International series to date on English soil commences in a few hours time in the port city of Southampton. If the balance of power was difficult to gauge before the Test series, then it is even more so with the One Day series.

On paper, India are the superior side. They have had the better of England irrespective of personnel, especially in India and on neutral ground. In England, they beat England in 2002, and lost 1-2 in 2004 in the Nat west Challenge. England hold no terrors for India. However, in a game designed for the cameo match winning solo, England possess two of the world finest match winners in the modern day – Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff. Its the kind of thing which makes One Day cricket a lottery. The number of close run chases decided by lucky outside edges should tell you a thing or two about the arbitrary nature of the contest. Cricketers try and cloak this arbitrariness with “whoever does well on the day will prevail” – a line that has been done to death, by everyone, from the Bangladesh captain against Zimbabwe to Sourav Ganguly before the World Cup Final.

This arbitrariness also allows pretty much the whole range of predictions to be made. From the English newspaper the Independent comes the prediction that the return of Andrew Flintoff and Ravi Bopara may just avert a whitewash. Further they say that anything better than 2-5 would be demonstrative of improvement in England’s ODI fortunes. Ian Chappell on the other hand finds both sides evenly matched and predicts that pace will be the decisive factor.

With Flintoff making a comeback, and with Tremlett, Anderson and Broad also likely to play, the English attack looks strong. Flintoff gives them the decisive edge in my view, because he can be the 5th bowler. India will try and make up the 5th bowlers overs from Yuvraj, Tendulkar and Ganguly. One out of Piyush Chawla and Ramesh Powar will play – not a daunting prospect for the Englishmen, especially on good English wicket. In Test Cricket, India have been hurt over the years due to a limited bowling attack. While One Day Cricket provides batsmen greater scope for affecting the result in ODI games compared to Tests, fielding – another area where India have traditionally been behind the curve also has a greater bearing on events. The top Indian ODI batsmen – Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid and Yuvraj, supported by the peerless Mahendra Dhoni (his record as a specialist wicketkeeper batsman in ODI cricket is unmatched in ODI history) have overcome this handicap repeatedly and successfully.

Chappell is probably right though, in damp conditions, especially with dew expected to be a factor under lights, England pace edge – provided by Andrew Flintoff as the 5th bowler, might play a important role. The teamwork from the Test series will become vitally important, especially when India are in the field.

The rejuvenated Ganguly and the peerless Tendulkar will return at the top of the innings for India as the captain announced. This leaves the number three slot open for Gambhir, Karthik, Utthappa or Sharma. My guess is that Dinesh Karthik will bat at number 3 in the Southampton game, all though Gautam Gambhir has been amongst the runs. Seperating Ganguly and Yuvraj in the line up also gives India the opportunity have left-right combinations most of the time unless both fail. It also gives India to opportunity to play 5 bowlers. Ramesh Powar and Piyush Chawla may both play if that is the case. If not, then Gambhir will in all probability join Dinesh Karthik in the eleven. Karthik would then bat at 6, while Gambhir will bat at 3.

The bowling offers more intriguing choices. Munaf Patel has returned to the squad. This puts RP’s place under pressure in my view, because he has the tendency to be mercurial. He looks innocuous for a large part of his spell and goes for plenty of runs, but ends up taking crucial wickets. Patel offers greater control and has been Indias best ODI bowler in the last 12 months or so. However, it may be difficult to blood Patel straightaway, and Agarkar, Zaheer and RP may be India’s seam bowling line up.

It remains to be seen whether India’s ODI side can extend its unbeaten record after the World Cup (series wins v Bangladesh and South Africa). What is at stake here is much more than an ODI series victory. A ODI defeat in England will mean that there will be brickbats at the ready when the players step out of the airport in India – a great Test triumph forgotten.