Mainly Cricket

Harsha on right line

2006-05-20T14:22:00.000+03:00

One can always rely on Harsha to bring the voice of sanity to any hype-ridden issue. On the much heated player's burnout debate, his take is simple - its not about the number of matches, play as much as possible, but about the scheduling or spacing between matches and series.

“The less space, left for the players between the two series to rejuvenate and unwind themselves is the main factor responsible for their burning out,” Bhogle said.

“Irrespective of the number of matches, the players need a proper break to prepare themselves for the task ahead,”

And, on the Ganguly debate, he had this to say

Bhogle evaded a question on Sourav Ganguly’s future in the Indian team saying, ‘a number of people have said a lot of things about him while some comments have also been twisted making things difficult for him (Sourav). Whatever feelings I have, it is there in my heart’.

Obviously, one can expect a lot of common sense from him as well :-)

Langer's knock

2006-05-17T22:02:00.000+03:00

Justin Langer's helmet manufacturers are looking into means of developing their product further to provide extra protection. Langer, one may recall, was hit in SA, and missed 3 tests after that. The injury got a lot of attention as Langer was reportedly keen to bat, despite the pain and doctor's warnings, in case he was needed in that nail-biting run chase. His captain went on to say that he would have declared, had Langer insisted on batting.

However much I admire Langer's grittiness, having read how prone he's been to being knocked out through bouncers, I can't help but think that in his case the problem is in the head, not on it.

Knowing Freddie

2006-05-15T11:59:00.000+03:00

A light-hearted profile-ish interview of Freddie, the hottest property in world cricket today. Sample

There's a lot of practical joking that goes on in the England dressing room. It's an amazing place. You can sit for hours, and there is a mixture of people - like Matthew Hoggard, who gets bored very, very easy. I just mill around. If I'm batting at six, I'll have my shorts and T-shirt on until three wickets down, then it's a mad rush to get all my kit on. That's what a cricketer has bad dreams about - getting timed out.

The hits just keep on coming

2006-05-15T11:46:00.000+03:00

In the beginning there was the Abu Dhabi tri-series between Ind-Aus-Pak. Then it got split into a tri-series in SL (Ind-SA-SL) and a series against WI in US, and we fretted at the excess of cricket (this was, if you remember, scheduled just before the CT). Now comes the news of an Afro-Asian drama being sandwiched between the above listed acts and the CT. The reason, this time, is political

t is believed that the Indian board were against the continuation of the event, but, as one administrator admitted, there was more involved than cricket. "You have to recognise that there are serious politics at play," he explained, "as well as some personal agenda-settling."

It seems that support for the World Cup bid was tied in with the decision, which was made during the recent ICC executive board meeting in Dubai, and also that the TV company who had signed a three-year deal to broadcast the tournament also had their say.

Or, shall we say, this time its overtly political.

Inzamam happy with the new rule

2006-05-15T11:31:00.000+03:00

For the supposed criticality of this ruling for the players, its really surprising that they're the ones least being heard of on the subject. Everyone, from umpires to administrators to officials to ex-player turned critics have spoken about it, but the ones most affected by it are yet to be heard. Inzamam is the first one to have officially spoken on it and, understandably, appreciated the move.

There's still time before the rule is ratified by the ICC and is tried on the field in October - and I would expect it to get strong support by the player community, although there would be some obvious apprehensions about the implementation of the rule (e.g. I hope the ICC also keeps in mind how to account for the time spent in such referrals, for a fielding captain may not be happy to have it use his quota)

Update: Javed Miandad is the latest in the list, worrying about the long-term career of the umpires

"The technology is not always correct and there is no relevancy between a umpire taking a decision in a fraction of a second and these later shown in slow motion," he said.

Frankly, I am not sure if he (and some others speaking on the subject) has even bothered to understand the details of the proposed rule i.e. unproven or less accurate technology like hawkeye and snickometer would not be used). He does go on to say that the players should have been consulted (even now there is time, before the CT) to which I agree. The ICC implemented the supersubs in haste, and resulted in missing out an obvious flaw (that the implementation favours the captain winning the toss) that could easily have been caught and removed had they consulted the players.

Lets ask him?

2006-05-14T22:53:00.000+03:00

Jayawardene was in the middle of the biggest rescue act of his life, with SL following on from their fist innings and chasing the huge English score, when he was given caught behind on a catch for which he later said

"I don't have to see the replays - I knew - but as a cricketer you have to take those things with your head high.

"It's just disappointing because we were in a good position to bat through the day," he told BBC Radio Five Live.

And, what's more, keeper Jones spoke thus of the same catch

"You get a feeling the gloves are nearby the area so when you take a catch you have to politely ask," he told Five Live.

Right to appeal, shall we? What say now Harsha, Ian and all those *defenders*? With the match itself so delicately balanced, all SL need is to bat out another hour tomorrow morning and England would start losing hope, would one still say 'it all evens out in the end'?

Anyway, the match itself has gone from hopelessly one sided to excitingly poised going into final morning, where forecasts of rain would make England fret all the more. But, one has to say, they've managed to make another test match exciting...that is one thing we can almost always be sure of, from this English side....that there are no boring games...not even the wins.

Kumar Sangakkara, at the end of first innings, had earlier said something to the effect that SL would need a miracle to get out of this one. It seems test cricket has more than it's fair share of miracles, then.

Ian Chappell bats for Bucknor

2006-05-14T18:52:00.000+03:00

A great cricketer he may be, but Ian Chappell, writing here while arguing the use of technology, gets simple logic mixed up

If you want a clue that the ICC’s current philosophy on technology is muddled then look no further than the response of former South African keeper Dave Richardson to Bucknor’s criticism. The ICC’s general manager — cricket, says about Bucknor’s umpiring year so far, “He’s averaging 96 % of his decisions being correct.”

I assume, to a large degree this is in the opinion of technological aids like Hawk-Eye and Snickometer.

However, in the words of Ten Sports (Dubai) head of production Steve Norris, “The Hawk-Eye is 90 % accurate, that is what they (the creators) claim.”

Excuse me; “I’m sorry I’ll read that again.” An umpire is getting 96% of his decisions right, while on the other hand Hawk-Eye is guaranteed 90% correct. So, why do we need technology to protect the umpires?

As I've said before, it doesn't really take a rocket scientist to figure out that the "96%" statistics hailed as the good performance by Bucknor includes the straightfoward chances as well. I'm more than sure his average for contentious decisions would be lower than that.

As for 90% accuracy of Hawk-eye, two points. Firstly, no-one is using hawkeye to actuallly adjudicate on decisions - even the ICC's new ruling specifically rules out hawkeye and snickometer for which, btw, no-one told us the accuracy percentage. I have a suspiscion it may exceed the Bucknor barometer!

The second point is that the statement from Steve Norris is a blanket one. We don't know if Hawk-eye is less accurate in certain specific cases than others. But being a computer program, I would guess its flaw may be more evenly distributed.

More on Modi

2006-05-13T15:43:00.000+03:00

Besides the goldmine of insights and information in that Modi profile done by Rahul (that Prem pointed to, yesterday), here's now the complete interview of the man. This too comes with its fair share of revelations of the eyes-wide-open variety. And, more importantly, it addresses almost all the contentious issues that we often discuss here, related to the BCCI.

For example, here's the vision Modi had of promoting domestic cricket, how it got thwarted, and what's in store now, when he's got the power to do it.

Personally, my interest in cricket started developing at that point in time because we saw the value in it. Thereafter we ran into roadblocks because we wanted to expand the game. One of my key projects in those days was to launch the inter-city cricket league. I spent a lot of money on it. I spent close to seven million dollars of my own cash. In those days, in developing the concept, we had the New Delhi Panthers vs the Mumbai Stallions and so on. We had signed up all the sponsors. We had approval from the board to own, stage, and run the tournament and we were going to pay a fee to the board. It was under the aegis of the Madhya Pradesh Cricket association under the chairmanship of Madhavrao Scindia. We had gone out and signed probably the top 120 players in the world, including in India, to play a domestic league, under lights, on a home-and-away basis. There was no concentration on domestic at that time. People told us we were foolish and wasting our money on domestic cricket as there was no interest. Yes, the point is correct but unless you build the property, the interest, and make people want to go to the stadium, how do you do that? That was a challenge. If you did it with regular players, it was a losing proposition. You have to fill up stadiums with 20,000 people, 30,000 people. They have to come and support their city. You have to pay the players well, and build things around it. Anyway, they killed that. We lost a lot of money. The reason they killed it was that one gentleman in the board at that point suwggested that we give the marketing rights of the tournament to an agent and then we buy it buy it back from the agent. I told them we were the broadcaster, and were ready to fund the money going forward, we’re paying the boards for it. Why do we have to take those rights of ours, give them to an agent, and buy them back? So [they said] “we will not allow any foreign players to play in your league”. I was like “that doesn’t make any sense because we have their approval.” “Okay, so we will not allow any Indian players to play in your league.” You are arm-twisted from time to time to do these things. So it died a natural death because we got fed up of it. We had already paid advances to the players. It was a sunk cost for us

....

Now to cricket. Do you see it eventually moving away from its nation-based structure to something like football, where the real interest lies in club rivalries?

Oh yes. It’s gonna happen. The intercity cricket league is going to happen. My next big project which I’m going to announce. I’m still not ready for it because the game has evolved since the last time I developed it. It will be a home-and away concept. We hope to launch that by the end of the year.

Another pet peeve, for us here in spare time, against the BCCI is the inadequate focus on infrastructure in the country, and here's Modi's take on it

Over the last few weeks you’ve been hearing more about development, about infrastructure, about the world cup. See, when we didn’t have the money, we didn’t have anything to talk about. So how were we going to change those things? A campaign went out in the Times of India, saying how bad the infrastructure was, and asking what the BCCI was doing with all this money. You’ve got to understand, the money is just signed on a piece of paper now. The money hasn’t even come into our bank. The rest of the money is going to come over the next few years. Infrastructure doesn’t happen overnight. It needs thought. We need to bring the architects in. We need to have municipal corporation permission. We are getting all that into place. Once the marketing deals are done, they are done. We needed to project those numbers. It also helps me get more numbers in.

Paid professionals and accountability can be the solution to almost all the publicly played problems of the BCCI (e.g. the media management issues that caused a furore recently) and here's what he says

Will the board move forward until it has paid professionals who are held accountable?

I agree with you 100%. Right now we are accountable. That is why, when I decided to take on the job, I had to give it time, otherwise I wouldn’t do it justice. I give 14 hours a day to cricket. I’ve decided that for a year, a year and a half, my life is cricket. In the meantime we’re hiring people to take the game forward. Once the basic infrastructure is in place, thereafter the game will ride on its own. It won’t happen overnight. Change is on the one hand good, on the other hand painful, and on the third, it takes a lot to implement it. We need to change our constitution, put all that in place, and we’re doing all that. Until then, we need to be involved. If we leave it half-way, it’ll all return to where it was.

But do you agree that to move forward you need those paid professionals?

We have professionals under interview right now. They will be the implementers. So we will be like the board of directors. We will give them guidelines and they will go out and implement them on a day-to-day basis. And that will have to filter down to the state level and then the district level going forward. And that will happen.

On the question of twenty20 and BCCI's aversion to it, we know the obvious reasons - India doesn't really need it, for the popularity of longer versions is still satisfactorily high, unlike the case in the countries trying to promote twenty20.

Why is the BCCI averse to Twenty20?

Why not 25-25? Why not 30-30. The issue right now is that the countries advocating it are only England and Australia. They have a drop in stadium levels so they are advocating it. We fill our stadiums. We have enough crowds coming in. We’re just getting into the game now. First they want to play a world cup of 20-20. They’re not even talking about going and promoting twenty-20 in countries first, play it for five-ten years, build the basis of 20-20.They’re saying lets go straight to the world cup!

But if the ICC says that, would you be interested in playing Twenty20?

They are saying that. We’re not interested in playing Twenty20. If the ICC mandates us to do it, and we’re the only people left, I think we’ll have no choice. But in my view, I think we must have a domestic calendar for it first. It’s a totally new game. It’s a batsman’s game…

And that’s why the Indian public will warm to it…

That may be so but we need to do it at the domestic level first! I’m not saying no. I’m saying we have to do it at the domestic level first.

Will playing Twenty20 hurt the board commercially?

I don’t think so. It could be a different team altogether. We have to understand it. It’s totally new. Where you might lose a little bit, you could also game a little bit somewhere else.

Although here, I do feel that Modi, and the BCCI, can do better. If they do know that, whether they want it or not, twenty20 is going to be a reality in international cricket soon, then why not act on it immediately. When Modi already realises that there has to be a domestic structure in place for it, why not give it a kickstart already. Why not announce a few domestic twenty20 competitions right away?

Anyway, both this pieces by Rahul were tremendously revealing, not only in terms of working of the mind of Modi, but also about the new BCCI - that its not just about making more money, which indeed they are, but also about realising the potential in all aspects of the sport.

What I do feel, though, is that while Modi is one strong pillar of the new BCCI organisation - giving strength to the business wing of the structure - it needs atleast one equally strong administrative pillar for looking after the cricketing aspects of the organisation. That is not to say that those aspects are ignored today - we do hear positive moves like extending the term of office of selectors - it's just that one doesn't see as strong a driving force behind those moves as we see on display when Modi drives the money. But then, maybe he's an exceptional talent, and its unfair to expect similar involvement from everyone.

Two wrongs better than a right?

2006-05-12T15:29:00.000+03:00

Harsha's new article, besides coming hard on the much maligned BCCI gag rule, takes a look at the ICC law for appealing against umpires.

And I hope you felt as pained as I did at the recent ICC decision to land another punch on the already flattened noses of international umpires. Umpires make mistakes like all of us do in our profession and the game must try its best to reduce the number of those mistakes. But the game focuses on the umpires far too much and on the players far too little. I think the greatest stress on an umpire is the number of appeals that are made and the body language that accompanies them. If the players were a lot more honest with their appeals, the umpires would get more decisions correct.

It doesn't happen too often, but I find myself disagreeing with Harsha. Or maybe not? Well, he's right that the ICC needs to act on the nuisance of over-appealing and theatrics by bowlers, fielders (remember how it was the hot topic when Aussies were doing their war dance during the last season down under). But that does not mean the new rule to check the umpire's mistakes is wrong, does it? Yes, they are *sometimes* pressurized by those over-zealous appeals, but we have enough evidences of them getting it wrong in less challenging circumstances as well.

The ICC has, to a limited extent, tried to reign in the 'cheating' part of false appealing, as Harsha implies here..

So if a player is allowed to appeal against an umpire's verdict using technology I would like the same technology to be used to expose cricketers who make ridiculous appeals when they know a player is not out. Football now penalizes a player who tries to induce a mistake from the referee and I think the time has come to use that in cricket as well.

I remember atleast some players being penalized for claiming a false catch (umm...was it the WI keeper Jacobs??)...but anyway those rules need to be revised and re-inforced more definitively. One way out, as Harsha suggests here, is to link it to this "right to appeal against umpire" law i.e. bowler makes a ridiculous appeal, he loses his right to refer the umpire's decision for that innings.

England vs SLanka

2006-05-12T15:00:00.000+03:00

Never judge a pitch (or even a test match) by first innings of team batting first, so they say. I do believe in it, but still, when it's a hit-and-miss batting team like England, who are notorious for routinely ending their innings short of expected target, batting at 400/4 with KP in the mood and Freddie in the queue, then I have to think its a flat-bed out there. And that SL are in deep trouble, despite the pitch. The poor batting display in warm-up games, plus the prospect of facing two of the top pace bowlers in the world, and add to it the pressure of chasing a huge first innings score (which England are surely going to it, even they can't mess this one, no?) makes me feel they're deep in the hole.

Not watching the action, just relying on live scores and reports....anyone of you out there catching the game? Any thoughts?

The English channel

2006-05-11T15:22:00.000+03:00

The ECB has beaten the BCCI to the t.v. channel race - atleast on the broadband arena. The new ECBtv web channel provides live coverage (in restricted areas, to avoid obvious conflict of rights, but we know IP address checks can be worked around with), archive footage etc. And they've made decent package plans too...the entire English season for 50 pounds is great, compared to what other 'official' broadband channels charge. Go check out.

New appeal rule was designed to counter Bucknor

2006-05-11T14:59:00.000+03:00

Oh alright...I wrote that headline in our 'mainstream media' style. What Dave Richardson said, in this report clarifying on Bucknor's claim of tv bias against umpires, is that Bucknor is a good example why technology has been a good tool in cricket

But Richardson told BBC World Service Sport: "I often point to him as a very good example of why we need to give technology a go.

"He's done particularly well this year. After not a great year last year, he's averaging around 96% of his decisions being correct, and yet he's made one or two decisions which have come in for terrible criticism from the media and from fans writing in to us.

Which essentially means that they have been made *aware* of some glaring errors which Bucknor made in recent times. Bravo!...the system works...write in to ICC, all you fans, even if there's a remote chance of them giving it a look.

As to that high percentage figures that Richardson keeps throwing up, showing how *good* the umpires already are...well, as with all statistics, they don't reveal the full picture. For example, out of the 96% right decisions made by Bucknor, how many were really tough ones? I bet the straightforward ones would be close to 90%. I'm guessing that includes the clean-bowled, the absolute plumb, the outfield catches, the clear caught behinds or close catches, and the runouts which were either clear or assisted by third ump. Anyone knows more on this?

It would be interesting to know what's Bucknor's (and some others') percentage for those close ones. But even this would not tell the full story. That missing 4% could contain a decision which changed the entire course of the match (the one against Lara on their last tour down under comes to mind). So getting 96% right is not really laudable, unless we dig deeper into the match details.

Promoting the game

2006-05-11T14:36:00.000+03:00

Two articles highlight the biggest problem with the ICC's new FTP. This one mentions the glut of Ind-Aus matches, which is understandable given the financial gains that both countries would expect from these. But the problem is that India does not tour Bangladesh even in this FTP. Which means, as the report mentions, that test cricket's youngest members would be atleast 11 years old before they get to host the financially most lucrative side in the world. This is, simply put, ridiculous.

In the other article, we get to know the further imbalance that the new FTP has towards Bangladesh. They don't have a single test for the next 12 months! Any person who even remotely believed that Bangaldesh showed signs of improvement (yes, despite the Gillespie mauling) should be disappointed with the schedule. Since a gap of 12 months would wipe away a lot of those advancements they have made, and they wouldn't be able to build on it to reach the next level. Whatmore and Bashar are obviously not very happy.

I think the ICC needs to seriously deliberate on Bangladesh. You can't keep complaining about their inabilities at test level, as Ponting and many others have done in the past, and then pull them down when they were finally showing signs of maturity. Talks of 'development of cricket' and 'promoting the game' etc cannot be taken seriously, if they are actually working towards harming the game in places where its desperate to thrive. They should rather hand over the funds allocated for 'development of cricket in new avenues' to greedy boards like BCCI and others who force the ICC to make such lopsided schedules.

Sehwag speaks again

2006-05-10T13:44:00.000+03:00

Virender Sehwag, in *another* interview, this time with Reuters, talks about trying to bring more maturity to his approach at the crease, especially in ODIs.

"I'm a senior member and vice captain so I have to just change our batting style," he told Reuters in an interview.

"Sometimes the team demands I should bat until 25 or 30 overs, sometimes they want me to bat the way I (usually) do," he said. "Definitely, I will adapt to the situation quickly now.

"Now I'm learning how to bat for the first 20 overs without taking any risk."

Which, to me, seems something similar to his approach in that 70+ innings at Abu Dhabi. And good too, since his ODI batting definitely needed a revamp, and this change would surely help get the team even better, although I still expect him to be the more adventurous of the openers, especially when SRT take back his spot. For test matches, its just a matter of confidence, and one good innings, he says.

And finally, on being asked about his views on the whole Ganguly episode, he reportedly grabbed the microphone and repeatedly hit the interviewer on the head till he retracted the question!...Oh, ok..he didn't, but he may just have, if confronted with that question.

The umpiring debate

2006-05-10T11:01:00.000+03:00

Guardian has an interesting debate on the issue of Umpire's authority. Dickie Bird speaks against the new ruling, while Bob Woolmer backs it. Bird's criticism is along the age old 'the machines will take over' line, trying to kick up the nostalgia of the times when 'mistakes were integral part of the game'

In the past, if an umpire made a mistake people talked about it. That was part of the game. The central role of the umpire has been essential to the game's fabric throughout its history and not allowing them to make decisions is a loss to cricket.

Dunno about you guys, but in the 20+ years that I've followed cricket, the only 'talking' we did about the mistakes, especially the ones against our players, are hardly suitable to be published in this forum! Sure it was part of the game, like almost every non-perfected aspect of our life in their respective pre-technology era, but thats hardly convincing enough to stop trying to make things better. And as to the other traditional argument, always raked up in such debates -

I know people argue it is important to eliminate human error when so much is at stake in today's Tests and one-day internationals, with players' careers at stake and so much money in the game. But I'm still a great believer that bad and good decisions even themselves out over the course of a Test.

- I just have two words 'prove it'! And I also find his closing argument hard to believe

People pay a lot of money to go to watch Test matches and the human element in big decisions is part of the entertainment. If you ask the crowds, they will say it should be left to the umpires to make the decisions because it's part of the game and they don't want it any other way.

I don't think people want the human element (i.e. umpiring mistakes at crucial moments to) to remain in the game. From what I've gathered from people's opinions, in forums like these, they all want as much accuracy as possible. Sure, the element of time is crucial, but really, what do you think the crowd would love - a game where they knew the best team won, and they had to sit for that half hour or so extra, or a game where they were left eternally wondering 'what if the umpire had got that one right' ?

Meanwhile, we can always trust Woolmer to instill some new life into any debate. For example, this point he makes is quite a new angle, for me, to look at the rules. And quite a valid one too

The planned new rules will put pressure on the batsman to be truthful because, if he is actually out, then the team loses one of its three "wild card appeals". I know what my reaction would be if a player used up a challenge needlessly. As far as the fielding side is concerned, questioning a not-out decision, it will put an added burden on the captain, who alone may challenge.

The bottomline, as he tries to iron out the unnecessary wrinkles from this whole debate, is that this is an attempt to make the game as fair as possible for all involved parties, including the umpires (who are being increasingly pressurized by tv images and hard-fighting players).

Chappell's Test

2006-05-10T10:34:00.000+03:00

Rohit Brijnath, in this Hindu interview with Chappell (yes, as I said earlier, if its a break, its *Chappell-interviews* season) has the usual servings of *processes* and *discipline* for us (hey, not saying they're wrong, as strategies...just that we've heard it before). But amidst that, and Brijnath is a tougher cookie than most other interviewers, he does hang on to the tough question of our dismal test match performance, and finally (and surprisingly) gets a tangible enough response out of Chappell

Yet I remind Chappell that, without suffocating him with an exact timeframe, eventually this team will be expected to win, that is its purpose. His answer is blunt. "If we're not winning Test matches and we're not a good Test match team by the end of 2006, we've got the wrong people.''

Forget 2006. Make it 2007. If India isn't winning Tests abroad by then, he's right, it will mean we've got the wrong people. Players. Selectors. Administrators. Captain. And don't forget coach

And, needless to say, I like that assertion, both from Chappell and Rohit. The timetable looks right for the 'processes' to yield results in the test arena as well. Ofcourse, the slight glitch is that by year end, we only play the away tours in WI and SA - both different in toughness scale, yet not ideal place to look for satisfying results from a struggling team. But hey, if the coach says so - and he has always stuck to 'I would finally be judged by results' line - I have no complains.

For me, personally, a series win in WI (with any scoreline) and a test match win in SA would be satisfying enough, for the moment. What say?

Killing that goose. And asking not to squeal.

2006-05-09T16:17:00.000+03:00

More on a thread I touched a while earlier...the 15 tests and 30 ODIs quota that ICC has fixed for each country and to which BCCI says

"Fifteen Tests and 30 one dayers makes just 105 days. And for any professional, is there any profession that you play 105 days in a year?" said I S Bindra, former BCCI President.

Let's first get the maths right. Each ODI has atleast one day of travel and another day of preparation involved while a test has 3 days in total lead time (sometimes more and sometimes less, so such an seems reasonable). That means an additional 105 days in lead-up and preparation etc when the *human* body of the players is not actually getting a real rest. That is a total of 210 days of active travel, preparation, actual playing time and the likes!!!! That is also, incidentally, atleast 210 days out of 365 when the player is away from home, family and generally relaxing atmosphere. Add to it the camps, lead-time to a series, comeptitions like Challenger and other domestic matches and you reach the 300 limit easily in the year. Now, Mr Bindra, does it make sense?

Heck, even the not so physically tiring desk job mandates that many leaves per year (just count the paid vacations, Sundays and other national/local holidays you get, in your job, per year). But hush...who's to tell *them* how to do their job....that's interference in *board's policies*

BCCI, professionalism and improvement - come again?

2006-05-09T15:46:00.000+03:00

The Indian board has once again lost the plot completely, I must say. According to the latest report, they have 'warned' Sehwag from speaking out on Ganguly issue and, much more importantly, on the issue of player burnout.

"Sehwag has been warned verbally from speaking to the media on burnout and the Ganguly issue. Players cannot speak on Board policies and selection matters," Shah declared.

...

"If any player feels there is burnout, he can take rest. The Board cannot change its policy or itinerary for any player," Shah told PTI.

"Players cannot speak on Ganguly issue also. It is a matter which concerns the selection committee. As a player you cannot give your opinion on any other player."

Right, lets take it one at a time. On the burnout issue, off the top of my head I can recall Dhoni, Harbhajan, Dravid, Sachin and Pathan speaking about it in recent times. Have they been warned too?

Oh and btw, if you were still living in the dreamland where BCCI had promised cut-off at 12 tests and 30 ODIs per year (and which Rahul had re-iterated, were enough for the team) here's some news

"Fifteen Tests and 30 one dayers makes just 105 days. And for any professional, is there any profession that you play 105 days in a year?" said I S Bindra, former BCCI President.

And as for Rahul voicing his opinion on burnout (and a request for the ICC limit of matches to be honoured by BCCI) here's BCCI's reponse

"He (Dravid) is saying this because there is extra load on him now due to captaincy. We do everything in consultation with the players," said Sharad Pawar, President, BCCI.

So...there you have it now? Don't crib later that you were not warned!

I think Rahul's call for IPCA to be recognized by BCCI is all the more valid now, because I simply don't see our honourable honorary presidents and secretaries honouring their own words without a stronger coercive force.

By the way, here's Chappell speaking on the burnout debate, from the interview I linked earlier

What about the burnout factor?
There is no doubt, if you try to play 365 days a year, you will run into problems. There is a balance between having a life as well as playing cricket. It is important players have opportunities to reflect.

Most players at the end of their careers find it difficult to have the enthusiasm they had at the start of their careers.

That’s a factor selectors should take into consideration and from time to time players may need to have a break. Equally, the administration should understand there is a limit to how many games in a year an individual or group of individuals can cope with and keep up with the standards.

We are in the danger of denigrating the game if we make players so tired they are not able to perform at the peak of their powers. It’s important to have a rotation policy. You have to keep developing young players.

Wonder if he would be told to go take a break....and don't comment on *board's policies*

And lastly, on the Ganguly issue, here's what Sehwag actually said (interview linked by Prem yesterday)

Do you think when Ganguly was captain there was more aggression?

We are aggressive today also. We have won 16 matches in a row, chasing which has never happened in the past. We see to it that when we chase, we don’t panic, which we earlier used to do. That is a new thing in the team.

And Sourav, do you miss him?

Yes, we miss him. We always miss senior players like Sourav, Sachin, and Kumble.

What is the most important thing you have learned from Sourav?

Sourav, I think, is the best captain, and I have always learnt from Sourav. I learnt from him the tactics on how to handle pressure, how to control those difficult situations. He has got 10,000 runs in one-day cricket.

If this is indeed what he said, and being penalised for, then where the heck is the alleged questioning of any selection matters here? I mean come on...the guy is speaking about his learning experiences, and if it is under Saurav that he arrived at the big stage and matured, learnt his first big lessons, then what is he going to do...use *beeps* instead of Saurav's name?

If Saurav's selection is a contentious issue with the board, does that mean that any mention of that name is a taboo for the entire team?

Chappell in free time

2006-05-09T12:18:00.000+03:00

Greg Chappell is having a nice relaxing time-off - which can only mean some more interviews. On the hot topic of the season, the *burnout* debate, he says players do need sufficient breaks to reflect

There is no doubt, if you try to play 365 days a year, you will run into problems. There is a balance between having a life as well as playing cricket. It is important players have opportunities to reflect.

Which I feel is one of the most important cricketing reason for having proper breaks built into the schedule. Players do need time to reflect on an important series they have played, their own performance, shortcomings, preparations for future.

And this is best exemplified in the Sehwag situation where he is now facing the first serious test, since his great run in international cricket, through technical and mental hurdles. A long enough break to reflect and work on the weaknesses is a perfect solution to his problems. Thankfully, despite the busy schedule, he's got just that before the beginning of the crucial away-tours leg of the season.

Also nice to see Chappell himself pointing out the pitfalls of over-emphasizing on the World Cup buildup, something which he himself confesses being guilty of in recent times. That he goes on, in the same interview, to bring the spotlight back again on the Cup is another matter.

Balaji finally back

2006-05-07T15:25:00.000+03:00

One of the most promising bowlers to be capped in recent times, Balaji, head from. He's my favourite, especially for tests, over a lot of other promising newcomers we've seen in recent times. According to this report, he'll be proving his match fitness soon....let's see if that is enough to earn him a test recall, especially with the competition much more tougher now. Let's hope he does get in, and atleast gets to play the warm-up match, along with Santh, Munaf etc to get a better picture of where he stands.

From the horse's mouth

2006-05-07T15:16:00.000+03:00

The man....Steve Bucknor himself...now heard from. Voices his concerns on quite a few issues, including the new right-to-appeal, for which his major complain is that the ICC did not consult the umpires. Fair enough, they should have been consulted on how to best formulate the rule. But I'm not sure if the players were consulted either..and they are surely the more important of the the two parties directly affected by the ruling.

His second point of contention...that t.v. companies (producing the coverage) are biased in their choice of images (replays etc) to be displayed to viewers, and even third umpires, trying to make the 'home' players look good. Well...that is indeed a big charge...one that is not outside the realm of possibility. Remember how Atherton recently accused BCCI of trying to curb the Ganguly issue from being discussed on air....or remember how we never ever saw the new 2000 frame super-slow-mo of Shoaib bowling in the Pak series....ofcourse none of these are confirmed....but we know there is enough scope for manoeuvring. Especially when production companies like Nimbus have so much to gain from toeing the BCCI lines, why would they care about transparency or neutrality or other such sentiments, unless forced to?

But, in the end, despite all those issues...I've seen enough blunders from Bucknor, and not only blunders but his visible show of contempt for players and their rightful requests, to not have even a shred of sympathy with him. Sure the technology is making umpires look bad, but when a commentator sitting that far away from action is able to cofidently make a call pointing out umpire's mistake (in real time, before the replays have been aired), then we know who's to blame...right?

ICC does something good!

2006-05-06T23:44:00.000+03:00

The decision from the much-awaited ICC playing committee's deliberations over playing conditions are out....and they've recommended in favour of the right-to-appeal umpire's decision. From what I understand, the batsman in question (against whom the field umpire's decision has been made) or the fielding captain has the right to 3 appeals. In case the appeal is successful, they would still maintain the right to 3 appeals....although the cricinfo report is vague on this, but this BBC report does clarify that its three *unsuccessful* appeals.

That is indeed the right move, as some of you suggested earlier in the comments, that an appeal upheld by third umpire basically means acceptance of a *mistake* of the on-field officials, and therefore the appealing party should be rewarded - in this case the reward being no deduction from the number of appeals. What do you think?

There were other suggestions also made by the committee related to the bats (Ponting's bat is illegal - if one looks at the summary), disbanding the use of artificial lights in tests, continuation of powerplays till atleast the world cup, and playing conditions for twenty20.

I'm really excited about the right to appeal ruling....and I guess that would be the feeling of fans all around the world - we don't want our precious time, often sneaked from other chores of the day, to be marred by vagaries of the *human element* of the game. The umpires would obviously disagree, as Venkat is doing here, but the heck with it. I can't wait for this rule to be extended to test matches!

No more dissent

2006-05-04T16:20:00.000+03:00

Finally, some *cricketing* news at last...and good one too. If all goes well, the upcoming CT can see a new rule - batsmen getting the chance to appeal against the umpires' decisions against them (any form of dismissal, including LBWs). Since I personally care only about the playing aspect of the game, and not much of a 'human element of umpire' argument backer, I am delighted to hear this. Hope they extend it to tests too, and soon. The report also mentions that fielding side would have similar rights to appeal as well.

Finally, a useful rule coming from the ICC gang after a long long time.

And...so long, bullying Bucknor ;-)

More cricket

2006-05-03T16:00:00.000+03:00

The details of the replacement(s) for the cancelled tri-series (against Pak, Aus) that I briefly mentioned yesterday are getting clearer now. Apparently its going to be replaced by 2 tri-series, instead of 1. One in Srilanka (Ind, SA, SL) in September, and the other one in US, still being finalised (Ind, WI, Aus). Now, as I said yesterday, a full series against Aussies is a mouth-watering prospect for the fan in me, but still, this looks like too much cricket just before CT.

Anyway, lets hope all this falls in that 30-ODIs-per-year bracket. Someone keeping count??

The deal is out in the open

2006-05-02T22:00:00.000+03:00

And after we read, in the report Ruchir linked to earlier, Bindra himself casting doubt on the Abu Dhabi triseries, comes the 'refusal' from PCB. Anyway, leaving aside who got the 'credit' for pulling out first, it seems that the new options are North America, Malaysia, Singapore or even India.

And btw, Bindra himself said that they have a commitment to help WIndies board, after getting their support in the bid. One wonders where's the sly, back-room dealing...if he's openly confirming it?

Ofcourse that part puts me in a doubt, are they still planning to play Australia or would helping WIndies board mean playing the WI team (which would be...umm... a bit strange, although not anything new, given that we would just have come back from a full tour of the WI). I just hope they somehow include Aussies, who are also looking for some sort of warmup for the CT preparations, in their plans. Would love to see the new improved Indian team play 2-3 matches against the Aussies...sort of....an acid test of *real* improvement.

More of world cup deal

2006-05-02T21:33:00.000+03:00

Continuing that world cup 'allegation' story from the morning, this NZ channel reports that the Asian group bought the 2011 rights through flexing its financial muscle. Lot of 'talk' but little concrete backup of that, except the part where it suggests that the Asians showed a 'development plan' for the troubled WIndies.

Unless, ofcourse, showing plain better business deal to members (that they would make more money from a subcontinent WC, as Asians would make more) is 'illegal'!

And anyway, Bindra discloses in this interview, given after the victory, that apparently the members have agreed upon some sort of 'rotation' system (and hopefully doing away with these contentious biddings for future)...something which I mentioned in my earlier post.

World Cup rants

2006-05-02T11:33:00.000+03:00

There's been some criticism of the Asian victory in the World Cup bidding, mostly from the ones having lost out. Malcom Gray here talks of the *dangers* behind the Asians dominating the game.

After Australasia lobbied to host the 1992 event, it was decided the staging rights would be rotated between the five cricketing regions. "This unfortunately has broken that and for the sake of the game I think it would be better if it did go around in order," Gray admitted. Sharad Pawar, the BCCI chief, has said that he believes every third tournament should be held on the subcontinent.

What I don't understand is the actual basis for criticising the BCCI assertion that every 3rd world cup should come to subcontinent. The *five region* formula, whenever it was agreed upon, was based on the realities and compulsions of those times. The 'one in three' is based on todays' reality. And that is, that ODI cricket in general, and World Cup in particular, are a grand money-making opportunity. And no matter what they say, even the Aussie and English board have this outlook towards the limited version of the game. So, if we all agree on this part, then isn't it fair that all member countries get equal chance at making their share of money?

If we stick to the old 'five region' formula, that means the 4 countries in the subcontinent get a chance once in 20 years(or alternatively each country in 80 years!!), and the money they make has to be shared between the four countries. While Aussies, English, WI and SA board get a chance every 20 years, and they make the full money out of it. And we don't even need to bring out the fact about subcontinent being the major revenue generator in cricket to see the inequality of the above deal.

Sure Aussies and NZ, although making combined bids, are also entitled to equal rights, and should be worthy of twice the chances as, lets say, England. So, if the whole bidding process is really getting political, and with all those allegations of lobbying and 'using the power of programming' etc, the best way out is to make the whole thing cyclical, IMO. Let the hosting rights be rotated between each of the ten test playing nations in sequence, and leave it upon them to decide who they want it to combine with.

Early updates

2006-05-02T10:48:00.000+03:00

A few days after Ponting declared that their Ashes preparation were on track, England were facing the usual injury issues. Simon Jones botched up his return. Once again. And James Anderson barely passed the first comeback milestone (playing in India) before breaking down again. Giles, Harmison and Vaughan are already on the list. So if Indians got a B squad, the Lankans have good chances of facing the 'next level' of English bench.

And meanwhile, back to that Warne speculation....for now, he repeats, 'he won't'. Despite his seemingly clear denial, I would still not close this issue. For, you see, there is this statement embedded in the same denial

"If Ricky said to me at some stage 'look we really need you', then I would think about it, but I don't think it would ever come to that. The team has done really well without me and I will be barracking for them in the World Cup, but not playing for them."

And we know that the Aussie selectors are worried about their ODI bowling attack, despite the fairly good season (not by their own high standards though) that the Aussie ODI team has had. This season has seen their bowling attack struggle to contain opposition live never before, and especially so in good batting conditions (which are a norm these days, in most parts of the world). I still feel they would need Warne and, more importantly, they would *know* they need him, if they want to defend that Cup.

Aussie bid

2006-04-30T16:07:00.000+03:00

So the Aussies lost the WC2011 bid to the Asians. Good news for BCCI's money center. And for the ODI crazy Asian fans too. But then, given the relative unpopularity of WC in Australia (only 9% thought it to be their most significant cricket milestone), I guess CA is the only one mourning the loss.

Meanwhile, as a regular cricket fan, for me 2011 is too far off to ponder over (or get excited about)....so I'll rather focus on the upcoming one.

Return of the king

2006-04-30T15:55:00.000+03:00

Will he...or won't he? I have thought, for a while now, that he would be there for WC in WI. Now, I feel we are going to see him in action as soon as the CT in October. What do you think?

Sunday split

2006-04-30T15:48:00.000+03:00

Many of you would have seen the statistical exercise undertaken by S Rajesh at cricinfo, where he calculated the standard deviation of some of the top batsmen - showing how much they tend to deviate from their averages - thus trying to find a more balanced understanding of the real value of a batsman. Ofcourse, all this on top of the assumption that statistics still dont ever give the full picture.

I've been thinking about his analysis, and IMO although his Batting Index invention does throw up interesting figures, it still leaves out some obvious facts that can be incorporated.

For example, lets first collect the modern era batsmen that fall in his good and bad list (I won't take the batsmen of past, since its very tough comparing across generations as this batting styles have evolved so much over the time).

Good list : Kallis, Border, Arjuna, Thorpe, Chanderpaul, Boycs and Waugh

Bad list : Atapattu, Abbas, Jayasurya, Lara, Botham, Gibbs, De SIlva, Gooch, Crowe, Fleming

The first thing that struck me was that surely, batting position also plays a role in standard deviation? In the good list we only have Boycs as an opener, while in the bad list Atapattu, Jayasurya, Gibbs, and even Fleming in part, have been test match openers.

Even in the last list of the article, the *bad ones* since 2002, has Smith, Gayle, Sachin, Atapattu (and Fleming) from the openers' club.

An opener is more likely to get a good ball early on, especially on pitches and conditions favourable for batting, as compared to his other team mates. So while his average (runs per innings) are still important, since he, like any other batsman, should score big when he gets in, his standard deviation is going to be less of a factor. As long as he can maintain a high average. Sehwag is an ideal example, but I'm sure many other top openers around the world would fall in the bad list. What say?

Another aspect of the analysis is the real value of the batting index. While it is good way of judging the batsman's value, the question is - how high a value is good enough, and when does it start being *bad*? Hypothetically, a batsman with an average of 50 and standard deviation of 0 should be a great one - for he belongs to the good batsmen's club (averaging 50) as well as a batting index of infinity!

But in reality, this is a batsman who scores exactly fifty runs in every innings he walks out to bat in. How many real test teams, do you think, can afford such a batsman? Because, remember, even if we get this hypothetical genius in, he's the only one of his kind in the team. The others are bound to have their good and bad days. And this bloke would never ever bail the team out even when he's in good touch...since his counter stops at 50. For cricket, in reality is in a way about the inconsistencies of the players, isn't it? Real batsmen are all inconsistent, but the good ones make their good day count.

Consider this batsman, in contrast, to another averaging 35+ and a significantly low batting index. That means he makes those occasional big hundreds, and that gets the team into winning situations. Isn't the value of this player higher than the one above?

And, in a way, this whole equation is already settled in real life through team selections. A batsman constantly giving you 30-40 (or even 50) runs in each innings, time after time, is not really going to last long. For the selectors know that he's wasting away the good chances as well (when he gets his eye in) and sooner or later, the bad days are bound to come.

So...it does seem that no matter how well thought out the formula...statistics still never reveal the full truth!

Your turn...

In the middle of r&r - lookout for interesting cricket action

2006-04-30T01:53:00.000+03:00

Ok...time for some cricketing updates....although not much happening out there, and even I'm pretty happy with the r&r break...so I can imagine the players delight. Dravid, in the midst of enjoying the rest, speaks about the upcoming WI series and says the India has often played good cricket in patches, which does not win them a test series - so he refused suggestions that Indians are favourite going into the WI test series. Also mentioned about the much debated scheduling questions - 12 tests and 30 ODIs are good enough, he says.

Meanwhile in the lone international cricketing action of the times - after BD it was the turn of SA to face the tailenders curse when Franklin filled his boots with a ton after the Fleming epic. I'm not watching the game, but the way runs have been comfortably scored after day 1 - with now SA being 150+ for 2 wkts - it seems that the early stutters from Nz batting lineup were of their own making. Lets see if SA can sustain the pressure caused by when batting second to a substantial first innings total.

Did I say 'lone' international news....maybe I missed the other action - WI defeating Zim in first ODI? Then again, maybe not. Lara did get some runs under his belt after few poor outings the last time WI played international cricket in Nz.

There's this Eurasia series happening in Abu Dhabi...and India A is emulating their seniors in proving to be significantly better than the others - and the usual suspects Dhawan, Sharma., Chawla, Uthappa are again impressing. But IMO these kind of occasions are just indicators of raw talent, and there are significant next steps to be taken by these youngsters to get to the next level - as we saw in the international outings of Chawla and Uthappa.

And lastly, in an sportstar interview, Dhoni comes across as pretty level headed and honest to me - just like his batting. Worth a read... there are interesting bits like this one

Where did you learn to innovate?

During tennis ball tournaments. On 18-yard pitches we had to face a lot of yorkers. You have to be prepared all the time. At the international level, you have to create scoring opportunities and that is why I have developed certain shots. You have to be different. If you want to succeed at the international level, you have to do things differently. The shots I play when batting at No. 8 will not figure when I am batting at No. 3.

It is interesting to gather such bits and pieces about him as and when they come along, since this is one bloke about whom we'll keep hearing for a long time....therefore any pointers to the make-up of the batsman, and the person behind it, are welcome.

Incidentally Gilchrist has replaced him as the top ODI batsman, which shows that atleast in ODIs he is back to where he belonged. Test matches are a different affair, though. He hasn't yet looked fully recovered from the Ashes blows, and now the next version is upon them (I don't think they play any test cricket before that). Could be a make-or-break series for Gillie the test match player.

And about the ranking itself...well Dhoni is set to play a whole series in May, and the Aussies are due for a long rest, so he should retain that top spot soon, I would think.

Bowler ranking is much more interesting, with Pathan closing in on Pollock at the top (both are incidentally in top 3 in the allrounder rankings) although SA is not playing ODIs anytime soon, as far as I know.

In the middle of r&r - lookout for interesting cricket action

2006-04-30T00:45:00.000+03:00

Ok...time for some cricketing updates....although not much happening out there, and even I'm pretty happy with the r&r break...so I can imagine the players delight. Dravid, in the midst of enjoying the rest, speaks about the upcoming WI series and says the India has often played good cricket in patches, which does not win them a test series - so he refused suggestions that Indians are favourite going into the WI test series. Also mentioned about the much debated scheduling questions - 12 tests and 30 ODIs are good enough, he says.

Meanwhile in the lone international cricketing action of the times - after BD it was the turn of SA to face the tailenders curse when Franklin filled his boots with a ton after the Fleming epic. I'm not watching the game, but the way runs have been comfortably scored after day 1 - with now SA being 150+ for 2 wkts - it seems that the early stutters from Nz batting lineup were of their own making. Lets see if SA can sustain the pressure caused by when batting second to a substantial first innings total.

Did I say 'lone' international news....maybe I missed the other action - WI defeating Zim in first ODI? The again, maybe not. Lara did get some runs under his belt after few poor outings the last time WI played international cricket in Nz.

There's this Eurasia series happening in Abu Dhabi...and India A is emulating their seniors in proving to be significantly better than the others - and the usual suspects Dhawan, Sharma., Chawla, Uthappa are again impressing. But IMO these kind of occasions are just indicators of raw talent, and there are significant next steps to be taken by these youngsters to get to the next level - as we saw in the international outings of Chawla and Uthappa.

And lastly, in an sportstar interview, Dhoni comes across as pretty level headed and honest to me - just like his batting. Worth a read... there are interesting bits like this one

Where did you learn to innovate?

During tennis ball tournaments. On 18-yard pitches we had to face a lot of yorkers. You have to be prepared all the time. At the international level, you have to create scoring opportunities and that is why I have developed certain shots. You have to be different. If you want to succeed at the international level, you have to do things differently. The shots I play when batting at No. 8 will not figure when I am batting at No. 3.

Work and play

2006-04-27T19:04:00.000+03:00

Mid-day has come up with an interesting compilation, which Ruchir linked to earlier....the one on the ODIs and tests played by each country (apparently in one year, although not sure about the actual start and end points, lets assume last summer to beginning on this summer, as in English season). Some interesting observations, that I can immediately see, are:

1) England have a test to ODI ration of 1.6 only! And they're the leaders, along with Aussies, in crying over workload. Fletcher even hinted at pulling off key players from CT (although unlikely to happen, IMO). They might as well voluntarily retire from ODI cricket :-)

2) India, surprisingly, did not top the ODI list. And for all the 'subcontinent is crazy about money-making ODIs' talk, the Aussies are second in the list after SL. That, ofcourse, does lend credence to their fatigue talk, since they've also played the maximum number of tests.

3) India, for its third rank in ODI table with 34 matches, has also played a good many 11 tests. Good to see the Indians improving in the test listings, and hope we dont let it come down (maybe we can drop a few ODIs....didn't BCCI promise that we won't play more than 30 matches in a year...or was it 35?). We would have been joint toppers in ODIs, had two of our games not been abandoned. Not really happy noting this one, though :-)

4) Pakistan has the least number of ODIs...surely a scheduling mistake....PCB would duely take note ;-)

Note: For those of you who're worried (or happy)...just heard from Prem....alive and kicking...and enjoying some time off during the lull period (cricket-vise)

Sunny days no more?

2006-04-27T17:41:00.000+03:00

PCB is angry with Sunny bhai, apparently because he is biased towards Srinath (and/or against PCB and Pak appointed members, Pak players and other miscellaneous biases). The gist of their complaints, as I understand it, are that he rejected the application of Pak nominations for ICC referee posts, and appointed Srinath instead. And they want Sunny out, to be replaced by Majid Khan instead. Right, so if Majid appointed one of the Pak nominees instead of Srinath for the post of referee, that would have been any different from bias in what sense? PCB should, instead of a direct blame game, try to show how or why do they feel Sunny's action are a matter of bias, and not a genuine case of appointing the best/better candidate (which I personally don't know which one them is)

Also somewhere there is the allegation of Srinath being the one of the members on the panel to review and uphold the ban against Shabbir. Once again, instead of producing such allegation, without building a base, they could do well to show a deeper reasoning why that decision of ICC was biased/wrong. For example, did they get Shoaib cleared from any independent sources (that univ in Australia??), did they get the weightage of *neutral* expert opinion on their side (e.g. someone like Holding, Lillee, Tyson etc?) and finally, are they implying that the other members of that review panel were in favour of Shabbir and only Sri against?

Ofcourse I personally can't care less whether that panel is headed by Sunny or Majid or anyone else....as long as he can take some sensible decisions. And keep SuperSub kind of horrors away from us.

Champions trophy - the sequel

2006-04-27T17:29:00.000+03:00

Right on cue, the ICC used the occasion of CT launch to emphasize its importance. Mr Mani also went on to say

"Don't kid yourself," Ehsan Mani, the ICC president, told the media announcing the schedule for the month-long tournament in New Delhi. "Australia have never won this tournament before and are determined to win this one. They will send their best team."

Right, if he says so, we would take it at the moment. Although the noises coming out of the Aussie camp (plus the surprisingly low popularity of even the WC, leave alone the CT, amongst the Aussie public) indicate otherwise. But, I guess, we'll wait for October on this one.

And in related news Pawar, apparently after meeting Mani and other ICC officials at the occasion of CT launch, announced that BCCI is not *against* CT as long as their is consensus amongst the members (to which, obviously, BCCI themselves are going to pose one challenge).

This softening of stance came after the Indian board had earlier opposed the scheduling of the Champions Trophy in October. "We're not free in October in 2007, 2008 or 2009," Lalit Modi, the BCCI vice-president, had said in January. "We have made our position clear to the ICC many times. If others want to play, they can, but why should we play in October? We've not signed any agreement to play in future editions and we've made our position very clear to the ICC many times."

But Pawar said that Modi's comments, including those that the BCCI could earn more by playing a bilateral series rather than the Champions Trophy, were "his personal view. It is not the view of BCCI.

Now this is downright confusing, to say the least. Mr Pawar is obviously busy enough not to be involved in everyday affairs of the BCCI, and most definitely not willing or able to provide the regular soundbytes (and actual updates) to the hungry Indian media. Which is why Modi, Shah and virtually every board official gets more than a fair share of their time under the sun. That, IMO, is the root of this confusion. Mr Pawar, Time to appoint a permanent media manager/spokesperson for ALL official releases of BCCI? And just for the record, does this also mean that whatever Modi says anytime, from now on, are his personal views? Or does he have mutiple masks, and we should get into a guessing game as to the ownership of the views?

Cricketing action

2006-04-27T12:53:00.000+03:00

Since there's not much cricket international cricket happening, hope you folks are following the travails of Zaheer Khan at Worcestershire. Currently playing a match against Somerset, where he took 4 for 100 of his 25+ overs (the best figures for the side) including the scalp of Tresco, and was exceptionally miserly in his first couple of spells (must've been tonked by tailenders towards the end, but I didn't follow that part).

Ofcourse his performances there, even if they turn out to be very good, should be treated in the right perspective. Bowlers having good time there (Rana Naved from Pak last year, or Mushtaq Ahmed every year) don't necessarily return to international cricket with an improved value. But it would surely mean a good workout for Khan, some improved confidence, and a better chance of making back to the national squad, especially if we have to rotate the current lot of pacers (we have a hectic season, especially in ODIs, coming up).

And speaking of rotation, wonder where Nehra and Balaji are? Nehra was supposed to have a county stint himself? Thats his only realistic chance of proving match fitness, unless he would want to wait for the start of the domestic season back home.

That reminds me(don't ask how) that Bond-less New Zealand are taking on SA in the only real international action happening around. And for a change, they've had a pretty decent start with the bat. Oops...first wkt down at 50...umm..I won't speak more of this ;-)

A trophy for champions?

2006-04-27T12:34:00.000+03:00

The Champions trophy schedule is out - India play England in the opening match at Jaipur...where India can strive to make up for missing out on beating England in Guwahati, and make the series tally 6-1. Although, realistically, October is too far away in ODI terms, and a lot is likely to happen with the team between now and then.

Andrew Miller, meanwhile, throws some light on the credibility and importance of the tournament itself. And I would agree, right now Champions Trophy doesn't really hold a position too many teams would strive for. Unless they're the ones that cannot realistically hope to get the bigger trophy, the *real* world cup, home.

"Commercialism, while important, must not be the prime consideration in making decisions about the future," Speed himself told Cricinfo this month. It is high time, therefore, he turned his own words into deeds. The ICC has a duty to make their events more attractive, which means biting the bullet, dispensing of the bullshit, and recognising that the product they are pedalling is stale and unappetising.

It means axing at least a fortnight from the unworkably cumbersome 47-day World Cup, and it means giving the Champions Trophy - or whatever they care to rebrand it as - a slot in the international schedule that befits the status to which it aspires. Scheduling a mini-World Cup within six months of the main event is just plain silly.

Well said...why would Australia risk fatigue and injury to its players just months before Ashes and the World Cup defence, when those two events can easily wipe out even the ignominy of a first round Champions Trophy exit? Miller's closing remark -

It matters that the ICC's tournaments matter, because if their credibility is fatally undermined, then the free-for-all that could follow will be to the detriment of the entire game

- on why having a stronger ICC effort behind CT matters is really important, especially in light of the 'other' direction that BCCI (and some other boards) seem to be inching towards, with their announcements related to the tournaments on 'neutral' venues, and a simultaneous display of reluctance to participate in future CTs.

Imran's wake up call (to lazy bloggers)

2006-04-26T15:18:00.000+03:00

There I was, happily enjoying the hiatus afforded through the slow-to-no news days of late (and no, Aussies beating Bangladesh has no new(s) element) when Imran bhai shook me along with his almost visibly seething-with-rage rumblings about the 'mismanagement' of the strategies of the Pak ODI team. The charges?

"In one-day cricket, other teams put their best batsmen at No. 2, 3, 4 and 5. But Pakistan keeps its best batsman at No.6 and 7,"

For this Imran can simply check out the batting position of the best ODI batsman in the world. And haven't the Pakistani batsmen at 2, 3, 4 been successful until recently? Is he doubting Malik, Butt and Khan's success in recent times? How come Pakistan was having such a good run in ODIs, until India went and spoiled the party? Wasn't it the same batting order?

"Inzamam-ul-Haq ran out of partners in Abu Dhabi because he was batting lower down the order. I don't know who is behind these atrocious decisions."

While it's true that Inzamam has been batting atleast one position lower than acceptable, most of the recent losses of Pakistan cannot be attributed to that. While many of the wins in recent times, where he still batted at 5, were due to his superb form. So usually his good form even at 5 has contributed to the team's success. In the second Abu Dhabi match, him batting higher would hardly have made a difference because even those above him did not stay long enough to support him. Consistent ODI performance can hardly be achieved through a single performer, and Pak batsmen have generally been doing well - except against India.

Contrast that to a Indian ODI success - while Dhoni has been the exceptional performer (and therefore risen to that number 1 spot) the recent good run of the team can hardly be attributed to just his batting prowess. Yuvraj, Rahul, Sachin, Pathan and Raina have been giving consistent support, and therefore the issue of regularly batting him up the order (despite the temptation being there, due to his tremendous form) has not been as contentious.

On the issue of fielding coach, he has this to say

"The Pakistan cricket team has a bowling coach. Now they have a fielding coach and the skipper himself is a batsman. I don't understand what will Bob Woolmer do."

Which shows how much out of touch he is with the reality of modern ODI game. Even the Aussies got specialist help in fielding, and the top teams are all moving towards specialist bowling/bio-mechanics help. And rightly so, for how can one expect the head coach, usually a batsman, to empathize with the bowlers, plot the various minute details of bowling lines, lengths, strategies etc. Sure, maybe a coach like Imran can help in both aspects...maybe that's what he is implying!

And finally

"Fielding cannot be improved by appointing coaches", he continued. "The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has to understand that Australia and South Africa are good fielding sides because their players play [domestic cricket] on good grounds and in near perfect structure."

Yes, agreed that there has to be basic culture, and infrastructure in place that encourages players to focus on their fielding skills right from the beginning. But that is for *developing* players, not for full blown national players who've been around in the game for many years. How does one expect to improve their skills, if not through specialist help?

Cricketing future

2006-04-24T11:58:00.000+03:00

A sociological analysis of development of cricket in India, from Simon Wilde of Times U.K. throws up a few interesting points, and some questions. By now, we all know that a lot of young breed of cricketers are emerging from the smaller centers like Lucknow, Ranchi, Rae-Bareily, Aligarh, Calicut and even remote villages. The main reason for this phenomenon is, and this is where most agree, the greater coverage of cricket on t.v. (and national terrestrial network, not just satellite) resulting in attracting more youngsters in all corners of the country.

But this piece throws up another angle into the theory, that of somewhat decline of interest in its traditional base in the big centers - the urban middle class. With the economy booming, and the middle class getting more affluent, the youngsters in big cities are turning to others sports, the top schools are shifting their focus too.

This got me thinking...are we wtinessing the game at its peak of popularity today? And, more significantly, are we starting to see just that very early glimpses of that downward curve? For, isn't it natural that if the focus of the urban base - the one that brings the maximum money to the broadcasters and their sponsors, the ones that pay for all those coaching classes in those private cricket clinics etc - shifts to others sports, the natural progression would be that those sports start gaining precedence on our t.v. as well...and hence start the same cricket-like growth phenomenon for another sport?

Ofcourse, I understand these are very early days...and right now, in the short term, this would sound absolutely ridiculous especially with the BCCI revenues showing exponential growth, with no signs of coming down. But, as I already said, I talk of very early signs here...something which would develop over the next 15-20 years. As for the BCCI revenues, one can argue that those are rising at that inceredible rate because the market wasn't well exploited earlier, and therefore they may not really be in sync with the actual popularity curve for the game.

Maybe this was inevitable, since its impossible to sustain that kind of growth in any market segment, and maybe it would come down to a more *sustainable* level, both in terms of business and popularity (one can consider them as inter-linked).

Or maybe I need to get my head examined...

Monday wonders

2006-04-24T11:21:00.000+03:00

Sachin gave us the lap-shot (and few others), Andy Flower the reverse sweep, Viv the lofted flick. Tresco bangs his way into the hall of fame with the 'mental fatigue'. Yes, it is confirmed that the term is now part of official cricket lexicon. And Gibbs is the obedient pupil, as we hear from the latest reports.

I remember a time in cricket, when players were simply dropped (yep, I'm that old!). Then came the age when they started being *rested* instead, and then things graduated to *rotation*. Somewhere in the middle was also the all-encompassing *unfit* line of reasoning, handed out to gullible (or fuming) journos- the peak of its boom being when Navjot Sidhu once remarked about reading of his *unfit-ness* in the morning papers (maybe he was unfit for the team afterall ;-) But now is the age of mental fatigue, and we better get used to it.

Meanwhile the king-of-tired-times, Tresco himself, is back after his well stolen rest, as was evident in his 158 for Somerset yesterday. I hope he's not over-exerting himself, there is still some way to go in the new season.

Talking of fitness, you all know I consider Shane Bond the undisputed champion of...ummm....giving the word fitness, in context of cricket, a whole new meaning. He's supposedly getting fit for the second test against SA, and thing have come to a stage where his fans now pray before each match that he doesn't break down. (tip to 'Mike on Cricket' blog on NZ cricket).

Ahh..such fun to be had..cricket and Monday mornings.

Batting failure

2006-04-22T14:27:00.000+03:00

"Indian batting looks dodgy"...goes W.V.Raman in his Hindu article, commenting on the team composition chosen for ODI leg of WI tour. And we know he's not alone in calling the Indian top order 'inconsistent', or the entire lineup 'shaky', or 'riding on Dhoni and Pathan' all the time. And the fact? Well, simply this - Sehwag and Kaif are out of form (in varying degree). The rest have been as consistent as any others in other top teams. So when did Sehwag and Kaif (who don't even get to play all the games) become the 'entire' top order (or middle order, take your pick). Why generalize? Take a look at Raman's column in which, after declaring the Indian batting as dodgy, he goes into the details thus

Sehwag's return to form will give some sort of fillip to the side and, but for Dravid and Yuvraj, the middle order appears a bit vulnerable.

...

Suresh Raina and Venugopala Rao are just about getting a hang of international cricket and with Kaif not in form; it will be a big test for the Indian batting line up.

So, essentially, after that sweeping statement he virtually goes on to add that most others are in good touch. Since, ofcourse, we know that Dhoni and Pathan are in prime touch.

Anyway, going into that analysis a bit further, here's the average of Indian batting lineup (top 6) in past 20 games:

1) Sehwag: 32 Uthappa(2): 49

2) Sachin(14 since his return): 39 ( And if you think that's low consider these regular ODI openers - Aussie regulars, as declared for WC, Katich averages 42, Gilchrist 38, Smith 40, Shoaib 41)

3) Dravid: 50

4) Yuvraj: 69

5) Kaif(16): 10 Raina: 41

6) Dhoni: 57

And..surprise surprise...it seems averages of only Sehwag and Kaif affected despite the *entire* batting order (/ top order / entire lineup) being out of form.

And complied below is another bit of statistics, the average score made by top 5 batsmen of India (and some other top teams, for comparison) in the past 20 games. Yes that would include games where Dhoni or Pathan were sent up the order, but a hypothetical scenario of 'what would have happened if..' would be speculation.

And taking earlier games, in order to remove these from the calculation, would not serve the purpose because Indian team's good form started from home series against SL. No one is claiming that we were great(or even good) before the SL series and neither is this debate about that period, so no point visiting that phase, right?

Besides when they play in top five, they fall under legitimate batting order (or specialized batsmen) and should be judged thus...just like Afridi, Akmal, Clarke, Hussey, Boucher or many others around the world.

Finally, I know there are different playing conditions around the world (although they are becoming more and more similar throughout the world...e.g. more batting friendly conditions in SA, no 300+ scores in Indian series against England etc) but we can compare only what we have, and it is just to get an idea. After all, when I hear fans complaining of our 'batting failures' I think they have other teams' performances in mind...so this one's more for their benefit.

Average score made by top 5 batsmen (not first 5 wickets to fall) in last 20 games:

India: 45

Pakistan: 34

Aus: 43

SA: 33

So, let me ask you now - What batting failure?

WI tour squad

2006-04-20T13:29:00.000+03:00

The squad for the ODI leg of the West Indies tour is on expected lines, and no signs of those 'old horses' returning, as was being hinted in some reports. The 15 who participated in the final leg of English series and Abu Dhabi have been retained. Rahul Dravid also spoke about opening options (with his move up the order) before and after Sachin's return.

The real interest lies around the test squad, and whether Sachin is fit (match fit, not medically fit) in time for that one. If he is, then I expect that one to be unchanged too, but we've to wait till May for it.

You have the right to not remain silent..

2006-04-19T11:57:00.000+03:00

Looks like the Aussie's are ahead of their times in exploiting ICC rules as well. According to this article, ICC's general manager Dave Richardson has written a report, to be presented before the ICC; concerning the wider use of replays in making umpiring decisions, as well as permitting captains/coaches to 'challenge' umpires' decisions, and ask for a replay ruling. And the best part, it could be tried as soon as the Champions Trophy in India later this year. Good for the captains, now they have a legal clause for protest. Not that Ponting needed it anyway.

Meanwhile, Sunny defends Ponting's behaviour thus

"I don't think there is any problem with Ricky at all," Gavaskar, the chairman of the ICC's cricket committee, told The Age. "What happened on the first day was just one of those things. We have to remember - and I am not making excuses - that the Australians have had a long season and they have travelled a bit.

Right, apparently if you make the excuse while stating "I'm not making an excuse" it's good enough to transform it into a valid reason! Very rich, Sunny bhai..can you please go on that long vacation now. Please?

Which one's cricket?

2006-04-19T11:17:00.000+03:00

Rahul Dravid, in another attempt to send a 'message' across to..umm..the ones not really listening...spoke thus after the match yesterday (emphasis mine)

"All the bowlers bowled well. The pitch was slow and ball was not coming on to the bat. The boys are not used to these sort of surfaces so it was a good learning experience for them. We will try to play better in the next match. It is tough at the end of the season but we are happy to come here and play for a cause."

But, as I said, its not difficult to imagine the concerned authorities just shrug it off (hey..the money was still made, no?) and move on...huddle together to organise the next tamasha in timbuktu.

Meanwhile in 'real' cricket....something unrealistic happened...Gillespie offcially became the another batsman-who-can-bowl-a-bit after this double century against Bangladesh. I wrote earlier, then he was sent as a nightwatchman, that the Aussies had 'changed' forever..as shown by the use of a nightwatchman against BD...but now, in hindsight, maybe not. Maybe they realized, in the nets, who their best batsman was :-)

Not only did he get the highest score for a nightwatchman, but perhaps the highest for any test 'bowler', since he's not a recognized allrounder. Yet. And perhaps he would also go on to become the only bowler in test history to get a Man of the Match award for batting(?)

And, what of Bangladesh? Well...after the heady heights of Test1, they had to come down; and since it was against the Aussies, come down hard. As I already wrote halfway through test 1, their purpose for the series was served. They had shown that they could hold their own against the best, even if a little tired best, for the period of an entire game. Consistency will come, with time. More importantly, this would give them tremendous confidence against the lesser teams, especially when they find themselves in winning positions, which they used to squander away earlier.

Getting the picture?

2006-04-18T12:04:00.000+03:00

The BCCI is apparently keen on improving the telecast quality beyond what we got during the English series. Or so they say, atleast. The telecast was bad, no doubt, but not much worse than what we are used to for home matches. Anyway, lets wait and see where this one goes.

Also, wondering if this includes the commentary team as well, because I remember BCCI talking about 'top quality commentary team' during the days when the tender was being finalised. Siva, Sri and Arun as the home representatives are far from satisfactory, and especially when they are matched with the fluent (if not always agreeable) opinion flow from Botham, Hussain, Deano etc.

Aussie rules

2006-04-18T11:45:00.000+03:00

A continuation of the grand Ricky Ponting drama that I posted about yesterday....now we learn that he has indeed been found guilty and fined - 25% of his match fees!. Do note that this is outright dissent we are talking of..and that too from a captain. 25% of match fees for that kind of 'charge' towards the umpires is not good enough even for a normal player, and for captains the ICC is extra strict (need I name the captain who bore the maximum brunt of this law?). Mr Crowe, who had already announced yesterday that Ponting did no wrong, and had to eat crow when still being forced to fine him, had this to say

"He did not ask for the third umpire to be consulted but when he made that move and spoke to the officials I believe his involvement played a part in prompting the referral. That is a breach of the ICC's Test match playing conditions, which states that players may not appeal to the umpire to use the replay system."

Right, so what did he say? I'm sure it was something related to his unhappiness at the decision...that's all that matters, in making it a strong case of dissent.

And wait, there's more

Meanwhile, Crowe also commented on the Australian team's interactions with Dar, noting that there were a few issues the team needed to sort with the umpire. Lee had an animated conversation with Dar after the umpire apparently asked him to move away in his follow through, while Stuart MacGill too expressed his displeasure after a couple of lbw appeals had been turned down in an over.

Which shows that the Aussie team is not learning anything from their past mistakes. And heck..why would they? When the match referree takes their side even before hearing the case (and afterwards too, despite penalising the captain), and is almost apologetic in having to implement an ICC code against them.

Update: One important question I missed out, and this one for your free-time pondering: If Ponting was indeed guilty of dissent (which was confirmed through his final penalty, however mild) then why didn't the field umpires report him in the first place? Why was it left to the Bangaldesh management to take that responsibility? Are the umpires accountable, and is the ICC going to do something about it? Is it going to ask the umpires to view Aussies through the same lense as the rest of the world?

Aussie rules

2006-04-18T10:36:00.000+03:00

"He did not ask for the third umpire to be consulted but when he made that move and spoke to the officials I believe his involvement played a part in prompting the referral. That is a breach of the ICC's Test match playing conditions, which states that players may not appeal to the umpire to use the replay system."

Right, so what did he say? I'm sure it was something related to his unhappiness at the decision...that's all that matters, in making it a strong case of dissent.

And wait, there's more

Meanwhile, Crowe also commented on the Australian team's interactions with Dar, noting that there were a few issues the team needed to sort with the umpire. Lee had an animated conversation with Dar after the umpire apparently asked him to move away in his follow through, while Stuart MacGill too expressed his displeasure after a couple of lbw appeals had been turned down in an over.

Another one for the file

2006-04-17T22:32:00.000+03:00

Right....this is an interesting one. I didn't watch this event live (nowhere to get it!) but going by reports, this is a perfect example of how the Aussies get things done their way, even amidst the 'neutrality' of the cricket officialdom. Ricky Ponting, presumably (since the jury is out, although the pictures are there to see), asked the onfield umpires to review a negative third umpire judgment, ask for a repeal, and got it in his favour!

In the 32nd over of the innings, Shane Warne floated one up that drifted in and dipped, taking the inside edge before bouncing off Ahmed's boots to Gilchrist. The on-field umpires, Ian Howell and Aleem Dar, were unsure and so referred it to Mahbubur Rahman, the third umpire. After a number of replays, it seemed the decision was made in the batsman's favour - Rajin Saleh pumped his fist and Howell, the umpire at the bowler's end, began moving towards his mark. At this point Ponting entered the fray. An animated chat with Howell resulted in a review of the decision as the umpires went into further conversation with Rahman. This time the verdict was in Australia's favour and Aftab trudged back for 18.

The Bangladesh team is understandably not very happy, and Ponting has now to face an disciplinary hearing. Bangladesh has, even in the past, complained that the bad decisions against them don't get enough critical review since they 'don't matter' at the big stage. Surely not going to help them reach that big stage, such attitude. But now, since they're fresh from the scare-of-the-lifetime they handed over to Aussies in first test, apparently the issue gets to be more important.

Anyway, back to the issue itself...the match referree, Crowe, says Ponting never really asked for a 'review'...just 'enquired' what the situation was..

But Jeff Crowe, the match referee, said that it was understood that Ponting never asked for another referral and added that neither umpire charged him with the incident. "I understand from the umpires Ricky Ponting never said 'You should go up to the third umpire and do it again'," Crowe was quoted as saying by Fox Sports. "I think he indicated that the word that came from the Bangladesh dressing-room was that he was out and he was just inquisitive as to what went on. But it was not a direct ask that the umpires should review the decision or go upstairs.

But, isn't Ricky acting beyond his brief when he even mentions the decision once that is made? And no matter hows or whys of it. Isn't that against the ICC code of conduct, questioning the verdict?

Imagine what if Rahul had made a similar 'inquiry' about Sivaram's decision in favour of KP at Nagpur test? And there, he even had a genuine case of 'confusion' since the giant screen gave him notout way before the green light flashed. Oooh....I can't even begin to imagine the storm that Botham - he the one who couldn't digest Bhajji standing his ground for an issue which even had field umpires confused and needing confirmation from the 3rd ump - would have cooked up on this!

Crowe, who already seems to be batting well for Ponting, has this to add further

"It was a communication problem really," said Crowe. "In fairness, what we had to say that with the referral upstairs, it should have been highlighted what they really wanted. The number three umpire [...] is not the most fluent in English, although he is a very good man and does communicate well, he wasn't sure really about what they wanted at that point."That's why after what was done, when the decision was first given, the umpires down below weren't sure he got the right information, or understood what was required. Once they found that information out - that the ball had hit the boot - that's all they needed to confirm what they thought. That's why it was reversed."

But if the umpires were not sure, why did they need Ponting to intervene? Why and more importantly, what, did they 'accept' when the first verdict came out, and they were returning to their mark?

And finally, the cricinfo understanding on the issue is also bewildering, for me

Even if Ponting had indeed asked for a referral, he was probably within the rules to do so. Law 27.5 states that:

When a batsman has been given Not out, either umpire may, within his jurisdiction, answer a further appeal ...

Sure so if there is a law making 'further appeal' as acceptable, what the heck is this 'excessive appealing' all about? Where we have the length of India bowlers' appeals measured precisely in seconds upto the acceptable range, and then subsequent penalising follows?

Anyway, interesting to wait and watch. For me, this looks like a simple case of questioning the verdict, and I would expect some penalty coming Ponting's way, especially because he is the captain. But, as ever, I wouldn't, for a single moment, count on it.

Pathan and Indian ratings

2006-04-16T18:34:00.000+03:00

In the Indian rise in the ODI ratings (team and individual) most heartening is the presence of a non-spinner in the top bowler ratings - with Pathan at number 4. This also goes against the traditional rant of 'ohh we're doing well because of home conditions' since a pace-bowler has been leading our revival.

And ofcourse, not to speak of the extreme joy one gets in having an Indian in the top allrounder category - again Pathan at 3. With the way he is playing, I wouldn't be surprised to see him go past Flintoff as well, if not actually top the chart.

With our next two test series outside the subcontinent, there is a strong possiblity of him repeating these feats in the test arena as well.

Not to say that Dhoni's rise is not welcome...but it was more of a given, the way he's been batting. But for him, its better to watch out a few series outside the home conditions. Although, I personally believe that he would do well. But anyway, we'll soon find out.

Pathan and Indian ratings

2006-04-16T18:19:00.000+03:00

In the Indian rise in the ODI ratings (team and individual) the most heartening is the presence of a non-spinner in the top bowler ratings - with Pathan at number 4. This also goes against the traditional rant of 'ohh we're doing well because of home conditions' since a pace-bowler has been leading our revival.

And ofcourse, not to speak of the extreme joy one gets in having an Indian in the top allrounder category - again Pathan at 3. With the way he is playing, I wouldn't be surprised to see him go past Flintoff as well, if not actually top the chart.

With our next two test series outside the subcontinent, there is a strong possiblity of him repeating these feats in the test arena as well.

Not to say that Dhoni's rise is not welcome...but it was more of a given, the way he's been batting. But for him, its better to watch out a few series outside the home conditions. Although, I personally believe that he would do well. But anyway, we'll soon find out.

Test cricket updates

2006-04-16T18:09:00.000+03:00

So, the Aussie's did 'tame' the Bangla tiger, finally. But one can almost certainly be sure that the Aussie's have 'changed' forever when you see them sending a nightwatchman even against Bangladesh. Test cricket world, as it used to exist in those heady days under Waugh, would never be the same again. Ohh well...atleast its Aussie matches are more interesting now..

And in SA, Oram and Vettori once again made NewZealand batting order look inverted by taking a 75/5 to 327 allout against a full strength SA attack. This one looks to be interesting, atleast on paper.

Gap analysis

2006-04-14T13:28:00.000+03:00

A nice debate ongoing at cricinfo Wicket to Wicket, on the dichotomy of Indian test and ODI performances. I'd hoped to write on this topic myself, but now I would wait to see if anything remains unsaid....and going by contributions so far, I find myself mostly agreeing with Dileep Premchandran's take. Btw, Prem is also scheduled to write on it, apparently. Do keep an eye on this one.

My own take - the test and ODI performance review for Chappell, already underlined the 'fact' that we as Indian fans, could hardly ask for more in ODIs, while our test team is still looking stagnated from the days of Wright, despite certain improvements (the 'fresh air' from Patel and Santh, as Dileep puts it), mainly due to the decline of strong forces of Sachin, Sehwag and, to some extent, VVS.

Granted

2006-04-12T17:28:00.000+03:00

"At the end of the day, it all depends on the situation. Maybe it is best for me that I sit out a game, take a break. When you keep playing, it may not be possible to analyse things. Sometimes, rest is an option. Perhaps I will miss the next match, perhaps Kaif will. Rahul will be back as captain for the last match, it is up to him to decide what combination he wants to field." - Is what Sehwag said in post match conference. So..there you go...the majority of you, who had been asking for the two heads to roll, here's your wish granted. What next?

Coach found

2006-04-12T16:50:00.000+03:00

So when Patil refused the ad-hoc Ind A coaching job, Robin Singh has once again been requested to 'accompany' the team to Abu Dhabi. I'm guessing Venky's would have been the next door to be knocked, had Robin also taken a similar stand on permanent offer. With much more secondary series in the pipeline, hopefully BCCI would come up with a permanent contract for one of these soon.

One for the team?

2006-04-12T16:09:00.000+03:00

I came across this news item (Hat-tip from Jagdish at 24x7) - Aussie cricketers, in their bid to force the tv broadcasters into turning off the stump-mikes during the break periods (when the ball is dead), resorted to some prank advertisements, promoting their sponsors.Television executives do not take kindly to free on-air advertising, and it was a clever tactic of Gilchrist to name team sponsors.

He was overhead saying "Get one for the boys at Travelex" or "Phone home on 3 Mobile" during play.

But the most clearly audible plug was heard after Andrew Symonds, nicknamed Roy, fired in a throw.

"That's the one, Roy," Gilchrist enthused.

"Plenty of energy ... from a ... Milo energy bar."

A Cricket Australia spokesman said the players had concerns over the volume of stump mikes.

"It is the second Test in a row that (Australia) team manager Steve Bernard has requested the International Cricket Council match referee to ensure the international protocol of stump mikes are turned down when the ball is dead, and only turned back up when the bowler is at his run-up," he said

Ofcourse, I personally want the offensive aspect of sledging to go away, hence would like to have the stump mics on (wonder why the ICC has regulated the way it has?), but the other aspects of this minor episode were equally interesting. Were the Aussies looking to sledge even Bangladeshi players? What if this was a serious opposition..would they have spent their off-time sledding or mock-promoting?

I think if it happened in India, BCCI would have promptly gone ahead and signed a contract with Aussie sponsors to keep the stump-mics turned up :-)

One for the team?

2006-04-12T16:07:00.000+03:00

I came across this news item (Hat-Television executives do not take kindly to free on-air advertising, and it was a clever tactic of Gilchrist to name team sponsors.

He was overhead saying "Get one for the boys at Travelex" or "Phone home on 3 Mobile" during play.

But the most clearly audible plug was heard after Andrew Symonds, nicknamed Roy, fired in a throw.

"That's the one, Roy," Gilchrist enthused.

"Plenty of energy ... from a ... Milo energy bar."

A Cricket Australia spokesman said the players had concerns over the volume of stump mikes.

"It is the second Test in a row that (Australia) team manager Steve Bernard has requested the International Cricket Council match referee to ensure the international protocol of stump mikes are turned down when the ball is dead, and only turned back up when the bowler is at his run-up," he said.tip from Jagdish at 24x7) - Aussie cricketers, in their bid to force the tv broadcasters into turning off the stump-mikes during the break periods (when the ball is dead), resorted to some prank advertisements, promoting their sponsors.

Bangla thriller

2006-04-12T14:48:00.000+03:00

Ricky Ponting probably knew well enough that it would come down to him, in the end. Especially because he walked in at the fall of the other most reliable Aussie batsman in recent times - Michael Hussey. And by reliable I don't mean highest run-getter, but just plain 'reliable'. Which is why Ponting played the way that he did - 3 fours in first 50 runs, strike rate under 50 - right from the start. If he stays till the end, this is going to be one of the most important knock played by Ponting despite being against Bangaldesh, considering the conditions, track, match situation and the overall buildup leading into his arrival at crease.

At stumps on day 4, this game is as interesting as it was on day 1. Which is already a testimony to Bangaldesh's improvement. Now if they can get Ponting early on tomorrow - then they can start thinking about the icing on the already substantially sumptuos cake.

Patil's NO

2006-04-11T15:34:00.000+03:00

Sandeep Patil has turned down India A coaching job (for the Abu Dhabi trip) citing other commitments. But the apparent reason is his (rightful) insistance of a permanent contract, and the BCCI's poor attitude towards it. I can't imagine any usefulness of a coach on a case-by-case basis...heck even the team manager, which is so appointed, should be a permanent position (and even the players have insisted on it). His statement in the above article..

"I heard nothing before yesterday when secretary Niranjan Shah called me to ask me if I can accompany the team to Abu Dhabi and Australia," he continued. "This is most unfortunate. I have been India A coach since 1994 but still haven't been able to get a contract."

..while it may not be a verbatim quote of Shah's actual request, does display the attitude that BCCI is showing towards this issue. They want a filler tag for the role...someone to accompany the 'kids' on their long lonely journey.

Trescothick's interview

2006-04-11T15:27:00.000+03:00

For all the eyebrows being raised over the recent Trescothick interview revealing the 'personal reasons' for this early departure from India to be some kind of virus/flu, I am happy that Derek Pringle has taken up the obvious oddity in the whole explanation

After years of near-constant cricket, his claim of exhaustion would be credible but appears contradictory. Only two months earlier, Trescothick chose to stay on tour in Pakistan despite his father-in-law suffering a near-fatal fall. There was also a seven-week break between the two winter tours, a bigger gap than usual.

I don't have an extraordinary urge to delve any deeper into his personal life to pry out the actual reasons, whatever they are, but it would have perhaps been nicer had he left the whole issue to just die its natural death. What was the urging need to come out with an explanation at all, when at the time of his departure the team management had asked the media to respect his privacy (and in fact, got surprisingly positive response from them).

Aussie's claw back

2006-04-11T11:24:00.000+03:00

Right as I predicted (feared?) yesterday, Adam Gilchrist ran riot for Aussies, and Bangladesh had little clue. Despite playing only 6 specialist batsmen (including Gillie) Aussies managed to make 180 runs for last 4 wkts with Gillespie having a 70 run partnership (that man is a test allrounder, if one thinks about the 'time' he consumes at the crease).

And also, as I further feared, this match is now looking more like Australia's than BDesh's - with 'only' a 150 run deficit, and with a likelihood of a poor BD showing in second innings, the Aussies can be facing up a 300-ish chase instead of a nearly-impossible 400+ on day4/5. Ahh anyway, its good while it lasts..so lets follow the match.

Aussie are the best...err...hold on...

2006-04-10T17:03:00.000+03:00

The Aussie team bagged USD 250k for their top test ranking, and another 250k for the ODI. This just ahead of the first day of what may well be remembered in their history as the 'Mayhem Test' if the early indicators come to fruition. Maybe the ICC should have waited a little longer ;-)

But jokes apart, Shaun Pollock, after having faced the Aussies in two successive series, feels that they've sufficiently recovered from the Ashes debacle, and are back in business. Also that England's encouraging performance in India wouldn't mean much when they go visiting down under.

But surely, the Aussie performance in Bangaldesh would have an impact - its just left to see how big a hole have they dug. Gillie can get them out in no time, and, in the process, do his own form (and the Aussie team) an added favour before the Ashes - since he was anyway going to be their default keeper, good form or not. Also, I wonder how Aussie selectors would keep denying McGill a permanent berth despite his coming good at every single opportunity. I've never seen a bigger victim of circumstances in cricket.

England for The Cup

2006-04-10T11:37:00.000+03:00

Atherton is usually the lone voice of reason amongst the English cricket community. He writes thus about the English attitude towards ODIs, drawing from his personal experience as captain of the national squad

"One or two `specialists' headed home thanking their lucky stars. Other `specialists' — who had spent some time acclimatising to conditions while being made to feel alienated from the Test squad — joined up. As ever, some looked for excuses to travel home. Some did," he added.

....

"The coaching, the talk, the tactics all centred on trying to produce Test match batsmen. And so, by and large, England produced stiff-wristed, technically sound, low-intensity players... When I became an England player myself, the administrators confirmed the low esteem in which ODI cricket was held," he revealed.

And this, to me, is visible in every aspect of English cricket, not just their on-field performance. The only time they seem to care about ODIs is when it's against the Aussies. Even their test cricket is defined by how they fare against the Aussies, but in ODIs they seem to treat everything else at a scale even lower than World Cup warmup or qualifier games. How else do you explain Fletcher's recent comments that 10 of their final World Cup XI are already fixed - amidst a series where they looked unlikely to take even those chances being gifted their way by the hosts? Sure, they have an under-strength squad - but that was not the case in Pakistan where they again won a single consolation match when Pak was experimenting. And they haven't won much outside their home for a long time.

Sharing the wealth

2006-04-10T10:45:00.000+03:00

The reports of our past greats finding it hard to make ends meet have been too frequent in recent times. BCCI, or should I say the 'new BCCI' has taken one more positive step, and I believe should be given a lot of credit, as it is due this time around. Healthy pension for past cricketers (even their widows), umpires and funds for development of non-cricketing sports are definitely good moves in the right direction of using the wealth to improve the health of the game. For example, making umpiring lucrative is a much-needed move, especially in India which currently has no representation in the Elite Panel (and rightly so). We need more people taking it up as a profession, and the quality is obviously bound to follow.

Just for record, Pawar speaks here about the expected revenue for BCCI - Rs 4000 crore in next 4 years - approx USD 200M per year.

Go Bangla!

2006-04-10T09:29:00.000+03:00

413/6 at lunch day 2, opening test of a series against Australia. Name a country that wouldn't take it with both hands, any time, any place. And then, we can still only begin to imagine, not feel, what a Bangaldeshi fan would be feeling today. Is it a wonder, then, that the morning headline (as cricinfo reports) in Dhaka read 'better than imagination'! It's the cricketing equivalent of being happy enough to die next day, with no regrets. The test series check-list is already tick-marked for the Bangladeshis. For them, from now on, whatever happens in the series is either a bonus, or it doesn't matter.

The response in the Aussie press is 'measured', so far atleast. But do keep an eye on this one, along with the actual match scorecard. If the trend continues, there's all likelihood of more words being said.

Update : Aussies, playing 5 specialist bowlers after a long long time, are already 40 odd for 3 down at tea. This is very exciting indeed.

Update 2: It just keeps getting better and better - now 100/6 and only Gillie remains. But its not 'yet' over...for this Bangladesh attack is probably the only one today not capable of exploiting Gilchrist's current weakness, plus they face the traditional Gilchrist-ic pitfall of relaxing after getting the top-order and not foreseeing the onslaught till its too late. And today, he has Lee and Gillespie for stubborn company. So...still holding onto my horses..although it can yet be over in another ball!

Greg Chappell - ODI Season 1 : Winter of Content

2006-04-10T09:03:00.000+03:00

It's still cricket after all, how different can it be? So they say about Test match and Limited Overs game. I have a suspicion Rahul Dravid and Greg Chappell would have something to say on this subject.

Greg's stint with India, in fact, started with ODIs, alongside the leadership of a certain gentleman we would keep out of this article, for sanity's sake if nothing else. The Sri Lankan trip was marked by the regular stutters, start-stop, inconsistent game that India had come to identify with, in its ODI performances for almost an year by then. There were brief glimpses of spark - another Yuvraj return, some Sehwag fireworks, Nehra doing his regular goods in ODIs, a new spark from Rao/Raina/Dhoni and the usual tenacity of Dravid. The theme was not much different in Zimbabwe, with Kaif replacing Yuvraj for the 'comeback kid' title, and some more sparks from newcomers like Rao, Raina and JP. But the results, overall showed a continuity of the grand theme existing in those times.

Then came the storm after the umm...mild showers. The home series against Sri Lanka was the first for Dravid as the new permanent captain of Indian team. It also marked the return of Sachin Tendulkar. And, totally coincidentally, it was the first time that a certain gentleman was dropped from ODI scheme of things permanently (this event is also referred by a section of Indian cricket followers, in the Indian cricketing history, as the day when cricket died. But instead of digressing now, I touch this subject later). The series marked the return of the dominant, consistent and a fresh Indian team. The evidence was there in, although not limited to, the margin of victory. For I can't remember when was the last time we so completely dominated a visiting - forget second ranked- non-minnow team. The team was looking like winning everything, the ideas were coming thick and fast, and clicking. The opponents were floored by the Dhoni, Pathan, Sachin, Dravid charge as much as the a-surprise-a-day tactic from the management. The bowling department was marking the return of effective Pathan, as well as some new sparks in Santh, RP and Raina (who debuted earlier in Zimbabwe) as well as departure of an incumbent Zaheer not living upto the expectations. The youngsters were being given calculated responsibilities - and they were grabbing it by both hands. The sernior players played the part of career guides/teachers on the field to perfection.

Then the South Africans came visiting, and one thought that for all their second rank, the SLankans were not the real challenge since they had the reputation of bad travellers, so SA would be the tough ones to break. So was the case, but India, overall, performed admirably once again. With the young brigade showing more signs of taking up the mantle in a more permanent fashion. Not that the elderly Dravid/Sachin were showing signs of burden.

The Pakistan series started on the back of a bad test match, so there was trepidation even amongst the 'believers' of the earlier results. And to top it, India lost a closely fought first game (although not due to batting failure, which was the cause of the test defeat, but then such trivialities are not necessarily noticed by the bashing-brigade). But then came the reappearance of the 'new India', the one which hardly ever looked like losing a game. The transformation of the nextgen, in Pathan, Dhoni, Yuvraj, Raina, Santh and others, was complete. They were ready to be counted in serious contenders, ready to put up their hand every there was a need. The fielding was consistently good, the camaraderie was matching the WC04 standards, the plans were falling in place, and the moves were all clicking.

Then, the final battle, was against the English. Albeit this was against the weakest of the all the ODI opponents India had faced since its resurgence, but this one too came close on the heels of a debacle in a test match (and arguable a whole series) where India were supposed to dominate. So, the signs of nerves were there in all groups of followers once again. India did show signs of hiccup in the first match, with its first innings performance with the bat (and were duly hooted by the spectators - maybe even remote fans - expecting a follow-up of the Mumbai test) but then, since the second innings of that match, the 'new India' surfaced once more. And, till date, has shown no signs of going back into hibernation (not that it ever did in ODIs). The self-belief that came with the much stronger wins of recent past got it past that initial hurdle, and then expectedly the English looked half-intent to roll-over and play dead. The tactics continued, the youngsters kept maturing, the seniors kept handling responsibility with aplomb, the fielding hardly ever wilted. The only minor hiccup has been the patchy form of Sehwag, although with intermittent good signs of revival, and the much more horrible run of Kaif, despite the fact that he is making runs in domestic as well as first class matches (the warm-up game against England) hence the call for his 'return to domestic' hardly has any merit. But these are minor hiccups, and a strong team, with a majority of its components clicking, is likely to overcome them sooner or later.

But major sections of India, today. are a divided lot - accept it or not. The lines of division were once along the lines of Chappell vs Ganguly, then it moved to 'the system' vs Ganguly, then finally it stands such that there are divisions along supporters of the current team/process/system (and not necessarily Chappell, I must strictly opine here) vs the 'rest' where 'rest' equals those who think he/they/it would (and should) fail, and therefore not only waiting for it, but even 'willing' it to happen, sometimes at the cost of Indian failure. So while one half waits for the ODI effect to seep over to the tests (for after all, it's still cricket, and how different can it be?), the others wait for 'the bubble to burst' as someone, whom I chance to know very closely, once said.

Watch out, then. Interesting times ahead. As usual.

Life after Wright - A look at Chappell and Team India after one test season

2006-04-10T09:02:00.000+03:00

When Greg Chappell had joined as coach of the Indian team, I had decided that a good time-period for judging his impact would be a full season, somewhere around the end of the English series. So, here goes. And do remember, this is strictly based on the test match performances and results. I would do a separate one for ODIs at the end of the series. And yes, I specifically wanted to analyse test and ODI separately, not the least because of the vast gap in the team results in the two formats.

1) Team performance :

Played 3 against SL - Average batting by top order batsmen - Dravid missed a match, got a fifty in another, Sehwag missed a match, failed in other two, Sachin got a 100, Laxman another, Yuvraj did ok in couple of matches, Saurav failed to build, Pathan showed good batting form, Kumble and Pathan bowled well. In general the batting momentum never buit up. We won the series by sheer mediocrity of the opposition.

Played 3 against Pak: On pitches where admittedly even the great English bowling lineup struggled against the average Pak batting, Indian bowling display was way below average. Batting did well, as it should have on those pitches. Still Dhoni and Pathan were needed to rescue them once. Dravid was good, Laxman ok in one outing, Sachin bad. Then came Karachi - bowling failed to capitalise on top order collapse, and was very ordinary second time around. Pathan fluctuated between unplayable and pathetic. Batting did bad twice, although due to some good Pakistani bowling. Sachin got out to an ordinary ball first time around, while Laxman and Dravid got beauties twice. Yuvraj played a good knock in second innings, Saurav once again failed to capitalise on the start. And for once, neither Pathan nor Dhoni rescued India.

Played 3 against England: batting once again failed to gain collective momentum throughout the series. Batsmen did not build on each other's momentum, and there were disjointed individual performances from Dhoni, Dravid, Jaffer, Pathan, Kaif and Kumble. Yuvraj didn't capitalise on his start even once. Bowling was good, mainly due to the five bowler strategy (which worked excellently in Mumbai) but Pathan's performance was at times ordinary. So was Bhajji, at times. Kumble was good throughout. Fielding was good, close catching very very bad. Specialist slippers and bat-padders were not trained. Sehwag and Sachin's combined repeated failure probably hurt India the most, although Sehwag played a decent knock in Mohali to hit the winning runs. Sachin looked in good touch, but failed to play a big innings in Mumbai.

All in all, the team performance itself has not improved from the decline in batting it showed in the Pak home series. The batting lineup as a whole is not clicking, but each player has had individual good knocks. Five batsman strategy is not bad, its the top five (four, minus Dravid) who are not doing well consistently enough. Dhoni and Pathan are making up for the sixth batsman.

Bowling has looked better since the day when we were unable to bowl out Pakistan in Mohali, but this transformation is only recent, and against an English batting lineup which we know is not very good. In Pakistan 5 bowlers were also not very effective in Faisalabad, although on a flat track.

2) Individuals:

Sehwag has been in terrible form, with a few sparks in between. Sachin ditto. Come to think of it, Laxman and Yuvraj ditto. The only management step for improvement in this direction has been that Yuvraj has been given more responsibility and a permanent slot. It's early to see how he lives up to it, but he hasn't translated his spectacular ODI form to tests completely. While the argument can be that a replacement needs time to mature, in his case he's been included above a not-in-terrible-form batsman (Laxman) and expectation of immediate results was not really misplaced.

Only Dravid has looked to fight on, whether in form or not. And that, probably, is what is costing the team dearly. Not all 5/6 players are in form all the time, but all of them should be ready to grit it out and a couple are going to scrape through.

The sixth batsman (Dhoni+Pathan) has been in as good a form as Dravid - unless you expect India to play a sixth batsman and Pathan as a bowler. That looks even less likely at home now that Pathan is not giving enough to be included as a fourth bowler (remember, this analysis is for home conditions only). So the strategy can be called a step forward. But that is somewhat offset by the fluctuation in the bowling form of Pathan, even during matches where he starts off well.

Bowling of Harbhajan has been ordinary at times, yet he looks to be coming back. Probably a bad patch he is now overcoming. But he has certainly moved down a few notches below Kumble as our primary test spinner.

Kumble is as good as ever, and Santh, Munaf are certainly a few notches above Pathan in home conditions. Giving enough chances to new pace bowlers is another step forward by the team management.

Verdict: If one analyzes deeply, there are some advances, a few steps back and some status-quoes. But looking at the complete picture, test Team India looks to be standing at pretty much the same station where Wright disembarked a season ago.

Now lets remember this for the West Indies tour, irrespective of what happens in the ODI series.

The Saurav affair, as I understand it

2005-12-19T11:26:00.000+02:00

Its not just about cricket, is it? I agree that I have been late on the boat (not missed), but from what I have followed about this issue (during my vacation), I can't see the cricketing reason behind it.

And when More said, while dropping SG from the 15, that 'we decided not to include him since he would not figure out in playing 11' (or something to that effect), wasn't he simply implying that there is more to it than just a question of batting or bowling or fielding potential/skill ?

What further strengthens my believe that its not about cricket, and hence no point debating the cricketing logic behind all this is this:

1) Even if we agree that Yuvraj performed better than SG in Delhi (which is debatable, but still lets assume he did) that does not merit dropping SG from the 15

2) It is was done to avoid humiliation of SG, then please someone inform us whether SG was actually asked whether he would like to sit out of playing XI or out of 15 altogether?

3) Why is Kaif playing ahead of him, if it was Yuv who edged him out? And what if Laxman had pulled out on match morning due to a sore back or fever or something? I believe Jaffer would have played in the middle order? When did he surpass SG in the pecking order?

4) Why is Jaffer in the XI if he is not going to play? If its for 'getting the feel' of the dressing room..then he knows all about it, having been there twice. If its about putting pressure on GG, how does that help? If its about trying him as an option, then do that in the match, if its about watching him in the nets...then no need to get him in the 15. And btw, what happened to Jadhav? I know Jaffer did well in domestic matches recently, but then why was Jadhav chosen for Zim tour if he would never be tried? Is it just a matter of runs in the last 2 Ranji/Duleep matches?

And in passing, was SG chosen as an allrounder, as More commented at that time? If so, how come he is replaced by Yuvraj in the XI and Jaffer in the 15? Or, for that matter, if ZK was to feel aggrieved about losing his spot to SG, then should he feel that Jaffer has been perceived as a better bowler than him!!!!?

Questions..questions...lots of them. What I simply know is that...whether rightly or wrongly so, its not about cricket alone.

The TV rights ruling from GoI

2005-10-27T16:22:00.000+03:00

When I was in India, a couple of weeks(or a month) before each important cricket series (and most of it fell i that categories) there was a drama enacted in our tv worlds. The private channel holding the rights for the series (ESPN, SET, Ten anyone) invariably increased their subscription prices for the cable operators. And invariably the cable operators boycotted that channel.

And then started the phase of negotiations, arm-twisting, backdoor transactions etc etc. And the poor public was left wondering, till the last moment, whether we get to see the matches at all, and 'where'? This was especially so in the matches outside India, because for home matches, it was almost a 'rule' which we could rely on, that DD would get the rights (shared or exclusive) any time before the first ball was bowled. And sometimes we had to miss out on these matches because the cable operators could not broker a solution with the channel.

And to imagine that it's the same 'pay' channels, driving us to desperation for that illusive match coverage, who then cram their telecast with sponsorship advertisements in all possible manners, often at the cost of quality of coverage.

So, what's the provocation for this rant, you ask? Well this report today, that ESPN is not happy with the government mandate of sharing the tv feed with Prasar Bharti.

For, was it not for this reason, then most of the channels should not mind the 'sharing' formula mandated by GoI where the channel holding the right gets an 80% cut of the revenue DD generates from its broadcast of those matches. Meaning...those viewers who have both channels would anyway watch the (supposedly) superior private broadcast, and those who have only DD(and the number is huge) would be generating extra revenue for the private channel (via DD)...this immediately shoots up the potential revenue generation customer base of the private channels.

The only downside being that it reduces the scope of the platform from which the private channels can compete with DD for new customer base. Which, I think, is anyway not the main worry for private channels (they, I think, are competing amongst themselves. The range and reach of DD is not exactly intersecting with their target market).

What say?

Back...after long time

2005-10-17T14:59:00.000+03:00

Ok..long time no updates. Reason...mixed...sort of, been busy since the vacation...then some computer problems...and then not much happening in real cricketing terms. Have been writing about off-field activities on Sight Screen.

I would rather spend twice as much time writing about real good cricket (preferably international matches) than on the repetitive off-field activities and meaningless matches(like Super series etc)

Anyways...just a filler...caught my eye on cricinfo...some really interesting quotes in the cricketing section. Do go read them in full....but here are some of my favorites:

"I was invited to Bush's ranch and when I said I had a home in Antigua, he asked me to explain cricket to him because it looks a bit like polo and baseball combined ... only without the horses. We discussed it for half an hour."
Allen Stanford, who is investing Â£16 million in West Indies cricket, explains the rudimentaries to the American President

So, one can rely on George Bush to always provide the relief! I wonder if he considers formula 1 as "sort of, like hockey(ice)...only with cars" :-) (and no, don't ask me to explain ;-)

"I just came for the food."
Andrew Flintoff tells it as it is and leaves ICC spin doctors spluttering in their pasta after being named joint Player of the Year at a glitzy event in Sydney

Although said in jest, it might have held true for Freddie some years ago!

and finally

"I thought it was a bit rude when the umpire gestured me with a finger so I showed my middle one back."
Crystal Palace midfielder Aki Riihilati shows why footballers will never be the new cricketers after he plays his first match

..and now we also know why we wont have a Finnish national cricket team ;-)

The email - analysis

2005-09-25T15:42:00.000+03:00

So, here is the email from Greg Chappel to BCCI secretary, and my analysis, in bold letters, in various sections of it:

Due to comments made by Mr Sourav Ganguly during the press conference following his innings in the recently completed Test match in Bulawayo and the subsequent media speculation I would like to make my position clear on two points.

1. At no stage did I ask Mr Ganguly to step down from the captaincy of the Indian team and;

2. At no stage have I threatened to resign my position as Indian team coach.

Mr Ganguly came to me following the recently completed tri-series of one-day matches here in Zimbabwe and asked me to tell him honestly where he stood as a player in my view. I told him that I thought he was struggling as a player and that it was affecting his ability to lead the team effectively and that the pressure of captaincy was affecting his ability to play to his potential. I also told him that his state of mind was fragile and it showed in the way that he made decisions on and off the field in relation to the team, especially team selection.

So, you suggested that Ganguly is not doing justice to captaincy? The obvious conclusion is that you are suggesting him to step down. 'Asking'..no...suggesting..yes.

A number of times during the tri-series the tour selectors had chosen a team and announced it to the group only for Sourav to change his mind on the morning of the game and want to change the team.

What I would like to know is that is this a new behaviour in SG's captaincy or was this impulsive decision making present even in the better times? If so, then these have obviously given good results also.

On at least one occasion he did change the team and on the morning of the final I had to talk him out of making another last-minute change that I believe would have destroyed team morale and damaged the mental state of the individuals concerned.

Again, I ask, did he do these kind of changes before? If yes, then it has not destroyed team morale in the past, and you opinion is wrong.

I also told Sourav that his nervous state was affecting the team in other ways as he was prone to panic during pressure situations in games and that his nervous demeanour was putting undue pressure on the rest of the team.

This applies to any out-of-form batsman. And this would lead to the debate whether he deserves a place in the side based on his captaincy or not. There have been other instances of out of form captains, and still their team doing well. In fact there have been cases of this same team doing badly even when captain did well. So no way of proving one way or the other. And since you talk about morale of players so much, so lets hear from them how and what was affecting them. And also whether SG used to be 'calm' in the dressing room in earlier times.

His nervous pacing of the rooms during our batting in the final plus his desire to change the batting order during our innings in the final had also contributed to nervousness in the players waiting to go in to bat.

Yes, but again, is this a new behavior in SG, or was it there in more successful time also? And, lets hear from the players who were getting nervous. I seem to get an impression that you are speaking a lot on behalf of others. While your understanding may be right, it still is one person's opinion. And it cannot be taken for the final word, as long as it involves the thought process of others.

His reluctance to bat first in games I suggested was also giving wrong signals to the team and the opposition and his nervousness at the crease facing bowlers like Shane Bond from NZ was also affecting morale in the dressing room.

This is ridiculous! Are you saying that wrong signals were going to the 'team' because he was going against 'your' suggestion to bat first? Did the players say that they wanted to bat first? Again, a lot of assumption on their behalf.

And facing Shane Bond is a separate issue. Not to be mixed with batting first(unless you are implying that he was reluctant to bat first to avoid facing Bond, who would have vanished in the second innings?). His nervousness while facing Bond was due to the fact that he was/is out of form. There is nothing new here. If you are implying that an out of form batsman should not be the team captain, then please say so directly. And then there can be a discussion on this direct statement.

On the basis of this and other observations and comments from players in the squad about the unsettling effect Sourav was having on the group

More details on the observations, names and comments of the players who suggested SG having an unsettling effect?

I suggested to Sourav that he should consider stepping down from the captaincy at the end of the tour in the interests of the team and in his own best interests if he wanted to prolong his playing career. I told him of my own experiences toward the end of my career and cited other players such as Border, Taylor and Steve Waugh, all of whom struggled with batting form toward the end of their tenure as Australian captain.

This may be factually wrong(Waugh did not struggle with form, Taylor survived a slump similar to SG is going through) and anyway irrelevant to his problems.

We discussed other issues in relation to captaincy and the time and effort it took that was eating into his mental reserves and making it difficult to prepare properly for batting in games. He commented that he had enjoyed being free of those responsibilities in the time that he was in Sri Lanka following his ban from international cricket and that he would consider my suggestion.

I also raised the matter of selection for the first Test with Sourav and asked him where he thought he should bat. He said 'number 5'. I told him that he might like to consider opening in the Test as the middle order was going to be a tight battle with Kaif and Yuvraj demanding selection. Sourav asked me if I was serious. I said it was something to be considered, but it had to be his decision.

The following day Sourav batted in the match against Zimbabwe 'A' team in the game in Mutare. I am not sure of the exact timing of events because I was in the nets with other players when Sourav went in to bat, but the new ball had either just been taken or was imminent when I saw Sourav walking from the field holding his right arm.

So, you are suggesting that SG went away because of the new ball against an attack of the Zim local team? The same SG who insisted on opening the innings right since his return to the team in SL? Why, amongst all these experimentations, didn't we see one in which SG batted lower down the order? Would have suited him fine not to face Bond, Vaas etc, isn't that so?

I assumed he had been hit and made my way to the players' area where Sourav was receiving treatment from the team physiotherapist, John Gloster.

When I enquired as to what had happened Sourav said he had felt a click in his elbow as he played a ball through the leg side and that he thought he should have it investigated. Sourav had complained of pain to his elbow at various stages of the one-day series, but he had resisted having any comprehensive investigation done and, from my observation,

So, you do agree that he has been complaining of this problem many times earlier also? Then why did you, just above, try to link it with the new ball being taken?

had been spasmodic in his treatment habits, often not using ice-packs for the arm that had been prepared for him by John Gloster.

So you take on issue and make two complaints out of it! One about his feigning the injuring to avoid new ball against a club attack, and second that he is irregular in his treatment of the same injury?

I suggested, as had John Gloster, that we get some further tests done immediately. Sourav rejected these suggestions and said he would be 'fine'. When I queried what he meant by 'fine' he said he would be fit for the Test match. I then queried why then was it necessary to be off the field now. He said that he was just taking 'precautions'.

And, against that club attack in an irrelevant game, isn't it fine for a batsman to take precautions? And esp the one who has been on tour right from the beginning (unlike some others) and has played all the games?

Rather than make a scene with other players and officials in the vicinity I decided to leave the matter and observe what Sourav would do from that point on. After the loss of Kaif, Yuvraj and Karthik to the new ball, Sourav returned to the crease with the ball now around 20 overs old.

So, again, the insinuation that he avoided the new ball? I already have underlined why I feel he would not and could not have been doing this to avoid the new ball, but that's just my opinion. Just like its your opinion that he did avoid it. And both opinions are based on the same set of facts.

He struggled for runs against a modest attack and eventually threw his wicket away trying to hit one of the spinners over the leg side.

Yes, we all know he is struggling for runs, although not always struggling in general as a batsman (like in the first test, he struggled for runs, but wasn't troubled by the bowling)

The next day I enquired with a number of the players as to what they had thought of Sourav's retirement. The universal response was that it was 'just Sourav' as they recounted a list of times when Sourav had suffered from mystery injuries that usually disappeared as quickly as they had come.

A list of the players, and the incidents they sited about his faked 'retirement' would be needed.

This disturbed me because it confirmed for me that he was in a fragile state of mind and it was affecting the mental state of other members of the squad.

Again, his state of mind is probably well known, since he is a struggling batsman. But about the mental state of other members, I wouldn't assume too much. I would rather hear from them.

When we arrived in Bulawayo I decided I needed to ask Sourav if he had over-played the injury to avoid the danger period of the new ball as it had appeared to me and others within the touring party that he had protected himself at the expense of others. He denied the suggestion and asked why he would do that against such a modest attack. I said that he was the only one who could answer that question.

From Saurav's answer, and from your own understanding, it is quite obvious that you are implying that in your opinion he was lying on your face. And you answer to Saurav ('he was the only one who could answer that question') also openly told Saurav that you feel he is lying.

I was so concerned about the affect that Sourav's actions were having on the team that I decided I could not wait until selection meeting that evening to inform him that I had serious doubts about picking him for the first Test.

So, you did tell him that in your opinion, he did not deserve a place in the playing XI? And doesn't that mean that he cannot captain the side(unless you wanted him to be a non-playing captain?). So, doesn't this mean that you are effectively telling him to leave the team as a player and a captain? And your very first point at the start of the email was that 'at no point of time you asked SG to step down from Indian captaincy'? Sure you did not 'ask' him (because you don't have the powers to, so you can only 'suggest') but you made it quite clear that you wanted that to happen, isn't that so?

I explained that, in my view, I felt we had to pick Kaif and Yuvraj following their good form in the one-day series and that Sehwag, Gambhir, Laxman and Dravid had to play.

Again, effectively you were telling him that he did not deserve a place in the side and an obvious corollary is that he cannot be the captain? So, you did clearly suggest him stepping down? Again, clearly goes against your very first point in this email. Unless you are dealing in word-play on the use of 'ask' instead of 'suggest/opine' ???? Are you ???? Because we all know you cannot 'ask' him to step down. Did you make it clear to him that in your opinion he did not deserve a place in the side as a player and hence as a captain?

He said that his record was better than Kaif and Yuvraj and that they had not proved themselves in Test cricket. I countered with the argument that they had to be given a chance to prove themselves on a consistent basis or we would never know. I also said that their form demanded that they be selected now.

Agreed, they are in better form that SG. And this is your opinion that SG needs to be thrown out of the team. But that's for the selectors to decide. If they chose him as the captain, despite whatever you may have reported to them after the SL series, then it was obvious that they considered him as a part of the playing XI. Since the could not have thought that the situation would be so severe (and against an opposition like Zim) that their chose captain would have to be considered out of the playing XI?

Sourav asked me whether I thought he should be captain of the team. I said that I had serious doubts that he was in the right frame of mind to do it. He asked me if I thought he should step down. I said that it was not my decision to make, that only he could make that decision, but if he did make that decision he had to do it in the right manner or it would have even more detrimental effects than if he didn't stand down. I said that now was not the time to make the decision but that we should discuss it at the selection meeting to be held later in the day.

Ok, from you own comments in this email, it seems that you made it quite clear to SG that you don't consider him fit for the captaincy of the side. Sure, you didn't 'ask' him...so your very first point in the email is still 'correct'

Sourav then said that if I didn't want him to be captain that he would inform Rahul Dravid that was going to stand down. I reiterated that it was not my decision to make but he should give it due consideration under the circumstances but not to do it hastily.

Yes, it wasn't your decision to make. You could only give your opinion. And it was very clear what that opinion was. Even when SG acceded in public about this whole thing, he did say there were 'suggestions' for him to step down from captaincy. So, you didn't 'ask' him to step down. We all agree.

At that point Sourav went to Rahul and the two of them conferred briefly and then Sourav left the field and entered the dressing room. At that stage I joined the start of the training session.

A short time later Mr Chowdhary came on to the field and informed me that Sourav had told him that I did not want him as captain and that Sourav wanted to leave Zimbabwe immediately if he wasn't playing. I then joined Mr Chowdhary and Rahul Dravid in the dressing room where we agreed that this was not the outcome that any of us wanted and that the ramifications would not be in the best interests of the team.

We then spent some time with Sourav and eventually convinced him that he should stay on as captain for the two Tests and then consider his future. In my view it was not an ideal solution but it was better than the alternative of him leaving on a bad note.

So, what was the ideal solution? does it go against the first point in your email here?

I believe he has earned the right to leave in a fitting manner. We all agreed that this was a matter that should stay between us and should not, under any circumstances, be discussed with the media.

The matter remained quiet until the press conference after the game when a journalist asked Sourav if he had been asked to step down before the Test. Sourav replied that he had but he did not want to elaborate and make an issue of it. I was then called to the press conference where I was asked if I knew anything of Sourav being asked to step down before the game. I replied that a number of issues had been raised regarding selection but as they were selection matters I did not wish to make any further comment.

Apart from a brief interview on ESPN before which I emphasized that I did not wish to discuss the issue because it was a selection matter I have resisted all other media approaches on the matter.

Since then various reports have surfaced that I had threatened to resign. I do not know where that rumour has come from because I have spoken to no one in regard to this because I have no intention of resigning. I assume that some sections of the media, being starved of information, have made up their own stories.

At the completion of the Test match I was approached by VVS Laxman with a complaint that Sourav had approached him on the eve of the Test saying that I had told Sourav that I did not want Laxman in the team for Test matches. I denied that I had made such a remark to Sourav, or anybody else for that matter, as, on the contrary, I saw Laxman as an integral part of the team. He asked how Sourav could have said what he did. I said that the only way we could go to the bottom of the matter was to speak to Sourav and have him repeat the allegation in front of me.

I arranged for a meeting with the two of them that afternoon. The meeting took place just after 6pm in my room at the Rainbow Hotel in Bulawayo. I told Sourav that Laxman had come to me complaining that Sourav had made some comments to Laxman prior to the Test. I asked Sourav if he would care to repeat the comment in my presence. Sourav then rambled on about how I had told him that I did not see a place for Laxman in one-day cricket, something that I had discussed with Sourav and the selection panel and about which I had spoken to Laxman at the end of the Sri Lankan tour.

Sourav mentioned nothing about the alleged conversation regarding Laxman and Test cricket even when I pushed him on it later in the discussion. As we had to leave for a team function we ended the conversation without Sourav adequately explaining his comments to Laxman.

Sure, this is a serious issue and all three parties(SG, GC, VVS) need to be questioned on their understanding of this whole issue.

Again, this is not an isolated incident because I have had other players come to me regarding comments that Sourav had made to them that purports to be comments from me to Sourav about the particular player.

Name of the players, with details of the comments they have made, would be needed.

In each case the comments that Sourav has passed on to the individual are figments of Sourav's imagination. One can only assume that he does it to unnerve the individual who, in each case, has been a middle order batsman.

Again name of the player? His view need to be sought, and what exactly was he told by SG about GC? But anyway there is no way of finding out the truth here, since we don't really know what GC would have said about that player to SG.

Sourav has missed the point of my discussions with him on this matter. It has less to do with his form than it does with his attitude toward the team. Everything he does is designed to maximise his chance of success and is usually detrimental to someone else's chances.

Well, again, that's your views. And since its a direct stand-off between your views and his, so its better to look at facts rather than what you think.

Despite meeting with him in Mumbai after his appointment as captain and speaking with him about these matters and his reluctance to do the preparation and training that is expected of everyone else in the squad he continues to set a bad example.

Specific examples of his reluctance....verdict from others (RD, AK etc) and maybe Wright's words on this. Also need to know how did he behave during the 2001-2004 period? If his behaviour has been consistent then despite being below acceptability, this issue itself is not that serious in the current context.

Greg King's training reports continue to show Sourav as the person who does the least fitness and training work based on the criterion that has been developed by the support staff to monitor the work load of all the players.

We have also developed parameters of batting, bowling, fielding and captaincy that we believe embodies the 'Commitment to Excellence' theme that I espoused at my interview and Sourav falls well below the acceptable level in all areas. I will be pleased to present this documentation when I meet with the special committee in Mumbai later this month.

I can assure you sir that all my actions in this matter, and all others since my appointment, have been with the aim of improving the team performance toward developing a team that will represent India with distinctions in Test match and one-day cricket.

As I said to you during our meeting in Colombo, I have serious reservations about the attitude of some players and about Sourav and his ability to take this team to a new high, and none of the things he has done since his reappointment has caused me to change my view. In fact, it has only served to confirm that it is time for him to move on and let someone else build their team toward the 2007 World Cup.

All personal opinions here.

This team has been made to be fearful and distrusting by the rumour mongering and deceit that is Sourav's modus operandi of divide and rule. Certain players have been treated with favour, all of them bowlers, while others have been shunted up and down the order or left out of the team to suit Sourav's whims.

This is a serious charge, need to know the names of the players he has favoured, and the ones left out. Need also to know what other seniors (RD, AK, SRT) think on this subject. Because if he has obviously been doing such favours, RD, SRT etc would have realised it and had discussed it with him. Specific examples needed of the 'shunting' of players you are referring to, and Saurav needs to be asked for the reasons for those shunting. Because, as you yourself would know, batting order and other such on-field activities are a captains prerogative. Even before SG joined the team in SL, we saw some shunting and experimentations in the batting order when RD and you were in-charge.

John Wright obviously allowed this to go on to the detriment of the team. I am not prepared to sit back and allow this to continue or we will get the same results we have been seeing for some time now.

It is time that all players were treated with fairness and equity and that good behaviours and attitudes are rewarded at the selection table rather than punished.

I can assure you of my very best intentions.

Yours sincerely,

Greg Chappell MBE

This just isn't cricinfo

2005-09-16T13:31:00.000+03:00

An open letter to cricinfo...

Regarding "The season of discontent" article by Anand Vasu on 16.09.2005

First of all, why are the links to this article and to the one in which you report Ganguly's statement before the actual scorecard of the match? (they have changed it since then, but I'm sure many of you saw it)

Why is the heading of that section not about the match but about Ganguly's statement ? I thought the headlines were always about what's happening in the match ? (also changed since then, but hope some readers here are aware what I'm talking about)

Is it that cricinfo has decided that a test match involving Zimbabwe is not worth reporting in the normal template ? Because this is not the first time some 'news' has broken in the middle of a match, but this is the first time I see cricinfo adopting this trend of reporting.

Then, lets look at the article itself. First statement is : "He put a century on the board - a painstaking and joyless one - against the worst bowling attack in the world, in perfect batting conditions,.." - Well, wasn't it Dileep Premchandran declaring here in cricinfo yesterday that VVS Laxman has turned a corner with a century against the same opposition? VVS' century was more chancy than Ganguly's, even if faster(this is test cricket, on day 3, why do you need a Yuvraj like Harakiri?)

Then further the statement says: "and chose to make a statement that will rock the very foundations on which spirit and togetherness are built in a team of sportsmen..."- Are you sure this statement from Ganguly will rock the Indian team? Even if things are as horribly wrong as you would like us to believe, they are not wrong 'because' of this statement, they were 'already' wrong. So the team was already 'rocking'...public statement or not. Indian team does not build or breakup because of public statements, I suppose.

Then further going on " Even by his standards, though, this latest outburst is startling..." - Did any of your staff actually watch the interview in question ? Do you know what an outburst is? Or are you counting on the fact that majority of you readers are not watching things live on tv, and will take your word for it. You make it sound like Ganguly called a Press Conference to announce, just after his century, that he was asked to step down. If you didn't want to make it appear so, to the readers, then please work on your writing style. Because this is the impression it gives.

Further going on "Repeated attempts to contact Ganguly in Zimbabwe for a clarification failed, but one can only go by what is out there, in the absence of anything to the contrary..." - And what is out there? Except for what they are speaking out, isn't all of this speculation? Do you have even an 'inside source' which is telling you what is 'out there' ?

Further on "What's most worrying is the timing of Ganguly's statements. If indeed he was asked to step down - by a person or persons he refuses to name - before the start of the game, why did he wait till the third day to go public..." - You are again making it sound like he called up a press conf after the century to announce this thing. He was part of post match comments(like VVS was on previous day) and was also called by the tv team for an interview. Did anyone ASK him on day one about the captaincy thing, the way Harsha asked him in this interview?? Ganguly did not bring out this topic himself, and you know it. Why not report it as it happened? Why paint your favourite picture out of it?

"Prince of Calcutta, we've come to expect more of you. Don't sell yourself so short..." - Well, cricinfo, we have come to expect more of you too. Don't go the way of those innumerable Indian 'sports' website. Maintain your standards, and your 'global' perspective. Don't stoop to the level of Indian sports reporting, which often plays to the Indian galleries.

Jai aur Veeru !

2005-09-13T01:21:00.000+03:00

Yeah...we all know which one is Jai and which is Veeru :-)

We all know which one seems to be bowing out first (and who will get Basanti ;-). But they've been one hell of pair...the good bad-guys...or is it the bad good-guys !

In any case, these two are sufficient for the entire gang....have been holding up Ramgarh for long enough. Almost did it again today.

Whether we like em or not(and I know there are enough of us Aussie bashers out here), they've been a pair to remember. So contrasting and yet so near perfect in their partnership.

The real game begins tomorrow

2005-09-12T23:52:00.000+03:00

..after the hype and hoopla of ashes, tomorrow the real games begin :-)

Ok, seriously, atleast tomorrow is the start of a few test season for India. And despite much of the Indian cricket lovers being disheartened by the recent results, its good to remember that we are starting a 'Test Series' here. And we have been winning an awful lot of those recently! The last time we lost a test series was to Australia at home...and before that....umm..let me remember...was it Nz series in Nz, before the World Cup !

And its not as if we have been playing bad test cricket in near past. Except for a tactical blunder leading to the loss against Pak in bangalore, we haven't lost too many of those which we shouldn't have.

And, the relevance of the series itself? Well many think India is in a loose-loose situation, because not much can be gained against Zimbabwe. I think its a good way to start a test season, with a relatively easy game. Some of the runs made, and wickets taken, would help the players go into the tougher challenges more confidently. And most of our players are mature enough to keep the achievements against this Zim side in right perspective.

Especially for the batsmen, there is more to look forward to than the bowlers. Facing Streak and Blignaut in Zim conditions is probable more challenging (and hence helpful in gaining confidence) than some of the bowling attack that they are going to face on the subcontinental featherbeds (for most of our coming season is in home conditions). So runs made here, although not real top order, should not be taken as lightly as some would suggest.

For the bowlers, well Kumble and Pathan, who are both destructors of poor techniques, are likely to have good games. Not much help in their skill development, yet some confidence is what they can seek. And Balaji and Khan can look forward to getting back their rhythm and confidence, as Indian team would need them very much, when meeting tougher challenges at home.

All in all, good enough reasons to keep an eye on the action, probably not as much as Ashes(which drained so much of our energy), but just keep that score window open on the office desktop :-)

Cricket updates from subcontinent

2005-09-12T10:32:00.000+03:00

Despite the Ashes being so interesting, there is enough happening on the subcontinental cricket scene for me to track it down here.

As we all may have read by know, Murali Karthik took 10 wickets for Lancashire in their Division two game against Essex. Scorecard here

Taking ten wickets in a county game is surely not as big as an international achievement, and we all know Pak discards like Mahmood, Saqlain, Mushtaq keep doing it regularly. But still, to put it in perspective, some facts:

1) This is the same ground (don't know if its the same pitch) where Aus conceded 500+ runs to the Essex side

2) This Essex side is much stronger than the one Aus faced, since they have recalled their international imports like Flower brothers etc.

3) Wickets taken by Karthik in first innings: Andy Flower, Ronny Irani, James Foster, Andre Adams, Darren Gough

4) Wickets in second innings: W Jefferson, G Flower, A Flower, Gough, A Adams.

I guess, its important to keep an eye on his performance, since he is already our second choice in ODIs. If he keeps doing well, he may nudge Bhajji for the lone place. Even in tests he can keep Bhajji on his toes, even nudge him out, on current form.

Other news, Chappel says he is seeing positive results in Indian showing on the field. As I have already expressed similar views a few times in my posts, I do agree with him. Sure, its still no-where close to satisfactory, but Chappel also didn't say so. Its improving, is what he said, and compared to where we started in this season, there's no denying it.

And Aus A, touring Pak now, is facing a bit of a tough time in their first game. We all are aware that this A tour (and their U19 tour to India) can be important for CA, since they all looking for some long term prospects to take up the mantle from some of their current stars.

As I had mentioned earlier, Pak team has the lookup of their national side (throw in Inzy, and it looks like a re-conciliatory national team, fresh from an internal bust-up :). Even the Aus side is strong through Hodge, Hussey, Watson, Haddin, Bracken, White(he should be closely watched)

Meanwhile, the other surprise, Bangladesh being made to bat first in their first test against SL, are 130/2 in 30 overs!

Any more questions?

2005-09-07T17:42:00.000+03:00

So we lost. What were we expecting ? Why ? Didn't we fight enough ? Is that not improvement(enough) for NOW? I know we have the talent to win, we were so close, we could have won etc....but then, isn't that the 'problem' we have been looking to solve ? Isn't this inconsistency of individuals the main issue that Chappel had talked about solving, but over a period of time? IN DUE TIME, as I also have been saying.

I am often labeled as die-hard Indian supporter. But sometimes I feel its the other way round. Throughout this series I had been looking at Indian results, pointing out those small improvements, elaborately making my point that this team will, step by step, reach the declared goal of being winners again. But the normal supporters, they suddenly get swept by the hype that "India has reached a final"...and "now we are ready to win" ! Why, what made us think that we should win? Have we improved that much already...overnight(from our last game against Zim?)

Oh, and btw, about individual problems...sure there were some tactical errors by Ganguly as pointed out by Prem during the course of the match, but then all captains make errors. Who are the brilliant captains around ? Watch their 5-10 matches in row, and you would find a flurry of common mistakes (Prem would find even more :-), he is more than an average cricketing brain :-) ). The problem is that firstly we are sitting here and analyzing their mistakes, not making our decisions in the 'heat of the battle' as they are, and secondly that those cricketers are normal humans. They are not intellectuals or even very smart people. They are very good players...and then we try to chose the relatively smart one amongst them to make him captain. Sometimes, only very few times, by coincidence, you get a good player(or decent enough to hold his place in the side) who is a really smart person from social standards.

And I'm sure some of those decisions would have had good cricketing sense behind them. We don't know both sides of the story do we? And atleast I don't judge too much before that. (even I could have figured out reasons for some of his criticized moves)

And yes, as I pointed earlier, there are problems of inconsistency in all aspects of our game. And that is what I see GC trying to iron out. With very hard work. Unfortunately I did not watch the final game to comment on specific aspects of it, but anyway it was one game(despite being the final) in the bigger scheme of things.

As GC himself pointed out before the series "We're not judging a team on outcomes such as winning the series," "We've judging them more on whether they're improving in critical areas.". I believe he(and the team) is working towards this, and have set my expectations based on this.

Now the questions is, what do you believe?

(Only )Results Matter

2005-09-05T10:29:00.000+03:00

As I wrote recently in my post on Sight Screen also(in the post ironically titled It hardly matters), it seems that we, as fans of Indian cricket, care only about one thing. Results. In today's world of crammed schedules, it seems that we don't have much patience for following the methods that lead to those results.

Consider this, GC had been saying for quite some time now that the team is working hard on improvement, and its only a matter of time before they start showing. And as I noted in my earlier posts, the signs of those hard-work were visible in the field. In the batting(as in application and willingness to stay at the crease), bowling(which had mostly been good from the start of the season) and fielding(which looked considerably improved in this tour).

But, had India lost this Zimbabwe game(mainly because we experimented our bench strength, and Zim is playing a much improved game, not only against us but also against Nz whom they gave a scare last time around) how many of us would have cared for what we saw on the field ? As Yuvraj said here
Yuvraj Singh says his century against Zimbabwe is all thanks to the hard work he has put in recently, under the watchful eye of India's coach Greg Chappell and his assistant Ian Frazer
and I saw this application even in the game where he scored a laboured 50 runs(against Zim, first time around). The difference in that and today's game could have been one good ball that he got then, or one chip that fell short of a fielder now. But now that we have good results from him, we're happy.

Look at Kaif, had he got the good delivery that accounted for him today in his last game also(which means he hadn't scored that century) we would still be calling for his head! But now we have the good 'result' and we're happy for a while.

My point is, sure we all want good results. But when the team is down, it would take a while to come back up. Look for the right signs of revival in their performance, but be patient for good results. They should be there in the long run, but for the time, just count those small steps forward.

And, IMO, the best way to do this is to watch the game. Closely. There are answers for most of our anxieties there. What's wrong with Sehwag, why is Dravid slumping, why is Rao struggling, why does Ganguly keep getting out to short ball, is Yuvraj playing for himself, why is India struggling against Zimbabwe, why are we treating bowlers like Ireland and Mahwire with respect etc etc. I found the answers to all these out there in the middle. Watching the game.

And one more thing that I find helpful is to follow the game not involving the Indian team, but the game itself being relevant in Indian context. For example if we are playing a tri-series against Nz and Zim, then follow the game of Nz vs Zim also (for example check how the Nz team also struggled in their game against same Zim in their second match? So, isn't it to our credit that we played better, Nz got allout, we didn't etc. then why are we still complaining about the early 'wobble' we had, that we lost a few early wickets ? Do we expect to win with 10 wkts each time?).

Or if we are playing SL next, follow the game that SL is playing, check which player is in exceptional form recently (ok they are playing b'desh, but still). It helps to look at the whole picture. For example, check how Murali is going for few runs but hardly any wickets in their games against bangladesh, and that too at home ! But we deride Bhajji, and ask questions like 'why is he needed at all, if he's not taking enough wickets' ! (btw, I remember even in the Indian Oil cup Murali didn't exactly run through the WI side also, but was economical)

Anyway, this seems to have been a long rant :) Maybe I was in this kind of mood since the last Ind-Zim game.

So what next ?

2005-09-02T23:34:00.000+03:00

Fairly comfortable victory for India once again, this time against NZ. It does seem that things are starting to fall in place for this Indian side. And as it appears from this story, the Indians are starting to relax and enjoy the tour.

One reason, I feel, for India's away success (relatively) is due to the fact that they have started enjoying their tours more. It helps them relax, put behind the extreme pressures they face back home, and clear the minds for the fresh approach. Wright and Chappel seem to have instilled this quality in the team.

Ofcourse its still a long way to go, the Nz bowling was below par, the Indian batting was fluent only in patches, the singles were being missed a bit too much, but there were still enough positives.

And now, having the confidence of achieving a decent victory, I expect to seem some more plans being put to test in the next game against Zim. I expect to see Karthik play, maybe even RP gets a game. And JP may bat up the order.

The biggest plus, to me, seems to be that the visible improvement over the last two games seems to have calmed some of the nerves of the players. The tour seems to have kick-started for them now. No matter what happens in the finals against Nz, I now expect this team to have a nice comfortable tour resulting in good build-up of momentum entering into a tough seasons.

Btw, most of you reading this would already know that I've agreed to be a contributor at the Sight Screen blog. I still hope to keep writing relatively regularly here as well.

Zim in test matches

2005-08-31T15:05:00.000+03:00

India would really have to play well in test matches. Indian batting is in a bit of a bother, Sachin is not there. And Zim bowlers are decent enough with Streak and Blignaut leading the charge.

Andy Blignaut is the under-rated guy in their side. He bowls fast (I remember around 87mph !) and has the ability to charge up and raise his performance. A couple of good bowlers are enough to trouble a side. I also think Blignaut is a more than decent batsman. Would be interesting to watch him out.

And now that Sachin has withdrawn from the tests, there would be a healthy competition or the available spot between Yuvraj and Kaif.

And its good that the team management got an opener as replacement (I don't know if they asked for it, but the message seems to be that he is not in contention for the middle order spot left vacant by Sachin. That is for Yuvraj or Kaif to fill)

I would be really surprised, and maybe sad, if Jadhav gets to play any game ahead of Yuvraj or Kaif in the middle order.

Having the right perspective

2005-08-31T14:58:00.000+03:00

So, Nz scored 230 odd allout against Zim. And we said, for our Indian 220+ (6 down) score, a lame performance 'from which no positive can be drawn' !

Consider these points :

1) Nz has been in Zim for almost a month now

2) They have played these bowlers on these pitches

3) They are high up in their ODI performance, and are consistent

4) They chose to go for more aggressive approach, yet reached the same stage as the under-confident Indian side. Goes on to show that our approach wasn't that bad after all. Something which I stated in my previous post.

But I'm sure there would be no 'reviewal' of the various critical opinions regarding the Indian approach anywhere.

Sense and umm...Nonsense

2005-08-29T19:42:00.000+03:00

First the sensible part. Duncan Fletcher here says that England are not yet the best side in the world, although he 'concedes' that his side has dominated the Aussies for most of this series.

Quite true too. Eng are definitely better than Aus in this series, but lets remember Aus reached the number 1 place not just because they defeated Eng last time around. They've defeated ALL countries at home and away series, and they've done it repeatedly. So just like India did not switch positions with Aus when they defeated them at home and held them to a draw down under (or even if they had defeated them again at home), so shall Eng remain number two for quite some time yet.

And I'm surprised at the declaration of world championship of Eng by the likes of Tony Greigh and Geoff Boycott ! Boycott, during his tv commentary, went to the extent of saying that the World Series down under later in Oct would be a misnomer if Eng defeat Aus ! Wow, man, are they going overboard or what !

Ok, time for the non-sense. Here at cricinfo S Rajesh says that India gains precious little from the game against Zimbabwe. The batting was tepid, and they hardly learnt anything.

Well, sure the Indian ODI team is low on confidence, and haven't performed well in recent times, have lost most of their important matches. But that is a known fact. What, given the situation they are in, should a team do, when faced with a match situation as India was today ? Go for the glory or bust approach, or the sensible way of securing a non-spectacular but safe win. And build on that victory momentum into more important matches. This, to me seems much more sensible approach, given the poor form of some of the Indian players, the experimentational nature of the lineup, and the importance of securing a victory here today in the bigger context of the series (the entire Zim tour) and the whole new season.

I know this does not look pretty, but the rebuilding process more often is not. As long as the Indians can take it further from here, I'm all for it.

Ind loose to Nz...but gain a minor hope

2005-08-26T23:49:00.000+03:00

Yes India, as expected, lost to Nz today. But they gained a minor hope of a new permanent member in the team in JP Yadav. He should definitely be given a few more chances and watched closely.

And meanwhile Fleming agreed that he lost a bit of ground in letting the 9th wkt partnership build for India. He's damn right. It was as close as 6 balls away from loosing the match, when Bond got Pathan with his last ball of 9th over. Had they seen of Bond, there was not much threat in Nz attack. Ofcourse if the rest of them had even 'thought' of this statement, Pathan would not have needed to bat.

Sure they can only go up from here ? I mean, how much lower can the batting go. Surely one out of top six will fight, and get support from some others, next time (when we face Nz). Ofcourse with Zim if we put a good show, which we normally should, we win comfortably, and if we don't, we can still manage to scrape through.

And the bowling is coming off nicely, except Harbhajan, who has to figure out a few things. He was getting bounce on the pitch, and should have made it count. But I still expect the same team to play Nz next time around. For Zim game, there may be changes. Maybe RP comes in place of Agarkar. And Raina in place of Rao ? But I don't believe its largely a 'team combination' problem. I think they all will struggle. Its a bigger thing.

Aussie Panic

2005-08-26T23:37:00.000+03:00

I just saw for the first time Aus bat in this series. And they are bloody panicking ! I don't know since how long they have been doing it this series, but its now written all over their face. And in their body language while batting.

They remind me of the Indians when we toured down under in 1998-99. The batsmen had 'out' written all over them even as they walked out. Barring Sachin, none looked ready for a fight. And the same thing happened with Aussies themselves in the 2001 Indian series.

They are gone, they're loosing this. They deserve to loose this series.

And oh, their bowling is so pedestrian, that we are now actually applauding Tait for doing something (a few times) what ALL of the English bowler did in ALL of their overs ! This is how downright pathetic their bowling has been. And I don't joke at all when I say that our Indian bowlers would have done much much better that 'this' !

The Indian Captaincy debate

2005-08-22T13:33:00.000+03:00

So many times, in the past week, have we seen different people express their opinion on the whole 'handling of the captaincy' issue. Analysts, past players, critics, present players, bloggers all have had something or the other to say. From taking straight-forward Rahul-vs-Saurav positions to the neutrals 'we are not against either, but it should have been handled better' ones. Here Kapil, yes the same cricketer turned 'entertainer' Kapil, joins the list.

I have a simple understanding of the issue, based on what I read. There may be others with 'insider' information. If so they should reveal that they are using such information (with or without revealing the sources) otherwise the case is as simple as this.

Saurav was possibly not available for the whole series. He could have missed minimum 2 and maximum 4 games of the series. In case of latter, he would not have joined the team in SL at all. The actually verdict was not known at the time of selection of team and captain. Also, assuming that the selectors were sure about appointing Saurav as captain once he completed his ban (we are not sure, but its quite likely). So, given these sets of conditions, what were the options for selectors ?

a) Declare Rahul as captain of first two games, extendible to full series in case Saurav does not join. This would have hampered team preparations in the absence of Saurav (who was still in England for his county stint) and would have been a nightmare scenario for Rahul, something which he clearly dislikes (as commonly known and agreed by everyone around). This scenario is bad for Rahul, and for the team. Saurav would not have minded this, as he could have done without the additional tension of thinking about 'retaining' captaincy when he clearly knew that in reality he should only be thinking about retaining his batting position (and captaincy should come by default, given his good record in that aspect)

b) Declare Saurav as captain and wait till the verdict comes out. When its not completely revoked (as was the case) but only reduced, THEN name Rahul as captain for the period Saurav is sitting out. In fact such 'naming' would not have been necessary as he is the vice captain and therefore captaincy goes to him by default. The minuses of this scenario are same as above. Bad for Rahul, and the team. No impact on Saurav.

c) Named Rahul as the captain of the WHOLE series (and only that series) just to avoid the downfalls of the above two scenarios. What they also did was to 'explain' the reason for making Rahul the captain of the whole series. It was quite obvious from those explanations that it was done only to give Rahul, and the team, a better chance of preparation. It was NOT a judgment on Saurav and his captaincy. And by extension, this means he would be captain after the series (now this is what they did not state, and I think they would have to start doing it more often, to avoid such controversies as our media is capable of creating in the most simplest of situations!). I hope (and I think I read it also somewhere) that this much was made clear to Rahul as well, when handing him the captaincy. Anyway, it SHOULD have been.

Note that the third (and actually chosen) scenario was probably the WORST out of the three for Saurav. And yet people feel that the whole thing went 'against' Rahul !

If some are arguing that the selectors should have not taken the condition 'Saurav is the captain and will be the captain as soon as he is ready to play' in mind then let me ask this. If Saurav had NOT been fined by the referee, wouldn't he be the captain for SL and subsequent series by default ? Would we still be having this debate ? He may have batted badly recently, but still does not justify exclusion from the team (and this is topic for another debate). So where is the question mark on his captaincy ?

Btw, Kapil also mentions in the same article : Asked about the team's slide down the performance chart, Kapil said, the media wrote so highly about the team last year, they hailed (John) Wright. Tshey should now explain, if he was a good coach why was he sacked? - so he still thinks John Wright was 'sacked' ?? I would like to see any article, report, interview mention his 'sacking'. As far as I know, he had given his ultimatum for almost a year (or atleast a long period).

Why do I feel I will soon be hearing more from Kapil on this issue, on the lines of 'What I meant to say was actually...'

Pot, Kettle, black..etc. etc.

2005-08-21T01:49:00.000+03:00

Waqar Younis says: but the cricketers must realise that once he has done the part and is no longer good enough, he must give the youngsters a chance. and also But I don't see this happening in the Indian side, they have scored 10,000 runs but is it good enough?

Now, let me dig into archives and try to search something important. Hold on, you'll know when I get it.

Oh ok, I'm trying to find out if Waqar has actually retired. No, seriously...I dont joke ! I remember the PCB actually hosting an 'honour' ceremony last year(?) for him and Wasim. Just to give them, you know, a gentle reminder that they are, from now on, being officially considered as 'retired'. Being tired of waiting for the announcement which Wasim grudgingly did post the WC04 fiasco, and Waqar openly denied considering.

What more can I comment on this.

Maybe he is the Kapil Dev of Pakistan ?

Calm before the storm ?

2005-08-19T11:39:00.000+03:00

Yes, these are relatively calm days in world cricket. Probably indication of the thunderous storm that lies in store for the cricket fans around the world with the start of the Indian-Zimbabwe test series.

Ok, I'm kidding. I mean when the action resumes in the Ashes :-)

SO, meanwhile, here are some snippets of update.

A lot has been said about Zimbabwe's poor form and the need for revoking their test status. But here is some words of sanity from probably the most intelligent cricket captain in business today **"It took us so long to win a Test ourselves, and I don't feel qualified to make a statement on their cricket"
Stephen Fleming remembers New Zealand cricket's dark ages when asked to comment on the current Zimbabwe side**

I personally think Zim has been a good team, and now struggling due to various internal reasons. Its not fair to over-criticize them or talk of taking away their match status. Also, Zim case is a bit different from B'desh. They are in the middle of a slump, after having reached decent levels in test cricket. And its not correct to strip the test status of a side as a punishment for slump, whatever may be the reasons for that low period. Their current results are almost as bad as what some of the better test playing nations had during their bad periods. Its just that there is a 'visible' reason in Zim, that of the departure of their top players, that we are reacting more. As for the cheap runs that likes of Vettori (and Hayden with that triple ton) are accumulating against them, I think that has existed in all generations. All generations of cricketers have had their share of Zimbabawes and Bangladeshes to get some cheap runs. Some of those countries went on to becomes big names later on, but that should not hide the fact.

Harsha Bhogle here talks about the team combination that India should have, and makes it sound so simple ! He puts in one paragraph, what we struggle to articulate over pages ! **Ideally a team would like to play five batsmen, a wicket keeper, an all-rounder and four bowlers. More specifically, three of those should be seam bowlers, it would help if the all-rounder can too and one of the five batsmen should be a decent slow bowler.**

He's also hopeful that this is a good team selected for the ODIs and should serve India well **In the end though, the rules are the same for both sides. It is the spark that will count and this team has a better chance than some others in recent times. Or so it seems!** - I personally don't want to be that hopeful. I do agree that more or less, this is the team we all hoped for (give or take an in-form Zaheer) but I'm not so sure about the kind of form some of these players are in. For example, Sehwag has been failing at the top for a long time. He averages 27 in his last 25 innings, and around 32 in his career. If you take away the odd centuries he scores once in every 10-12 innings, it would be much worse. Its not good enough to have an ODI opener who gives you a century in every 12 games, and around 20-25 runs in rest of the games. Today ODI opening is a 'privileged' position, and therefore candidates need to be judged (as compared to other batting positions) with a certain weightage against them.

Elsewhere Ganguly says that this is the best possible team picked, and not necessarily with World Cup in mind. What he is trying to say is that Kumble and Laxman have been dropped on performance basis, and not because some feel that they are too old to carry-on till the World Cup. Perfect response, and this is how it should be. If Kumble and Laxman start performing exceptionally well in test matches, and are in prime form around the World Cup, would we ignore them just because of age ?

Not enough fun ?

2005-08-16T17:05:00.000+03:00

It seems that the Ashes series is not entertaining enough for some folks. Having this for the next two games also might help..eh ?

Quotes and Thoughts

2005-08-16T00:20:00.000+03:00

"It's not about how you look, it's about how many runs you score" - Saurav Ganguly about his perceived weakness against short bowling. And I totally agree. Now lets just get some runs going.

"I worked really hard but I thought I'd cocked it up at the end." Ricky Ponting on his dismissal and "It was a big game in the series and it was a big result for us after being out-played in the first few days." on being happy with getting the draw in third test. Surprisingly candid for an aussie captain. A Waugh veteran would have said 'we were in the hunt till about 10 overs to go, with me and Shane batting well..' ! He also said that a win was not likely (about his thoughts at the start of the day). Somehow, I'm not convinced :-)

"It's been very nerve-wracking - I'm not sure if I can keep going through this sort of thing." - Lee on the tense batting periods he had to undergo in the two tests. Totally agree with him. Too much for a tailender, and too well performed so far.

Lee and McGrath also said, in a BBC interview, that the instruction sent to them just before the last over (via water bearer Stuart McGill) was 'to bat two feet out of the crease to negate scope of LBW'. That was one very smart move. It shows how deep the Aussie thinking and planning goes. They must have tuned it further after last match where they fell just 3 runs short. And more importantly, this was an instruction sent to number 9 and 10 against one of the most fearsome bowlers in business today ! Lee did say that he batted just one feet outside, and tried to manage :-)

"But I've been working hard (on my batting) and I've been on at Ricky to move me up the order." - Lee on his batting. Also McGrath told BBC that he's telling Ricky that he's wasted at number 11, especially since he not been dismissed so far in this series ! Nice bit of fun there, by the tailenders. Surely trying to calm their own nerves. But well batted. These two matches, from Aus point of view, have been all about Shane Warne and the tail. And some Ricky Ponting toppings :-)

For England its been Freddie again. He's not yet a strike bowler, wont 'run through' good sides yet. But he's an aggressive support act. At Lords it was for Harmison, at Edgbaston it was shared, at Old Trafford it was Simon Jones. Time for Hoggard to stand up ?

Meanwhile, Aussies have a selection dilemma. Surely Gillespie would go out, but do they bring in Kasper or Tait. I think, having drawn this game, they would be in a position to take the more risky approach of blooding Tait than going safe with Kasper. Unless they think Trent Bridge surface is going to help reverse swing as much as Old Trafford. McGrath hinted that they need to tackle that issue (of getting the ball to reverse)

And Hayden ? I think they may not yet drop him, backing him to turn the corner like Ponting. The difference is, Ponting was in flow even at Edgbaston, and I'm not sure how fluent Hayden has been in any of his outings (not having seen any live action).

Thankfully there is an intermission in the drama. In the context of this series, 10 days is long time for dramatic changes. Maybe Flintoff will step of one of those balls one morning ;-)

More about the end of 'it all' you know

2005-08-15T23:17:00.000+03:00

Is this the first time this great Aus team is loosing a match, a series ? Is this the first time they are looking hopelessly out-thought (yet fighting, as any trained fighter would) in the field. Is this the first time they are being outplayed ? Yes..right, its all happened in India. And then it was even worse. Their bastmen, all bar one, were totally trampled upon by the Indian spinners. Their top bowlers, the ones still going strong (more than their normal self) here in this series were then rendered useless.

Yet, surprisingly, I did not hear a word about end of any era, the fall of the empire !

The English mindset

2005-08-15T22:08:00.000+03:00

The BBC commentators during the post match discussion, while talking of the momentum going England's way, with English bowlers faring better than Aussie, said that they think, at this point, given a chance, Ricky Ponting would be happy to walk away with a 2-2 result in the series ! They just don't get it. This just shows what the English themselves would have been ready to accept, given the same situation and choice.

This Australian team does not indulge in regulation bravado when they say they think they can win all the games. Glen McGrath, in his post match comments, said sure, he has revised his final verdict from 5-0 to 3-1 ! And I think he means it.

However much I (and many others) may dislike this Aussie team for their arrogance (especially off the field, and in media outings) I have to conceded that they have this 'playing to win' mentality etched in their minds.

And its this mentality because of which, over a 12 day period when Eng played better cricket than them (only slightly, though) they could still have had a series hanging at 2-0 instead of 1-1! It was only one cricketing shot away. That's how close they came while playing 'bad cricket' ! And somewhere deep down, atleast the old Waugh armymen of this team would be moving beyond this past week with a feeling of 'missed opportunity' rather than the 'great escape' which most of us, in their shoes, would have felt.

I wrote before this series that, if Eng play well, it would be a series of tough cricket, but the Aussies are better even at fighting and gritting than anyone else. These past 2 weeks they just proven that.

So, the English should be well aware, because the Aussie batting is bound to click decently atleast once, and soon. And when it does, it will not let English fight their way back.

Michael Vaughan and his bunch should avoid listening to the hype about them having the momentum (although I have a feeling some members in this team are as gritty as the Aussies when it comes to a tough battle). Their bowlers need to keep bowling their hearts out, spell after spell. And oh yes, he needs to keep winning those tosses...or maybe Ponting needs to keep electing wrongly ;-)

What end ?

2005-08-15T11:07:00.000+03:00

Peter Roebuck says that the end of this Aussie team is near. I say, what end ?

He and one half of the cricketing world (including more than half of Eng) think that whatever happens now in the series, we've already seen enough to know that this Aussie team is going down. And why ? Because they are 'aging' !

Interesting, this 'aging' theme. So who are the aging cricketers in the team ? McGrath, Warne, Gilchrist, Hayden. We know what the first two can do, are doing. The only team going down due to them is the Eng team! Gilchrist, so far not firing in the series, has been in good touch recently, and I doubt if a single cricket fan/analyst in the world would still choose anyone besides him for the first choice wkt-keeper of a world 11. Hayden is probably struggling for a long time, and time will decide if he remains a permanent member of this side or not. He has been there before, and may still have enough juice in him to come back strongly.

Anyway, I don't think Hayden's bad form (even retirement) means the Aussie team is going down. And I am no Aussie fan, just want to bring some perspective here.

what's happening is that their batsmen are facing a strong bowling attack for the first time(ever!!). They are reacting as they ever would have, in their 10 year domination period. Its unfortunate for the rest of the cricketing world that we never got to see this earlier. That's all. They still are the same team as they were before this series. Now we just get to know how close England has come in this time duration.

I have no doubts that they will go on thrashing the world after Ashes. And maybe Eng will do the same.

Oh, and yes, Gillespie is also out of form. Does that mean his career is over. What nonsense, he's just 30 ! One bad series, and we predict end-of-reign for top cricketers, top teams ?

And by the way, the series is not over yet, I think.

Final observations

2005-08-10T09:52:00.000+03:00

And here are some key observations from the final match :

1) India has a big problem in their batting order. Some of it is actually a challenge of multiple choices, and some of no choices at all. But anyway, I believe it is here that Chappel should exercise the much publicized flexibility more often. E.g. kaif could have come above Yuv when the need of the hour was consolidation. Or Dhoni/Pathan could have come in place of Kaif where need was few quick runs before arrival of Murali. I think THIS is where India lost the game

2) Say bye bye to Kumble in ODIs. There is no doubt that he will still come up with some good performances, against opposition like WI who don't know much about him. But he just doesn't make the cut against top teams, and that's what matters. He's going to win matches which India should anyway win without him (although they sometimes don't)

3) Playing seven batsmen is still the best strategy. And by 7 batsmen I mean 7 players who can, on their good day, win the match with their batting. And on their bad day, they should be coached to, apply themselves to still make a contribution.

4) This means making Sachin, Sehwag, Yuvraj etc practice more often with their bowling. Or making Pathan a better batsman. Whatever it takes, but there have to be 7 matchwinning batsmen. And ofcourse there are these arguments that what 6 can't do, seven cant either. But there is not proof of that. And anyway, if you extend that argument it can read as 'what 5 batsmen cant do, 6th cant'. And you keep reducing the number ! Because there is no rule book saying how many batsmen are good enough. But if you look at the top teams of the world, they follow this seven batsmen theory, and get good results.

5) Make the bowlers understand that when they are in good rhythm, nothing justifies them getting mauled in a match, in the middle of a spell of good performances. They can go wicketless, but absolutely nothing justifies going for runs.

The dissection

2005-08-10T09:38:00.000+03:00

On the face of it, India's loss to SL in the final match of the Indian Oil Cup was purely strategic. The run chase was on the right track till the 35th over. The plan was well made, although a bit tight. It required Dhoni to click and give atleast 30-40 quick runs. That was an absolute must. This is why I called the plan tight. Had we been playing 7 batsmen, it would have been '1 of these 2 had to click'. Not that I am blaming Dravid for going with 6 batsmen. We hardly had anyone worth a crucial 7th place for the finals of a high pressure tournament.

But that's just the problem in yesterday's match. India's biggest problem last season, and by the look of it, in this season so far, has been of consistency. Consider this : Chaminda Vaas is in good nick. What do you expect of such a bowler in good rhythm in last outing ? Be economical, on the dot, take a few wkts if possible. And that's what he delivered. Now, who in the Indian team was in good rhythm as a bowler. Was it Pathan ? Or Bhajji ? Or Nehra ? Or Khan (!) ? Or Kumble ? They all have been good in a match, or two matches, or three. But not consistently throughout. And not only have they not been able to not break through in the other matches, they've been expensive as well. Now that's not good form.

And the same goes for the batsmen. Barring Rahul Dravid, who do you call in good form ? Although all of them came good in atleast one match ! In the ones they failed, they didn't even appear to be trying hard enough. That's inconsistency. When a batsmen is in form, he should make his failures also contribute something to the team cause.

So, the deeper problem is of basics. Remember during WC04 days it was the motto of Indian team management that each key player of the team should be contributing in atleast 2 aspects. It lead to strong decisions like leaving out Laxman over Mongia, making Dravid keep wickets etc. Now compare it with today's scenario. Players are not doing justice to even their 'first talent', leave aside the second contribution. And that's where, I believe, Chappel's biggest challenge lies. Should he make Dhoni focus on his batting aspects, or first he should sort out his 'keeping. Should he make an allrounder out of Pathan or first a good bowler ? Should he ask Yuv, Sehwag to focus more on improving their bowling or first sort out the batting.

It may seem complicated looking at it this way. But I think some of the answers are simple. Get the players to focus more on their prime job (Dhoni's is to 'keep) and the second would, if they have that additional talent, fall in place. If they don't, then anyway Chappel or anyone else cannot build it in them at this level.

WIndies come to the party

2005-08-06T20:35:00.000+03:00

So, when Freddie was single handedly raising the status of his team, WI did that through, as it seems, more regular method of planning. Chanderpaul opened the innings, something which he should have done from match 1. He anyway faced the opening bowlers in almost all matches !

And the pitch at Colombo seems more genial, atleast not much assistance to spin. Does seem to have more runs in it. I hope Indian team have noticed that. And I hope the lessons learnt from Dambulla do not translate to non-suitable actions here ! Ind should still have atleast 3 seamers (and 1 spinner if playing with 4 bowlers only). But more importantly, they should revise the mode in which they approach their innings, especially if batting first. This pitch may not require the same caution in the opening spell. I myself was thinking that maybe moving Sehwag down the order can be one option. But on this pitch, maybe not.

And before this match, almost everyone was taking it for granted that WI will not win any matches. That Ind facing SL in finals is a given fact. This includes all players, coaches, critics, analysts, bloggers etc ! No-one realised that WI are really bowling well, and all they need is to get their batting act together, that too just slightly. Which they did. And its not going to be easy for India as well, especially if chasing. Because I don't believe this WI side has enough batting to chase a decent total.

Anyway, all this means that tomorrow is an interesting day of cricket. For Indian fans as well as any fan of good cricket. I would be torn between following Eng and Indian progress.

As I write this, Eng are one step away from victory at stumps. Aus surely have shown signs of nerves in tough situations. Lets see how Eng can use this to their advantage in the rest of the series.

First things first

2005-08-06T20:21:00.000+03:00

Yes, WI defeated SL, so that means more trouble for India in the Indian Oil cup. But first, about the birth of a champion. Andrew Flintoff is his name. I've always known that if Eng has to defeat Aus this summer (and they haven't actually done it as I write this, but are close enough) then he would have to come to party. In so many of the crucial matches that this Eng team has won in the past, he has chipped in with crucial burst with the bat, or with the ball, or both. Strategically he's like Gilchrist with the bat and also with the ball, independently. Ofcourse he's not as good a batsman as Gilchrist. Not yet atleast. But the rate at which he is maturing, I can easily imagine him getting there. This series is going to be very important in his career growth.

I must say that I've never seen Botham in his prime, but I would be surprised if it felt any different that watching this modern champion. Lets hope he continues to develope this way. And as for Eng, for all the chances lost in this match (and earlier at Lords) all that would matter is the result. And if they win this one for their fans, then no-one would remember what ugly acts Vaughan did with the bat, or how Strauss was playing Warne like a schoolboy.

They would remember Bell though. And Thorpe. And what this series could have been if they had planned it well. Its almost like the Indian victories. Sheer talent and effort of the 15-16 members of the squad. No help from outside.

And then there is Giles. However much we may dislike him as a bowler, he has his place in the team. He needs runs to play with, and he got those in this match. And we know the result. He's especially effective against aggressive batsmen like this bunch of Aussies (who are also not technically the greatest against spin).

And finally about the Aussie batsmen...well I always felt that they haven't been tested in tight chases enough (not their problem, they win most of the matches without the need for tight chase), but still knowing how this Aussie team works, they have their problems there. I get a feeling that almost the entire team is trying to do 'a Gilchrist' each time they are walking out to bat. They all want to have that 'zone of glory' where they are hitting their way to success. That's not how test cricket works. And that's not how successful batsmen in test cricket reach their status. Gilchrist is able to do that 'because' there are others in the team to keep their head when he deliberately goes about loosing his.

I wonder if Aussies would realize that. They still should be the favorites to win the series, despite loosing this match (if they do) if only because Eng has more problems than they have.

In hindsight

2005-08-03T19:41:00.000+03:00

Ok, first without hindsight. What did India do wrong going into the game. Nothing. The combination was almost right. All bowlers, except Zaheer, looked in decent rhythm. So Balaji took his place. Ganguly came in for Yuv, quite ok, seemed to be an automatic solution for opening problems. Laxman in place of Rao, not much to choose, not knowing Laxman's current form. And not choosing Kumble again, well the three seamers seemed to be doing the job well, so ?

Now, with hindsight, what could have been different ? This is easy, Ganguly could have gone on for a few more overs, since he was accelerating. Got India those additional 20-30 runs (well, who knows if Pathan would have got the chance to plunder, in that case), Dhoni could have learnt from his mistakes and stayed at the wicket, Dravid could have got an frontline pacer to break Jayawardane - Chandana partnership. Sure, lots of these in hindsight, but nothing which should have been different at the start of the game.

One thing we do know for sure is the terrible form of their part-timers. Ganguly should not be judged too much in his first match, but Sehwag and Raina seem to be under-confident. Sehwag in particular is missing the simple trick of bowling tight, something that was his specialty until last season. India seems to be taking a big risk with the fifth bowler, without extra fall-back options of Sachin, Yuv, Mongia. And the risk multiplies in case one of the frontline bowlers has an off day (like Harbhajan had, surely that's normal. Do we know Kumble to be a miracle worker, and that too against SL ?)

So, what did we learn from today (if this was another experiment). Again, not much. Maybe that Dhoni still has a long way to go before he secures his place in the ODI side (both in batting and keeping).

Maybe Jayawardane played too well. Maybe we don't panic, and continue building.

Greg's notes

2005-08-01T12:01:00.000+03:00

A sneak peek at Greg Chappel's personal notes after match 2 :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Notes to self

Indian Oil Cup : Dambulla, Sri Lanka : 31st July 2005

1) No bowling to Suresh in future. Dude cannot bowl, need to judge him on pure batting potential

2) Tell Mahindra that he is the 'keeper batsman of the side. No-one's better than Rahul if we wanted a batsman 'keeper. So focus on 'keeping as the primary skill.

3) Tell poor Ashish to cheerfully greet the umpires and match referee before the start of each game. What else can he do ?

4) Tell Virendra to try and go out there and 'play like a test match' since he seems to be more successful in test matches, despite scoring at one-day strike rate !

5) Suresh was nervous and tentative in batting. Need to chat with him, and also work on his backfoot game, especially short stuff.

6) Meanwhile, keep eyes open for future batting prospects for India, the search may not yet be over

7) Tell Yuvraj to go 'chill out'. This was a bowling attack tailor made for his liking. There's something really messed up with his mind it seems. Need to talk to him.

8) ...ummm..after he returns from Mumbai from his 'People for Ethical Treatment of Celebrities' Social Event on Tuesday

9) Remember to nominate Rahul for Nobel Prize towards the end of the year. Note for logbook.

10) Talk to Mahendra. Check if the dude has heard about 'backfoot'

11) Talk to Anil, remind him how great a human being he is, and he is doing great sacrifice for humanity...uhh...Indian cricket team.

12) Tell mother to ask Ian that he should refrain from criticising me too much during his commentary. After all, it reflects poorly on our family. Promise to make it up to him for his LPs that I lost during summer camp in '63.

13) (looking left and right)...hide these notes from media.

Another 'Referee verdict' for India

2005-08-01T11:56:00.000+03:00

"Nehra pleaded guilty to the charge of celebrating the dismissal before the umpire had made his decision and of not turning around and appealing to the umpire," the ICC said in a statement forwarded by Sri Lanka Cricket on Monday. This in rediff . And he was fined for excessive appealing ! Aren't cricket rules wonderful. Especially the 'new' ones.

What I would like to see is 'appealing frequency' of each and every bowler in the past 10 ODIs of all countries to see who all exceeded this limit. And how many were punished. I am not intending here that this is again a consipiracy against India (which is topic of debate for some other time), but surely there is inconsistency. And that too, in a matter which could easily have been resolved with clear set of directives, and strict instructions to match referees to impose the rules in ALL conditions. Not leaving much on their judgement.

0-1 already

2005-07-30T22:24:00.000+03:00

Ok, here's my take on today's game : Obviously there was not enough momentum in the batting. And that is a problem. Now the mistakes made by most of our batsmen should not be overlooked once they score one big innings. Sehwag (maybe Yuv and Kaif also) would sure have one big innings, same with Dhoni. I hope they are still made to understand that its not about when the click...its also about what they do when they 'don't' click. E.g. trying to survive even in dire situations..like the other 3 seniors do (Sachin, Gang, Dravid). It doesn't make sense that you get out of jail because 'pitch was bad' and then score big once in 6-7 innings.

About Dravid...well its difficult to analyze with one game. Few things that struck me (and I'm keen to observe for rest of the game): team composition..why go with 3 seamers (and only 4 regular bowlers). Looked like a very Ganguly-ish team to me (not that that is wrong in itself)Its been overdone quite a lot, and I hope the flexibility mantra, being linked to Chappel, is extended to this also. About using the part-timers..dunno if its better what he did (attack in beginning and middle)...shud wait for it to succeed (or fail) for a longer term. Its anyway a good test of captaincy how to utilize the part-timers, esp in case of defending small totals.

Positives..Rao, Pathan's return, tailenders batting with sense (Khan's runout was nonsensical, though).

I am still not in favour of Dhoni's opener status on ANY pitch as a regular strategy.

Here from Dileep Premchandran's review of the game on cricinfo

"But unlike Tendulkar and Ganguly, who could pace an innings and accelerate effortlessly, the suspicion remains that both Sehwag and Dhoni are too rooted in the full-throttle approach to succeed consistently against the new ball."

Full article here

Wonder if it makes sense to move atleast one (Dhoni) down the order, and even both (when Sachin, Gang return). You know, if you look carefully, Sehwag is not really a hit at the top. Its a common mistake to mix his test match success with his ODI effectiveness at the top of the order. Maybe time to rethink that strategy as well ? Atleast its another item for Chappel to input in his processor.

The build-up

2005-07-27T10:51:00.000+03:00

So India is starting a new season. And lots of interestig developments to look upto, if you're an Indian cricket fan. The biggest is "life with Chappel". How the team grows comfortable with the new coach, and what are the distinct Chappel trademarks that we get to see in the coming season.

The SL trieseries is the first peep into the working methods of Chappel, and how they translate on the field. India has played a practise match, and are scheduled to play one more today (btw when was the last time we saw India play 5 practise matches before starting their season ! Remember the teams played together 3 times at home during the end of camp. Surely better than having lazy net sessions!)

Some early indications, as Prem Panicker also pointed out, are VVS being made to open, Pathan being brought as first change bowler, and possible use of 5 bowlers in the team (with Pathan and JP Yadav bringing in additional batting strength). From Dileep's article (in mid-day) it was also known that flexibility is the main idea Chappel is preaching. And rightly so. One of the main weaknesses that I noticed in the Indian (ODI) setup in the past couple of seasons was that the team took the field with the pre-conceived notions. There has to be dashers in the beginning. Yuv and Kaif are for rescue act only. We need 4 bowlers only, part-timers are always good as fifth bowler. Keeper needs to be good enough as a standalone batsman. 3 pacers most of the time..etc.etc. I hope Chappel is bringing flexibility in all these aspects.

But as of now, lets wait and watch for his methods to take root. It wont happen over the period of one series. Just like Woolmer's method are slowly showing effect in Pak (ahh but there, across the border, all changes are reversible :-) ) And thankfully the legacy left behind by Wright is so much better than what most other Indian coaches had to inherit (Ajit Wadekar was the only one in recent memory who inherited a good team viz. a Sachin Tendulkar in full flow..almost as good as a decent team..winning matches single handedly. And also making Azhar's captaincy record look much better than reality). 30th July is the starting point. I would hold my breath for this one. I genuinely believe Chappel would work wonders for our team.

Mainly Cricket

Harsha on right line

Langer's knock

Knowing Freddie

The hits just keep on coming

Inzamam happy with the new rule

Lets ask him?

Ian Chappell bats for Bucknor

More on Modi

Two wrongs better than a right?

England vs SLanka

The English channel

New appeal rule was designed to counter Bucknor

Promoting the game

Sehwag speaks again

The umpiring debate

Chappell's Test

Killing that goose. And asking not to squeal.

BCCI, professionalism and improvement - come again?

Chappell in free time

Balaji finally back

From the horse's mouth

ICC does something good!

No more dissent

More cricket

The *deal* is out in the open

More of world cup deal

World Cup rants

Early updates

Aussie bid

Return of the king

Sunday split

In the middle of r&r - lookout for *interesting* cricket action

In the middle of r&r - lookout for *interesting* cricket action

Work and play

Sunny days no more?

Champions trophy - the sequel

Cricketing action

A trophy for champions?

Imran's wake up call (to lazy bloggers)

Cricketing future

Monday wonders

Batting failure

WI tour squad

You have the right to not remain silent..

Which one's cricket?

Getting the picture?

Aussie rules

Aussie rules

Another one for the file

Pathan and Indian ratings

Pathan and Indian ratings

Test cricket updates

Gap analysis

Granted

Coach found

One for the team?

One for the team?

Bangla thriller

Patil's NO

Trescothick's interview

Aussie's claw back

Aussie are the best...err...hold on...

England for The Cup

Sharing the wealth

Go Bangla!

Greg Chappell - ODI Season 1 : Winter of Content

Life after Wright - A look at Chappell and Team India after one test season

The Saurav affair, as I understand it

The TV rights ruling from GoI

Back...after long time

The email - analysis

This just isn't cricinfo

Jai aur Veeru !

The real game begins tomorrow

Cricket updates from subcontinent

Any more questions?

(Only )Results Matter

So what next ?

Zim in test matches

The deal is out in the open

In the middle of r&r - lookout for interesting cricket action

In the middle of r&r - lookout for interesting cricket action