The 'Art' of Batting, Bowling, Fielding and ...... ???

For a long time now, humble spectators like me have believed that the wonderful game of cricket was all about batting, bowling and fielding. Indeed, these three disciplines were called 'art' and the cricketers who mastered them were rightfully known as artists. We used to called GR Vishwanath an artist because of his impeccable late cuts and square drives. Similarly we called Shane Warne an artist because of the wonderful control he exhibited over that most difficult art of wrist spin bowling. But now, we are told, there are also some other arts that every school kid must learn if he has to be a top international cricketer. And one of them is the 'art' of sledging. And this amazing discovery of a new art form comes from no less a person than the captain of the Indian cricket team. As much as I have liked his on-field captaincy in the ongoing CB series, that comment from Mahender Singh Dhoni left me shocked and cold.

Almost immediately and inevitably, the media was full of debate on whether sledging has a place in international cricket or not. One faction called for the ICC to immediately ban sledging in any form. The other party argued that 'sledging' made for a more interesting game and without it, players would just be going about their business in much the same way as robots do. In order to make sense of all this and to give MS Dhoni a fair trial, I looked at the online Oxford Dictionary for the meaning of the word 'sledging / to sledge'. Ironically, one meaning of the word 'sledge' takes us back to Santa Claus and his sledge (vehicle) driven by Rudolph the reindeer. It reminds us of a time when we were all children, innocent and free from any aminosity towards each other. The other definition, staggeringly, is refered only to in cricket and it means ' offensive remarks made by a fielder to a batsman in order to break their concentration' (read it here). Do we interpret that to mean that sledging is prevalant only in cricket and not in other sports ?? So the dictionary definition states that 'to sledge' neccessarily means to make offensive remarks at somebody else. While it is too much to expect any cricket captain to know the dictionary definition of any word, we do expect him to be careful about his remarks. And if the Indian captain wants us to believe that to make 'offensive remarks' is an 'art form' which all youngsters should learn, then I have to reconsider my support to his team. Mind you, I do not subscribe to the view that cricketers should walk on the field with duct tape on their mouths and thoughts. Some emotion is perfectly acceptable, indeed required, on the field. Frustration and disgust at playing a wrong shot or bowling a full toss, dissapointment and dissent at being given a bad decision is not bad at all, since it shows your committment on the field of play. But to direct that frustration against an opposing team member is simply not on. And when it escalates into a war of words even off the field, then the umpires and ICC should act quickly.

Anyways coming back to the point, if MS Dhoni really meant what he said and if we are going to see his team indulge in all sorts of on-field chatter (there again, humorous chatter is fine, the umpire must know where to draw the line if the players are not mature enough), then I believe he has got off even more lightly than Mathew Hayden has. Sadly, in the midst of all the jingoism of 'big bad Aussies' vs Us, we (including the BCCI) have completely overlooked a potentially serious comment made by our own captain and he has gone scot-free.

Oh and there are 2-3 cricket matches yet to be played before this tour finally ends. I only hope that they pass of peacefully !!!!

Cheers
Amit

Coming this summer, the biggest circus of them all !!!!

So its official now. The game of cricket, certainly the 44 day circus called the Indian Premier League, can be safely classified in the category of 'Sports Entertainment', alongwith with the likes of WWE. Each cricketer has been valuated, just as equity research houses throughout the world value stocks. The difference, of course, is that the cricketers valuation is lacking any fundamental analysis (and some would say, also lacking rhyme or reason). But today, every cricketer worth his salt has a price tag attached to him and is avaliable for being bought and sold, just like any stock, commodity, toothbrush and toilet paper. Most of the reactions to the auction last week have been extreme. Some have lamented the 'death of cricket' while others have written that 'it was pathetic to see Rahul Dravid sitting besides Vijay Mallya like his secretary'. The best quote comes from Andrew Webster in the Sydney Morning Herald and it goes '"While a cricketer's value can be determined by a salivating squillionaire, a man's worth can only be determined by his actions," . After all this outburst, the stage now will shift to the grounds where the eight franchises (note that I refuse to call them 'teams' because this motley formation is an insult to that word since I cannot see, for example, any common objective being shared by Brett Lee and Sreesanth while playing for Chandigarh) will 'do battle' against each other. But I am terribly sceptical about the level of competition that will be on display. The reasons are many:
1. At 44 days, the tournament is too long a la the World Cup last year. Each franchisee playing 14 games is a bit too much. And even though they will be playing at night, it can be terribly hot and sweaty during summer evenings here.
2. So many games can also bring in spectator fatigue which in turn can affect the players' level of intensity.
3. But most importantly, is there going to be any pride for which they will be playing for. A large of part of sports thrives on pride (whether it be local, state or national) and the emotions arising out of that pride is what drives true sportsman more than being employed for a million dollars by an industrialist/Bollywood superstar to do a job. In the absence of this pride, how will this galaxy of stars motivate themselves ? We all remember the terrible cricket dished out by the ICC World XI in the super series a few years back.

To add to this, what about the spectators ? The onus of the success of the IPL (and other leagues of its ilk) depends on the support by the fans, both in terms of attendances as well as television eyeballs). But the majority of spectators in India watch the game only because of national pride which is why reactions are so extremely good or extremely bad. Now I live in Mumbai but will I support the Mumbai franchisee ? Atleast I have my talisman player in 'my' franchisee but what about someone living in Chennai ? Will he support the Chennai franchisee and the likes of Dhoni and Hayden ? On what grounds should he ? As of today, there is not even a single local player in that franchisee. To make matters worse, a Rohit Sharma is playing for Hyderabad. Now if he is playing against the Mumbai franchisee at the Wankhede and is leading a run chase, do i egg him on or pray for his dismissal ? A point also made by Kunal Pradhan in the Indian Express. The least that they could have done is to remove the cities from this whole mess and called them simply "Reliance Industries XI" or "King Khan's Superstars" or "Priety Zinta's Heroes" !!!. Spectators are going to find it hard to support their franchisee. and It is all going to be quite confusing. But inspite of all this, and inspite of the fact that I am not a great fan of this whole concept, I find it unlikely that the IPL circus will fail. Alas !!

Amit

Stats and the 'truth' !!!

For all of those with a keen interest in cricket, and especially of cricket facts and figures, the blog 'It Figures' on Cricinfo (link here) offers more than just food for thought. For those who have not yet checked it out, I suggest you stop reading further and click on the above link. An excellent blog by some of the most famed cricket-lovers (and number-crunchers !!).

More than anything else, it brings out the dichotomy between figures and judgement i.e. statistics hide more than they reveal. Of particular interest is the latest post on the blog, which talks about the most 'consistent' bowlers in test cricket history. Now, putting a quantitative measure of the word 'consistent' is itself daunting. Statistically, consistent would mean a distribution in which maximum no. of points are near the median. Translated into cricketing terms, it would imply a batsman who mostly has scores close to his test average (and who is therefore deemed more consistent than, say, a guy who averages about the same but is more of the '100-5-2-150-5' variety). When it comes to bowlers, things are not that simple. So what the writer of the blog has done is to come up with a measure of bowling consistency. What it implies (read the blog to understand it fully) is that a bowler who most often gets a wicket in an average spell (7 overs for a medium-pacer and 11 overs for a spinner) is more consistent than a bowler who bowls 3 wicket-less spells and then gains a bucketful of scalps in his next spell (even though, both the guys end up with similar bowling averages). It is certainly quite interesting and has invited a host of comments from readers (ranging from appreciative to dismissive and a few downright silly - mostly from readers whose favourites could not find a high-enough position on that list).

All in all, a quite brilliant blog in that it exposes us to how our judgement on who the best is might change when subjected to science.

May the blog live long !!!

Cheers
Amit

Young Guns start off well !!!!

We are now half-way through the tri-series in Australia and for all the fans that were optimistic, or even apprehensive, about how the 'Gen-Next' of Indian cricket would perform, the news has largely been good. The team has performed admirably on most counts and though it is way too early to use phrases like 'best Indian team in last decade', 'genuine contenders for the next World Cup' etc, it cannot be denied that this team has displayed enough to suggest that better days lie ahead. I would not read much into yesterday's loss against the Lankans. A rain-shortened always tends to favour the side batting second, especially on a good batting track and with a good batting lineup. And after the veteran of the side turned the clock back in one memorable over from Sreesanth and pocketed 23 runs, there was always going to be one result thereafter. Having said that though, Dhoni probably missed a trick in not selecting an extra bowler especially when the toss happened after the rain delay. Picking 7 batsmen for a 29 over match is always an overkill. Robin Utthapa must be wondering what is he doing in Australia.

But coming back to the series overall, it has been quite an impressive performance. Though the first two games could not be completed, one can safely say that in neither of those games did the rain rescue India. Against the Aussies, with the way our bowling went just before the last shower, the result could have gone either way. In the second game, India would have fancied their chances after scoring 267 in their innings. But it was the win against Australia on Sunday that would have given their supports much joy. And two of the heroes of that day have been real revelations. Messrs Ishant and Rohit have more in common than their surname. Both are young, talented but more importantly, eager to learn. In many ways, Ishant Sharma reminds one of Srinath in his early days. Tall and thin with a similar high-arm action, both have made their names on a tour to Australia (Srinath in 1991-92). But where Ishant scores is his pace. I was pleasantly shocked to see an Indian clock 147kph more than once during the test series. And even during yesterday's match, the ball to Dilshan (in Ishant's first over) hit the bat rather than the other way around. Srinath used to do that in his youth (though at slightly lesser pace). Like Srinath, Ishant has the priceless ability of bringing the ball back to right-handers through the air, but straightening after pitching. Thats what got Ponting out, both at the WACA and the MCG. Ishant needs to watch out for his no-balls, it might hurt him at a crucial time. But, lets not heap too much praise on the young lad at such an early stage in his career. His moves hereafter will be closely watched.

On the other hand, Rohit Sharma has shown a good temperament in his last two knocks, especially in a tight run-chase against the World champions. He seems to have most of the shots in the book in addition to a decent technique. And though Ian Chappell may have gone slightly overboard in proclaiming him as India's No 4 bat after Sachin, it is clear that the 20-year old has a bright future ahead of him. Another heartening feature of our performance has been the running between the wickets. In recent matches, I can be fairly sure that we have gained 10-15 runs just because of the fast legs on the field. It may lead to a seemingly stupid run-out once in a while, but over the long run it will pay good dividends.

On the debit side though is the form of Yuvraj Singh. Clearly, whether it is because of injury or some 'other' factor, he is hardly looking the player that he was during the T20 World Cup. And it was particulary shocking to see him fielding at mid off instead of the usual backward point. Clearly, something is seriously wrong there and India needs a fit and hungry Yuvi. And we need to give some chances quickly to young Piyush Chawla. Kumble's journey into the sunset might be just a few test matches way and we only need to look at Australia's plight to realize what the loss of a champion bowler can do to your team. If Chawla is seen as the next best bet after Anil, then it is vitally important that he be given as many chances as possible, even partnering the captain in the upcoming test series against South Africa. Similarly, Suresh Raina also deserves a chance. He has played some good knocks in the domestic season and is stil one of our best fielders. And dont forget, he is only 22.

But the fact that players like Raina and Chawla cannot find places, tells us something about the depth of the side. Give this side a year or so and they hopefully will start delivering the results. For now, one can only say 'so far so good'.

Cheers
Amit

A cricketing colossus goes into the sunset !!!!

Every once in a couple of generations, comes a sportsman who is so different from the rest that he sets new benchmarks for the rest that ply his trade. Talking specifically about cricket, such champions can be counted on the fingers. All batsman, however great, come a distant second when compared to the Don. Hardly any all-rounder is mentioned in the same breath as Sir Gary Sobers. When it comes to leg-spin bowling, Shane Warne is widely regarded to be the best that ever was. And when it comes to the clan of wicketkeeper-batsmen, you need to look no further than Adam Gilchrist. Which is why his retirement holds so much significance for international, let alone Australian, cricket.

In fact, if you think about it, the phrase 'wicketkeeper-batsman' is a relatively new one in cricket. And Adam Gilchrist can perhaps lay a legitimate claim to be its inventor. Before he burst on the scene in the late 90s, a wicketkeeper was looked upon as not much more than just that, a wicket keeper. A batting average in the late 20s was perfectly acceptable, along with the ability to hang around with a top order batsmen. Some wicketkeepers had a couple of exceptional days in their careers where they made centuries. But that was an honourable exception. And how things have changed !!! Today, a choice between two glovesmen inevitably comes down to who is better with the bat in hand. And in fact, quite often, the better wicket keeper loses out. Blame that on Adam Gilchrist. Today a keeper is not good enough if he only contributes 30s and 40s. He needs to have the ability of scoring 70s and 80s, and even a hundred, on a frequent basis. All because of the man who changed the way the world looked at wicket-keeping forever. Which is why I stick my neck out to say that Adam Gilchrist was one-in-every-two-generations cricketer.

I hardly need to repeat the figures. What is more important is the way that Gilchrist turned matches on their head. In his second test match, Australia were set 369 to win by Pakistan at Hobart. At 126 for 5, things looked bleak. Enter Gilchrist to slam an undefeated 148 of 163 balls (against Akram, Waqar, Shoaib and Saqlain no less !!) and lead the Aussies to a 4 wicket win, a win so improbable that it gave the team the belief to go for another 14 consecutive wins. At Mumbai in 2001 (on a turning track), Bhajji was wreaking havoc and Australia were 99 for 5. The man walks in and slams 122 off 112 balls, the Aussies completing a 10 wicket win on the 4th day. At the Wanderers in 2002, he walked in the relative comfort of 293 for 5, but still clubbed 204 off 213 balls, taking his team to 652 for 7 and an innings+360 runs win. If the South Africans thought it was Gilchrist at his best, they were mistaken. In the next test, Australia were 185 for 6 but managed 382, because of one man and his innings of 138 off 108 balls. There are numerous such examples. But let no one mistake Gilchrist only as one of the most explosive batsman of all time. In his primary role of a wicket-keeper, he was quite good as well. Standing up to Warne and McGill, and standing back to the pace of Lee, and succeeding most of the times, is no mean achievement. He might not be the greatest wicket-keeper of all time, but as a package, he was irresistible. And, not to forget, in a team with a reputation of being the bad boys of cricket, he stood out with his hard-but-fair approach.

He was one of the cornerstones in both the 16-test-win run achieved by the Australians. His contribution was no less than that of McGrath, Warne, Ponting or Hayden. Which is why it would be interesting to see how Australia handle his departure. Warne's absence is already showing quite alarmingly if you are an Aussie fan. It is also proving hard to replace McGrath. But Gilchrist's absence could hurt them even more. Brad Haddin is talked about as being as good a batsmen as Gilly, and if it is anywhere close to the truth, bowlers around the world might as well give up. But even if someone becomes the second Adam Gilchrist, we will always cherish the original !!!

Thanks for the memories Gilly !!!

Cheers
Amit

India's 'could-have-been' man !!!

So finally, Messrs Vengsarkar and Co have unveiled, or so it seems, the vision of Indian cricket's future (atleast in the ODIs). The golden oldies have been sidelined and in come the young blood. I am no big fan of Ganguly, but I confess to have been surprised by his exclusion. But on second thoughts, one can see the selectors rationale and I only hope that the by-now-mandatory-kolkata-outcry will die down and hopefully, these events will not affect our team in Adelaide.

But, amidst all this clamour for youth, there will be one man contemplating his now-fragile future as an Indian cricketer. Although he is no longer young, having turned 30 last month, he was till recently, a virtual certainty for the Indian ODI team. He certainly does not fail the selector's new criteria (throwing, running between the wickets et al). In fact, he is still considered to be one of the best outfielders we have. But when he ponders over his exclusion (especially for a tour where he was a success last time around), Ajit Bhalchandra Agarkar might do well to reflect on a career that was but, more importantly, that could have been.

Apart from the big three, Agarkar's is the name that has evoked the most debate amongst cricket fans. Lets get the numbers out of the way. If you had come from Mars (with some knowledge of cricket, of course) and someone gave you the statistics of Indian bowlers, then you would have seen that Agarkar's bowling average and strike rate are better than Zaheer Khan, RP Singh, Sreesanth, Munaf Patel (only Pathan compares well with him on these parameters). And of course, he bats and fields well than all of the above-mentioned bowlers except Pathan. Then, why on earth (no pun intended :)), you might well ask, is he being left out ??? The answer probably lies in the fact is that the Indian cricket fans, the selectrors included, have run out of patience with him. And that, in turn, is because even his worst detractors know that he had the potential to offer a lot to Indian cricket than what we has given us. And though I am still an Agarkar supporter, I feel he has contributed to his own decline. For one, not a lot of thought was put into his bowling. The misplaced tendency to bowl short and aggressive, in a manner not suited to his stature, paid him rich dividends in his early days. But soon, it was found out by top batsmen and thereafter, an Agarkar short delivery was promptly cut through point or pulled in front of square. Then there is also that terrible disease of bowling a boundary ball after four good deliveries in an over. When he has bowled within himself and looked to swing the ball, he has done well for himself.

But just as it takes two to tango, somewhere he has also not got his full due. His batting, for example. During the Chappell-Dravid regime in 2005/06, all and sundry were tried at the No 3 position, but somehow, Agarkar never got a chance up at the top. Keep in mind, that in the 4 innings that he has batted at No 3, he has scored 182 runs (including the career best 95 no.). Pathan grabbed that opportunity and has never looked back since, atleast when it comes to batting. Maybe, just maybe, success batting at No 3 would have rubbed on his bowling as well. He was well worth trying out at No 3, given that he is a good timer of the ball and not afraid to go over the top in the Powerplays (and can hit some clean sixes as well). Also, the insane comparisions with Kapil Dev did not help either.

But, all might not be lost as yet. While he might be 30, he still seems fit enough to compete with the young guys. And if only he can clear his mind and find his way back, he might well script another successful comeback story.

Cheers
Amit

A victory to savour !!!!!!

'Ek Aur Karega ?' will definitely go down as the most famous question in Indian Cricket History. It was a question that, to my mind, changed the course of the test match and just maybe, will change the course this Indian team takes. Had this question not been put, an Australian win might have become a real possibility. Ponting had done well to survive that torrid working-over from Ishant (albeit with a slice of luck) and a different bowler coming in would have released the pressure off him and we all know what a great batsman he is once on song. With a strong line-up to follow, Australia would have well fancied their chances. And one thing is for sure: If the Aussies had won this match, their aura of invincibility would have increased manifold, other teams would have resigned themselves to the contest of the best No 2 team, and world cricket would have been in further danger.

This is of course, not to say, that India won simply because of that twist of fate. Indeed, the above question would have become irrelevant had Ponting been given out leg before previously in his innings. This victory, and I have no doubt that it would rate as the best overseas victory for Indian cricket (possibly alongwith Port Of Spain 1971 and definitely better than Adelaide 2003), has been achieved because the Men in Blue simply outplayed the Aussies in most contests. An inexpeirenced opening pair (how Hayden was missed in the second knock !!) was put under pressure by a trio of medium pacers whom everyone expected to finish second best to Lee, Clark et al. In fact, I admit that I did not think Pathan was good enough to be part of a 4 bowler attack (he is ideal as the 5th bowler and No 7), but I am happy to have been proved wrong. All the hoopla about the Perth track being 'red-hot' was rendered useless, the bowler who played only to take advantage of the track went wicketless (again proving that only raw pace has never bothered anyone). And India's batsman chipped in with useful contributions all the way through. Aided by brisk efforts by Sehwag at the top (how we missed him at the MCG !!), the middle-order did a great job building on that momentum. Dravid and Sachin ensured that we put in a decent score in the 1st innings, while Laxman held together the innings second time around (with great support from Dhoni). And of course, there was the skipper himself, getting to yet another milestone in a glorious career. He will no doubt remember wicket no 600, more so because of the result.

And I also dont believe in the theory that this win is poetic justice, after looking at what happened in Sdnyey. Sure, the Indians have done an excellent job in lifting themselves up after the events of the past week and came back hard at the Australians, but to say that this win was simply meant to be is to undermine the efforts put in by the boys, as well as the fact that it was a thrilling match. The only time poetic justice was delivered was with Andrew Symonds. An outside edge went unnoticed in Sdnyey and granted him a life, while an inside edge to pad off the same bat also went unnoticed at Perth only this time, he was at the wrong end of an umpiring error. What goes around, as they say, comes around. But apart from that, the umpiring errors evened out and thank goodness for that !!!!

A great win by a team full of self-belief, lead by an astute cricket veteran, backed by high performing seniors and talented and fearless juniors !!!

Congratulations Team India and all the very best for the future !!!!

Cheers
Amit

Blunders Down Under !!!!

Its been nearly 72 hours since that dramatic Sunday when all hell broke loose down under. Thankfully, things are getting back to normal. The tour continues, so we have a match in Perth (where the worry I have is that the Aussies will trample all over us, aided by the famous Perth wicket and then people will wonder what the whole fuss was all about) and the teams (atleast the captain) seem to be on talking terms again. But the relief that things will return to normal should not overshadow the fact that what happened during those 5 days (and the night afterwards) has serious implications for cricket in general. In fact I feel there are three distinct issues that took place during the Sydney test, each one of them so serious that, had it even occured in isolation, would have proved quite damaging to cricket's reputation in world sports. The fact that ALL three of them happened in the same match explains the volcano of emotions that swept the nation. Hence, all three issues deserve a seperate hearing.

Issue # 1

The substandard officiating in the match

By now, reams of newsprint and hours of TV time have been spent on this, so I will not flog a dead horse further. Would like to make one point though: As human beings, we all get things wrong sometimes, just that this match did not see wrong decisions even out for both sides and when the side that has suffered the most loses so heart-breakingly there are bound to be extreme reactions (I can assure you the reactions would have slightly tempered had, say, Kumble and Dhoni batted out those overs). But what worries me more about the umpiring is that, in recent times, the officals have shown blatant ignorance of the game's laws (World Cup final anyone ?) or logical thinking. For e.g. in case of Ganguly, if both umpires are not sure whether the catch carried (as it was then) it should have either been refferred to the third umpire or the batsman should have been given benefit of the doubt. How can one ever trust the players on the ground in this ? (Pre-series agreement or not) Surely, Messrs Bucknor and Benson should have known better. So the ICC has a serious issue on hand: to improve the standard of world umpiring in quick time. Currently, the elite panel of umpires is really elite: only 8 members, of which one (Mr Hair) is no longer officiating and another (Mr. Bucknor) who will no longer enjoy the trust of the players irrespective of which game he officiates. (The best of them is an Australian and hence cannot officiate in Australia). So it needs to have more in that club. But the question is: are there umpires good enough to join the elite group ??. At least in India, the answer is no. The signs for cricket are not good indeed.
The ICC has also set a dangerous precedent by removing Bucknor from the next test. You bet that there will be games as worse as the Sdnyey test as far as the standard of umpiring is concerned. So does it mean that the ICC will start changing umpires after every badly officiated match ?

Issue # 2

The whole racisim row

Probably the most serious and the saddest of them all. At first, it reminded me of an incident in my childhood. I must have been in the 5th standard or so. While playing with a guy a year younger than me, I inadvertently let a cuss word escape my mouth. He promptly reported the incident to my mother, who then gave me more than a earful. What I am trying to get at is this: not everything that is spoken on the field deserve to be reported, especially if no one apart from the two parties has heard or seen anything. In most cases, you cannot give justice based on one man's word against another. Hard evidence needs to follow. Given this, Bhajji has certainly been convicted without a fair trial and the appeal against the verdict was certainly required. But here again, to hold the entire tour to ransom based on two demands was not on, in my book. When writers in other countries argue about how India is taking undue advantage of the situation given its power in world cricket, there are not entirely misplaced. Finally better sense has prevailed and the tour goes on.

Also, another dangerous precedent has been set: the ICC might need to appoint a battery of lawyers and judge along with the match referee for each match, especially if all teams decide to report everything that has been said on the field. And in due course of time, we will have microphones attached to every player on the field. And what about abuse from the dressing room ??? So have mics there too !!.

Issue # 3

General player conduct on the field

In addition to sledging and racist comments, this also includes general conduct on the field as well as the yardsticks applied by the players to various situations. Here, quite a few instances come to mind. Ponting's continued insistence (in the press conference) that he had held a clean catch off Dhoni was shocking to say the least. In fact, it is interesting to note that he himself bought up the word 'integrity' during the press conference. Most of the journalists would not have thought of it till then. The Aussie captain also proved himself to be a 'master' at judging the legitimacy of dubious catches couple of hours earlier, during the Ganguly dismissal. How we could have been so confident so as to raise the dreaded finger when even TV replies were inconclusive, we would never know. Then there was Adam Gilchrist. Normally renowned to one of the fairer players in the Aussie side, he is the one who is known to walk after edging without waiting for the umpire's verdict. But still, his was the most vociferous appeal when Dravid thrust his pad out while facing that delivery. He would not have been more than 2 meters away from Dravid and he surely would have quite clearly seen that the ball was miles away from Dravid's bat or glove. Yet, you turn your throat sore in appealing. Now, I dont expect cricketers to be saints, but trying to spread a saint-like image while conveniently indulging in double-standard does nothing but expose you as a person (Witness Ponting saying: "If you have to question my integrity, then you just have to look at the first innings when I didnt claim the catch at slip"). But after seeing the Ponting in the 1st innings vs the 2nd innings, we do question his integrity. After all, in such cases, a man with conveniently changing morals is worse than a man with no morals at all.

So, a lot has happened over the past 72 hours, and lets hope all the affected parties: the players, ICC, the cricket boards and world cricket in general, takes the right lessons out of it.

Cheers
Amit

Down Under: Here we come !!!

So finally, Anil Kumble and his men are ready to go Down Under to battle the world champions in their own yard. While there may be understable hoopla post the series victory against Pakistan, the skipper would know better than anyone else the enormity of the challenge ahead. Even at the best of times, Australia is a tough place to tour. Now, with an ageing middle order and a not-so-great bowling attack, the Men in Blue (or Whites during the tests) should have to do something out of the ordinary to rattle the Aussies.

This is probably what the selectors had in mind when they took the Sehwag gamble. Evidently, memories of Boxing Day in 2003 are still fresh in their minds, and if Viru can play even one innings close to that, the selectors might be vindicated. But if not, then we would start off with problems right at the top. Jaffer has never played against Australia in tests (and since he is not in ODIs, he probably has never seen an Australian team on the field before !!). So, it will be expecting much of him to provide the good starts that we need to have the middle-order fire. He might still do it, in which case it will be a huge bonus (in fact, I believe Jaffer's performance might go a long way in deciding the course of the series !!). But by picking Sehwag, the selectors are sure to give a severe headache to Kumble on Christmas day, when he has to finalize the 11 who would walk out at the MCG. Whom does he leave out ??? If Sehwag is in the 16, then it does not make sense to leave him out of the 11. So Karthik gets benched. And then the wretched question: What abt Yuvraj ???. I saw his 169 at Bangalore and, while the bowling was pedestrian and the pitch benign, it still was a damn good innings (especially coming at 61/4). But, if he is to be picked, then who goes out ?? Dravid is too good a player to be left out, Sachin is in good form and is still our best bet, Sourav is in the form of his life while Laxman is being counted out on to score against the Aussies. It is going to be an interesting decision.

On the other hand, when it comes to bowling, Kumble has the opposite problem: Whom does he pick ??? Zaheer and RP Singh are sure to play if fit. The fourth bowler is the question: Harbhajan has played only 1 test in Australia so far and anyways, the pitches their wont require 2 spinners. But of the remaining three bowlers, Ishant Sharma and Pankaj Singh are raw and untried. Picking either of them is a gamble which no captain can afford especially when he is going in with only 4 bowlers (to understand that, Just look at Pakistan's plight at Bangalore when Shoaib walked off). With 4 bowlers, you simply cannot afford any bowler to lose his line and length, or worse still, be injured. And in my book, on Australian pitches, Irfan Pathan is only as good as the 5th bowler who bats quite decently and bowls 12-15 overs a day of line and length. My guess is that Kumble would play safe and go with Zaheer, RP, himself and Pathan and rely on Ganguly and Sachin to bowl those 12 overs. Either ways, never in recent memory would the selection of a final 11 of a Test match be so tough.

All the best to Kumble and his men !! I cannot wait for 26 December, 5.30 am !!!

Cheers
Amit

In the evening of his illustrious career, one of India’s greatest cricketer finally gets the coveted hot seat. With his appointment as India’s Test cricket captain, Anil Kumble’s cap of achievements finally got that last golden feather. No one doubts that this honor should have been conferred to Kumble much earlier but ironically still, he had very few backers all these years, at least in the captaincy stakes. But then, this is how Anil Kumble the person is. He is not the one who would send a capacity crowd into frenzy with a flurry of sixes or with a 150kph bouncer. He is the practitioner of an art widely acknowledged to be cricket’s toughest: the art of wrist-spin. And there is no doubt he is one of the very best.

For a long time, the one word that was used to describe Anil Kumble and his contribution to Indian cricket was: ‘servant’. He was, and still is, thought to be a great servant to Indian cricket. And this was is in no way disparaging. He was always the behind-the-scenes worker while his more illustrious compatriots at the top of the order became Indian cricket’s poster boys or MTV’s Youth Icons or, indeed, Indian cricket captains. All this while, he went about his job with almost boring nonchalance. But he has had his fair share in providing Indian cricket with its champagne moments during the past decade and a half: his routing of England in 1992-93, his 6-12 in the final of the Hero Cup against the Windies in 1993, the unforgettable sight of him coming out with a plastered jaw to bowl in the Caribbean in 2002 (and trapping Brian Lara in front), one of the most romantic centuries hit by an Indian at the Oval a few months ago. And not to forget the crowning glory: the all-ten against Pakistan in New Delhi in 1999. But inspite of all this, he was hardly ever a captaincy candidate. Even now, he has got the job almost by accident. His Karnataka team-mate and predecessor gives up the job, another former captain declines a third shot at the captaincy and the natural successor for the job is thought to be too young to take over, especially with two big series round the corner. One can almost imagine the following scene: The selectors are at a loss to decide who the next captain would be. Then they look at the team sheet and see one familiar name. One of the selectors suddenly realizes that this guy has played 118 Tests without ever captaining in one of them. He suggests Anil Kumble’s name. The others look at each other with shocked looks that say ‘Why didn’t we think of him earlier?’ While this scene might sound exaggerated, this is largely how Anil Kumble’s career has played out.

But accident or no accident, Anil Kumble will accept this challenge, as he has accepted so many over the past 15 years: bowling on unhelpful tracks abroad, being expected to bowl India to victory at home irrespective of opposition and pitch,. And he would be the first to acknowledge that his appointment is only till MS Dhoni is deemed to be ready to take over. It would be refreshing to see a bowler captaining a cricket side. It brings a different dimension to the game, simply because bowler-captains have been so uncommon in the history of cricket. Indeed, Kumble is the first specialist bowler to captain India since Venkatraghavan almost 3 decades ago (Kapil Dev excluded). It would be really interesting to see how he handles the team, particularly his fellow bowlers in getting those 20 wickets required to win test matches, especially since the one complaint about batsmen-captain has always been that they do not understand their own bowlers. And for once, let’s not demand immediate results. Kumble’s first two assignments are probably the most toughest series: Pakistan at home and Australia away. Let no one be under any illusions as to the enormity of the task ahead. But for once, let’s put results aside. Let us applaud India’s new cricket captain on his long-deserved appointment and back him through thick and thin, just as he has backed Indian cricket ever since he made his debut as a 19 year old kid with spectacles in Old Trafford in 1990 (in which, he was promptly overshadowed by Tendulkar hitting his first test hundred).

For once, the servant has become the master !!

Cheers

Amit

Ian Chappell v/s Ian Botham

Here is some stuff on one of the most high-profile but lessser-remembered match-ups off the field...

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/robslobs/archives/2007/10/both_v_chappelli_part_31.php


Two ways of looking at it:
- It sad that two great cricketers should still harbour grudges against an incident that happened three decades ago..
- On the other hand, something like this today would certainly spice up the game.. ;-).. How abt Sreesanth getting into the act with some Australians later this year Down Under ????.. On seconds though, Sree will always give about 6 inches and 60 odd pounds in a physical match-up with the Aussies (and that does not include guys like Hayden n Symonds), so he is better off not attempting it :)

The need for change !!!

A lot has happened since that euphoric night of 24th September. The country first witnessed an unparalleled, and almost obscene, victory celebration in which politicans outdid each other, first in announcing cash prizes for the Men in Blue and then in trying to hog the limelight in the aftermath of the win. Oh, and not to forget the outcry it evoked from the rest of the sporting fraternity, and quite rightly so !!! (read my take on that). Then, in a mere five days after the win, the boys were back on the field, and that too in a gruelling 7 match ODI series against the World Champs (in the 50 over version). Given all that, I am not suprised that we ended second best.

Quite a few things have changed over the past month or so. And one man, in particular, would agree more than anyone else. From occupying the hottest seat in Indian public life (even the PM I suspect has a easier time) to suddenly finding no seat amongst the first eleven, life has changed dramatically for Rahul Dravid. I suspect there are two main factors behind this slide. The first are the doubts in Dravid's own mind. He is too classy a player even in ODIs to not be considered in any starting line-up (in tests of course he remains our best batsman and I pray that he does not carry over his current form to the tests against Pakistan and in Australia later). So he just has to get over the demons in his head and clear his mind. But he is not helped at all by the silly and outrageous cries from the public to drop the senior brigade from the team (which is the second factor). People have got so carried away by the T20 win that a fundamental difference between the 20 over and 50 over format seems to have been overlooked. In a 50 over game, there is always need for experience on several fronts: in seeing off the first 10 overs, gauging what is a competitive score if you are batting first, in juggling your bowlers as per the demands etc etc. So you still need the old heads on the field in the 50 overs. Sachin Tendulkar has been our highest scorer in the recent ODIs, followed by Sourav Ganguly (while Gambhir and Karthik have struggled) and that should put the case to rest. But while dropping all three is not the answer, neither is playing all three. This is where we are not doing a good job of change management. We have five major players in the evening of their careers (including Laxman and Kumble) and hence the need for a smooth transition is critical. A similar thing happened with Australia in 1984 when Greg Chappell, Rod Marsh and Dennis Lillie all said goodbye in the same test. For about 4 years after that, Australia were close to being the worst team in the world (dont believe me, then sample this; England beat them in the 85 and 86-87 Ashes, New Zealand beat them in 85-86 in Australia, and had it not been for the weather, we would have also beaten them 2-0 in the 85-86 series Down Under). But then the 1987 World Cup victory happened, and Aussie cricket has not looked back since. We dont have the robustness of the Aussie system to bounce back that well, and hence if the five of them leave at once, it will set us back a long time atleast in the Tests. Which is why I firmly believe that Sachin, Dravid and Ganguly should henceforth, never play in the same ODI. Having only the two will give one extra place in the batting order and there are quite a few knocking at the door (Rohit Sharma, Manoj Tiwary, Cheteshwar Pujara etc). Not to mention the positive effect the infusion of youth will have in the field. And I am sure that some amongst them would be good enough to make the transition to test matches as and when the big five call it a day.

The way forward is neither one extreme nor the other. As with most other things in life, the truth lies somewhere in between. How well we understand that will determine where Indian cricket goes from here.

A (young) gentleman's game !!

The last two weeks have been a real spectacle in the world of cricket. The baby born on September 11^th has not only learnt to walk and talk, but is in fact taking giant strides on its way to living and prospering with the big boys i.e. Tests and ODIs. Before the World T20 began, there were a lot of skeptics of the format, yours truly included. The apprehensions were various: T20 would make bowlers an extinct species, it would entice youngsters into slogging thereby hampering their development and, of course, the suggestion, rather unkind at that, that T20 is nothing but a 3 hour evening entertainment show rather than a contest between bat and ball. On most counts, T20 has proven everyone wrong. Although we have seen a lot of big hitting in this competition, hardly any has been of the shut-your-eyes-and-swing-the-bat variety. The bowlers have suffered quite a bit but there is plenty of evidence that the good ones (notably Vettori, Asif et al) will not only adjust to this format but also become the key men for their sides. Spinners have managed to hold their own against the marauders at the batting crease and in some cases have actually turned the match around. And most importantly, it has bought the crowds back to cricket, at least in South Africa where there was a significant drop in game attendances over the past few years. All in all, the World T20 Cup has been an unqualified success, converting even stalwarts of the old school of batting like Boycott into ardent fans.

And at the end of two-weeks of high quality cricket, we are left with two teams and the dream final: India vs. Pakistan. Not many, not least the organizers, would have thought of this lineup. But such has been the level-playing field that T20 has provided, very much in contrast to test matches. And the two finalists have every right to be there: Both have defeated the current World Champs plus another high-quality team (South Africa and Sri Lanka respectively). So this final match-up is no fluke. But for me, having two sub- continental teams in the final means a lot more than just a dream matchup (not to mention the artillery outside the field that goes with it !!). It is symbolic of the way the T20 format has opened up new and exciting possibilities in the game of cricket. For years, Indian and Pakistan were thought of as having a bunch of very talented cricketers, but the word ‘team’ did not fit in very well alongside them. But the advent of a new form has changed things around: for starters, both teams left out their senior players. They were quick to grasp what T20 was all about and invested in youth. A bunch of first-timers were pushed onto the world stage and they have delivered, whether it be Misbah-ul-Haq, Sohail Tanvir or Rohit Sharma. Both teams have young and new captains with fresh and aggressive ideas, ideally suited to this format. And most significantly, the T20 format has cleared the cobwebs in the mind and has unleashed the raw striking talent that cricketers from our part of the world have. While I have been awed by each of the dozen-odd sixes that Yuvraj has hit so far, what has struck me even more than he is playing with a very clear mind. He is no more wondering whether to attack or keep wickets intact, to go over the top or keep it safe along the ground. T20 teaches you to play in only one style: your natural style. And the natural instincts of Yuvraj Singh have finally come out in gay abandon. And yes, I will go as far as to say that this has been the cleanest hitting (no slogs mind you !!) that I have seen in my two decades of watching cricket. And the running between the wickets has also been the best I have seen from the Men in Blue for a long, long time. The concoction of youth, natural talent, energy, fearlessness and T20, of course, makes for a very intoxicating drink indeed !!!!

So irrespective of the result on Monday, there is some evidence that it will be these kind of players and teams that have them who will lead the world in dominating this brand of cricket. The rest of the world would do well to see the signs. Win or lose tomorrow, both India and Pakistan will leave South Africa two steps ahead in their understanding of this fine game.

New-age Cricket !!!

We are entering a new age in cricket. Cricket’s latest avatar is taking the world by storm. Started just about 2 years back, it has got everyone’s attention like nothing else before. Already, the ICC deems it worthy of a World Cup (remember, the 50 over format had a low-key WC more than a decade after the limited-overs game was introduced in England). And to follow that up, four of the world’s richest and most influential cricket boards have joined hands to create an ‘official’ Twenty-20 international league, much on the lines of the Champions League in European football. I suspect the dynamics of world cricket are going to be altered fundamentally in the years to come.

So what is it about T20??? The first word that is usually associated with T20 is ‘fun’. Talk to about half the cricketers about the new baby, and this is the word that you would find in their first sentence. Yes, it is very much about fun, primarily for the spectators. A game that is done and dusted in three hours is ideal to take your family and friends out to on an evening after work. The innovators have also made some smart moves to ensure more activity and fun for the players. The ‘dressing room’ has been bought on to the field (you surely wont find anyone dressing thereJ), so that the tensions and tactics of the games can be seen by all. The new batsman pretty much sprints to the wicket or else he is timed out. And not to forget the cheer leaders entertaining the crowd after every boundary or wicket. There is a definite carnival atmosphere to this format of the game. For the organizers, this attracts newer segments of the population to the game which hitherto had stayed away from game because of its slowness and excessive length. It is truer in England than anywhere else, where the overwhelming success of the format has resuscitated the game in the counties. It is therefore, without a doubt, a win-win both for the authorities and the spectators.

But what about the players? I saw the first game of the World Cup and the frightening manner in which Gayle and Gibbs murdered the bowling put me off a bit. I have always been an advocate of an equal contest between bat and ball, and that game did not do the bowlers any favours. Thankfully though, the other games have seen more of a level playing field, with the India-Pakistan contest being a real classic to rival any ODI or Test match. Still, the T20 format inherently favours the batsmen. Here, they have the license to go for the big hits from the first ball without too much worry about wickets (you have to be really ordinary to lose 10 wickets in 20 overs !!). Infact, after the first game, I thought that having only 8 batsman bat (i.e. maximum of 7 wickets only) might be a useful thing to try out. The pitches and conditions in Durban and Cape Town have favoured the bowlers a bit, which is why you see first-innings scores of 130-150 rather than 200+. This makes for a much more interesting game. But these pitches are the exception rather than the norm, and therefore, expect the bowlers to suffer a lot more in T20. This needs to be addressed sooner or latter by the ICC. That apart, this World Cup looks set to be a great success and the T20 format would sooner or later be the primary format of cricket played over the globe.

Cheers
Amit

End of series but start of a journey...

A lot has happened in the week since my last post. India have finished the one-day series in England with mixed success, the World T20 Cup has taken off in spectacular fashion in South Africa, almost simultaneously, 4 of the biggest cricket boards in the world have united to form an ‘official’ league of the Twenty20 format. And today comes the news that India’s cricket captain has abruptly decided to step down from what arguably is one of the hottest seats in Indian contemporary life.

We can look back at the 7-match ODI series with a mix of positives and negatives. However, when seen with a long-term perspective, the negatives seem to outweigh the positives. The batting did mostly fine, but the best batsmen in the series are all above 32 and are approaching the evening of their careers. It is upto Yuvraj and Dhoni to take over the mantle of the batting through the next few years. They, hopefully alongwith Sehwag, would be the fulcrum around which the next generation of talented batsman can build their careers. It was good to see Utthapa succeeding at the The Oval, this will hopefully go a long way in his development as a decent international cricketer. For the team management, now is the time to keep on blooding new guys in the one-day team. In fact, I would even suggest a rotation policy where one of Sourav, Sachin and Rahul is rested in every match and fresh talent is given a chance. To take it further, if Sachin were to retire later this year as reported, not only would it be a fitting end to a great career and would also pave the way for Gen-Next to make their mark. Coming back to the series, the bowling and fielding looked pretty ordinary though. Apart from Zaheer and Powar, the others were too inconsistent (although Chawla has a good future ahead of him). As for the fielding, we really need to improve our standards (as mentioned in the previous post) to be able to compete with top international sides. To sum up, the series provided us with quite a few lessons. Hopefully, we will be good learners and take two steps forward in our journey towards the next World Cup and beyond.

Cheers

Amit

Warnie's final googly !!!

The irresistible Shane Warne has done it again. After getting 708 victims on the field with that mesmerizing mix of flippers, googlies and leg breaks, he has now delivered yet another googly that has left many stumped. And he might have got a few ‘wickets’ in the process as well. His list of Top 50 cricketers (cleverly executed as a daily countdown of 10 each) was bound to raise some eyebrows and, of course, a lot of controversy.

I see no reason why any rankings/ratings/list should generate any controversy. But cricket has a history of having too many such ratings and, not surprisingly, lots of controversies to go along with. Remember the Wisdens top 5 players of the century and how we were shocked at seeing Sachin out ?. Ratings and lists are no more than opinions of either individuals or panels, who are helped by their own vast experiences of playing, commentating or writing about the game and also by the enormous statistics available at their disposal. But finally, they are still opinions and therefore, bound to vary. But in Shane Warne’s case, what is very obvious is that he has allowed ‘non-cricketing’ issues to creep in his judgement of his Top 50. I wonder what Steve Waugh will tell Warne the next time they meet. Waugh at No. 26 cannot be a pure cricketing opinion. Warne defends the rating on two counts: a). Waugh being a match-saver than a match-winner b). he being handed a great time by Mark Taylor. Somehow, I find it hard to buy that. While the second argument might be true, and Taylor also was a better captain that Steve, it was under Steve that the Aussies developed that ruthless streak of winning matches (remember that 16-Test winning streak ?). Therefore, to brand Steve Waugh as a defensive captain is baffling. He might not have been one of the greats entertainers as a batsman and that might be where Warne is coming from. But, all said and done, Waugh at 26 is too hard to digest. And yes, there have been enough theories going around in the past few days to account for that, which I find hard to shun.

Some other Australians also seem to have got the advantage of being part of a great team. Brett Lee ahead of Donald and Pollock seems too biased. So does Darren Lehmann. Six Indians find a place in the 50 (most after Aussies and English), which is testimony to the hard-fought Indo-Aussie rivalry over the past decade or so. But even there, Laxman has reason to feel aggrieved, having tackled Warne with almost as much distinction as Sachin and Lara. And Dilip Vengsarkar, though a very fine player overall, finds a place even though he would have faced Warne in only 2 tests on that 1991-92 tour, where neither performed with much distinction.

Finally, as one of the letters in the English newspapers said, Shane Warne has a right to name his own children, so why not his Top 50 ? All we need to acknowledge that these are no more than opinions of one man and live with the baggage of non-objectivity that comes along with it. Read it, chuckle and forget it rather than spending hours debating on captaincy rifts.

PS: Here is a good article by Tim De Lisle on the selection

The Great Indian Team Balancing Act. !!

India's woes in the ongoing one day series in England are very much evident for all to see. The defeat at Old Trafford must be especially demoralizing, because when you have got the opposition on the mat at 114/7 with another 100 to get, you expect 9 out of 10 times to finish the job. Sadly, that didnt happen and instead of a 2-2 scoreline (which would made the last 3 games potential classics), we are down 1-3 and wondering where the next win is going to come from.

Coming to the issues that plague the Men in Blue, while they are embarrasingly obvious, there is no quick-fix to it. The 2 most burning issues are: Fielding and Team Balance. Ground fielding has been India's achilles heel for years now. While we may be good at catching, covering the outfield and sending good returns in is an area where we are, quite literally, few yards behind the rest of the world. Recently of course, we have got the best man for the job. Robin Singh not only was one of our best fielders, he also was a classic example of sincerity and hard work. And that is what is needed in fielding. Not great skills or even speed, but just hours of hard practice put in. However, he needs to work with the youngsters in the team, possibly even the Under-21s. I dont see what improvements Robin can bring about in, say, a Ganguly or a Dravid, because you get the passion for fielding at 17, not at 34. But hopefully, give Robin enough time and he will give some results.

The problem of balance arises because, as Harsha Bhogle put it so succicintly, "bowlers cant bat and batsman cant bowl !!". We are comfortable neither with the 7-batters nor the 5-bowlers and keep shifting from one strategy to other. Thats where the all-rounder and utility players come in handy. In fact, I have put together a summary of the strengths of each of the curent members in each of the three departments and the sum of the scores is what they bring to the table. The sheet reads as follows (note that the numbers are based on current form)

Bat Bowl Field Total
Ganguly 7 5 5 17
Tendulkar 8 5 6.5 19.5
Dravid 8.5 1 6 15.5
Gambhir 6 0 6 12
Karthik 6 1 7 14
Yuvraj 8 4 8 20
Dhoni 7 0 6 13
Agarkar 5 6 7 18
Zaheer 4 8 5 17
Chawla 5 7 6 18
Powar 5 7 5 17
RP Singh 3 7 5 15
Munaf 3 7 2 12

One look at the sheet and you realize why Yuvraj and Tendulkar are India's MVP in one-dayers. They contribute in all three departments. Agarkar, inspite of his rotten bowling form, should be in the side on most days while youngsters like Chawla should be groomed carefullyl. Those below 15 should consider at improving another aspect of their game to make themselves a saleable proposition in the limited overs game. On the other hand, there is also the danger of picking too many bits and pieces players. England and West Indies used to do it in the past but without much success. My own theory is that you have need to have a minimum of 3 very good batsman, 3 very good bowlers and a good wicketkeeper-batsman (say 8 and above). If anyone of these contributes in the other department, thats a bonus. The remaining 4 can be utility cricketers. And needless to say, most should be atleast 7 or more on the field. For India, this remains a distinct dream. Two guys currently out in the cold need to do what Dada did in 2006 and come back better players. We need Sehwag and Pathan back as more fitter players and also, with their heads clear. They are going to be crucial over the next few years.

In the past, a very close association of India was with the Great Indian Rope Balancing Act. We need a Great Indian Team Balancing Act now !!!

Cheers
Amit