The Great Indian Team Performance Curve: A Thesis

I read a friend’s Facebook status post, wondering about the changes we are witnessing  in the Indian team’s performance. To be precise, his questions were “how so much” and “how so quickly”.

A while ago, I had read an extremely well-conceived article by Cricinfo’s Siddharth Monga on the contribution of the “system” to India’s Champion’s Trophy win last night. Here it is.

Armed with the thoughts that came while reading Monga’s thoughtful piece, I set about trying to construct a quickfire “thesis” to explain the path charted by the Indian cricket team

Part A: how so much?

Ans: The direction that a cricket team – correction, an Indian cricket team goes can be largely explained by measuring the following areas:

(A)   the leadup to selecting the final 15 who set off for the tour – including resourcefulness, non-compromise and vision,

(B)   Captain’s performance as a player

(C)   The captain-coach duo and their (interpersonal) vibes within the team including handling of individual players as well as coaching staff,

(D)   Form of individual stars in the team, if any; and

(E)    Expectations set by the leadership team from the players, series by series (completely on-field stuff, nothing interpersonal here). This includes flexible thinking.

[A, B & D are extremely version specific; hence same set of people can produce different performance curves in different versions of cricket]

• Ganguly's team, in rebuilding phase of 2000-2003, thrived partly on A & B,  a lot on C & D and little less on E (except uncompromising integrity).

• During the latter parts of Ganguly era (late 2004-2005) the team form dipped due to partial dips in B, C & D.

• In Dravid’s (2005-mid 2007) era the emphasis on A & E became supreme; B was very good too, for most parts. However all of that was completely undone by the then coach Chappell's effect in undermining C - so much so that the huge minus in B led to underperformance in D as well.

• MSD's 1^st era (2007--2010), on the other hand, revived team form almost entirely based on C, D & E. In Tests, B almost did not come into picture, such was the overwhelming effect of D [Big four + Viru + Zaheer]!! A got toned down to moderate – which is fine if D is good.

• Dhoni’s 2^nd era (early 2011 to end 2012) saw a virtual disappearance of D, while B did not come up to compensate. This made BIG difference, even as A & E remained very similar and C dipped only marginally compared to Dhoni’s 1^st era. [Not by coincidence, Era-2 was the first days for captain with new coach]

• Dhoni’s 3^rd era is just starting. D is not likely to reach the stratospheric heights of his 1^st era anytime soon (certainly not in Tests). I agree majorly to this article. By accident or by design, Team India's A has shot up in past 3 months, even compensating for seniors' exodus contributing to instability in D (it is also looking up, thanks to performing youngsters).  In fact, A has fared so well that D (at least in Champion’s Trophy) was a factor of A!!   Decisive A has also led to decisiveness in E. Factor C, while still very good, is now so very different from Era 1. These days we see an animated Dhoni who actually tells youngsters what to do…and I believe he is now in sync with India's "new" coach Duncan Fletcher.

Part B: how so quickly?

A & E are the only components that are largely controlled by intent rather than chance. While teams thrive or perish on ‘culture changes’ in either direction it is foregone that culture changes take a lot of time.

A & E can be implemented in a very short time-frame. It is only the start, though. Any major changes in A & E, implemented too quickly, might create a shock-wave in ‘good’ (read ‘comfortable’) times, leading to adverse impact on results. However in THIS case, major changes in A & E were done when the team performance was close to its nadir (i.e. around when Dhoni’s 2^nd era was closing out). Things that would seem to be “upsetting” otherwise...those were perhaps now seen as a “Ray of Hope”.

Everything, absolutely EVERYTHING can happen when people chuck out the resistance and look forward to a change.

That ends my thesis, responding to Shrikant Subramanian’s Facebook question. [wiping brow]

Exciting? Indeed. I was just as excited while force-fitting the pieces of the puzzle. Thanks to you for appreciating. And at this humbling moment of success I would like to thank my…zz-zz-zz-zz

Crappy?? Yippie kay yay…..all theses necessarily are.

Some kids love ground fielding

Kids in my neighbourhood spontaneously practicing ground fielding....

http://purbachal-cluster-2.blogspot.in/2012/03/cluster-2-budding-cricketers-fielding.html 

The tall Small

Watch this.


And before you share it: the guy is called Bevan Small. 

He is not small but tall. To me.

He might not do anything better than this for the rest of his cricket career...but he is still an addition to my list of idols.

The commentators are quite rubbish though!!

Picture Perfect Wall

In year 2008 and at age 35 this man, Rahul Dravid, was beginning to miss catches which he would grab earlier at slip (and in sleep);  he was suddenly batting as if the wall in him had been breached...and he ran so badly that he was his own worst enemy in any form of the game whenever  a short single was on offer. Even I made a blogpost contemplating his Test future at the time.  No one except MS Dhoni, the man who ironically removed Dravid from ODI team a year before, seemed to believe that he could bounce back in Tests.


3 years later in June 2011, you are allowed to expect that things have dipped far worse for Rahul Dravid. After all he is aged 38½ now, ten years more than the Berlin Wall when it was brought down.  


Voila - instead you have a man who is batting once again like he did at his unbreachable peak in the early parts of last decade. More amazingly, during his last ODI series in Sep'11 and in Tests thereafter he was seen running far purposefully between the wickets than he ever did in the past 4 years.


And just when I start dismissing it all as the 'flicker of a dependable candle before it blows out', he takes this catch [please pardon the poor cellcam video quality - it was taken in haste during midnight TV replay]. 


The second such catch within a year, after this stunning 200th one in Durban, Dec 2010.


What do we have? Masterchef RD presenting  in front of us 5 flowing centuries in 5 months, good rotation of strike and flashes of tremendous slip catching, all on a platter. 


I am almost forced to think now - has  this man hit upon some additional gas reserves within him that can pull him through for a year or two yet??


Cricket is indeed a game of chance...you never know when you rediscover fountains of youth.


Didn't someone tell him that India are running short of an express fast bowler??

As things stand for India ahead of World Cup 2011 Quarter finals:

Summary of Indian show in 2011 cricket WC league phase:

 1) Ind go into QF without having chased against a Test team.



2) Ind had top order collapses each time they batted second (against minnows) and lower middle order collapses each time they batted first (against Test sides).



3) Outcome of pt.#2: The extra batsman, taken at the cost of a 5th bowler, has been wasted EVERY TIME India batted first.



4) Paradoxically it has been useful to have the comfort of a 7th batsman in the top order collapses against the minnows, although the 7th guy was never really needed.



5) The Yusuf Pathan problem: In the last 4-5 months Yusuf Pathan's performances while batting first & batting second are like chalk and cheese. It was no different in WC league phase. He left his mark in the only chase he participated in, but sank without a trace in 'bat 1st' innings.
[As per cricinfo statsguru, in the last 14 matches he averages 82 with bat in the 9 matches he batted 2nd but a meagre avg of 12 in those he batted first. Even his overall career stats are heavily tilted towards batting 2nd - avg of 42 against 22]


6) Yuvraj Singh is impersonating 1½ players (combining bat and ball) and so far making a good show of it with some aid from luck. In Sachin and Yuvaraj, India practically have 3 players with 2 heads showing. One of these two have ALWAYS fired in the matches played by India.



7) Bowlers – Bowling & tail end batting:


a) Indian bowlers are not able to support Zaheer / Harbhajan. They are really looking like having only 40 overs in them - and that includes the contributions of Yuvraj and other part timers.


b) Worse, tail enders have not got a bat in any of the two Indian chases. And when they did - in the 'bat 1st' games - they have collapsed each time they were required to contribute.


This is vastly different from the period before WC, when the bowlers were defending seemingly dead matches and doing so with both bat and ball. Crucially, the batting failure includes Harbhajan who was changing matches with bat for the last 4 months.

 Dilemma:


Pt#7a, combined with pt#3, are reasons why MSD needs to have 5 bowlers in the Indian playing X1 for QF.


Pt#7b, combined with pt#4, are reasons he will be pushed hard to take that decision. For pt#7b, adding another non batting bowler in liew of a batsman lengthens a non-performin tail further.






The options are:


A) Take a gamble: Ask Bhajji to take responsibility as no. 7 (25 runs is all he must look to make each time he comes out – and we know he has it in him), ask ALL batsmen to take responsibility ANYWAY for the side to play with 5th bowler instead of 7th batsman. MSD can take comfort from pt#6 and take the plunge.


B) Take a reasonable gamble: Get someone like Irfan Pathan in the 15 man squad instead of a non batting / non fielding bowler (Gavaskar apparently suggests Ojha – who is stupedous in later overs while defending scores but will be one more non batting / non fielding bowler). Even in his worst days as a bowler Irfan was generally a decent batsman (can get quick 25-30 runs) and very decent in the field. He can replace the 7th batsman.


C) Inspire the bowlers: Play 7 batsmen and ask BCCI to spruce up the pitches so that the 4 bowlers are enough to handle oposition batting with the help of conditions. Batsmen will need to take responsibility and be suitably ‘ugly and effective’ for periods of play to support this strategy. Also, going by the South Africa experience, the good bowling conditions also inspired the bowlers to own their roles and bat well down the order. That will be a huge plus.


D) Do nothing: Play 7 batsmen and continue hoping that your 4 bowlers (who will certainly NOT bowl more than 30 to 32 worthy overs) are supported by 18-20 good overs from part timers: steep ask in batting beauties.






I suspect the team management and the selectors will tend to go the option D way, the one that looks most useless to me. The other options may or may not come off but at least those will be definite attempts to succeed, instead of hoping.

Pak-NZ match 1st innings: gems from Cricinfo commentary & readers' comments

These 'How'lers were compiled from today's cricinfo commentary page during the last 10 overs of NZ innings during today's Pak-NZ match
---------------------
Episode 1: "How boring" - Readers' comments during the innings of Jamie How who scored 4 off 29 runs



..after How concedes a maiden to Umar Gul when the latter is introduced in 11th over:
Cam: "How do you put a person to sleep? How."


..and a Pakistan fan is anguished when How is dismissed in Gul's next over:
Ridhwaan: "Getting How out was a mistake by Pakistan!! He was eating up deliveries and doing Pak a favour!"


..also a hopeful NZ fan:
Wilko NZ: "Surely that will be How's last chance at this level. And what a final contribution - a paltry 4 runs from a 47 run partnership. "

----------------Episode 2: Kamran moments of the match


..after Kamran drops Taylor twice in 14th over (off Shoaib, brought back in 2nd spell for a breakthrough)
vinny: "Even tho I am 40+ and tubby, I could not be worse a keeper than Kamran, I think. I can drop catches just as good as him."
Sunil: "If Pakistan do win they World Cup, at least they now know who not to hand the trophy to, while celebrating :)"
Shridhar Jaju: "Kamran Akmal's favourite pickup line - Can I DROP you somewhere?"

-------------------
 Episode 3: Slow NZ.. On NZ conceding a lot of dot balls (led by Jamie How) in the 1st part of the match*:

..after a particular stretch of dry period when Ross Taylor was batting tentativelyAllan: "Wrighty will be fuming away in his seat at the number of dot balls. The batsmen haven't been listening!"



..after NZ pick up 4 runs in the first 4 balls ofa Gul over 'against the run of play'
Zohaib: "singles flowing like honey for NZ."
Paranoid Android gets in to details: "@Zohaib - Honey actually does not flow that well. Is that the simile that you wanted to highlight?"




..after James Franklin, sent as pinch hitter, departs in 2 balls:
Lance: "Can NZ Cricket check to see if Kevin O'Brien has Kiwi grandparents? Maybe the Black Caps could swap him for Jamie How or James Franklin? Surely he is a cousin of recent Black Cap Iain O'Brien."


..by the end of 40th over (just before NZ pressed accelerator pedal in 41st)
Matthew: "As a frustrated NZ supporter, should I be pleased or worried at the relative ease Taylor and Styris are accumulating runs without taking risks? I can't help but feel that Pakistan will do the same in reply!"


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

 Episode 4: Fun of another kind - Ross Taylor turns it on its head..47th over yields 28, 48th over produces 15 and 49th over produces 30 runs..all off different bowlers...




48.2 Abdul Razzaq to Taylor, SIX, carnage! this has got to be stinging for Pakistan, more so after the millions of chances Ross has had, down on a knee and swings him over deep midwicket from outside off stump


48.3 Abdul Razzaq to Taylor, SIX, they just keep coming, full toss on off stump, Ross hits it into orbit, somewhere over deep midwicket, keep disappearing from the moment he bends the knee and swings them
[excerpts from commentary text]


..parting thought from a neutral reader on the birthday gifts from Kamran to Ross with love:
ragu: "How much of that applause was for Kamran I wonder?"

------------------as I complete the compilation, the 50th over has yielded a moderate 19 runs. NZ end innings at 302/7, up from 210/6 at end of 46th over...92 runs in 24 balls.
That deluge came at the end of an innings in which one batsman had scored 4 runs in 29 balls. Anybody still predicting a quarter-final elimination of New Zealanders in the knockout stages??




[source: cricinfo commentary for NZ-Pak match]


*Update:



Here's a nice quote from cricinfo match bulletin at halfway stage. It aptly summarises the early innings show put up by NZ batsmen:

"Guptill carried on batting solidly, reaching his half-century off 71 balls, while Taylor, whose early struggle was substantial by normal standards but incomparable to How's, slowly grew in confidence."

WC'2011 Pak vs SL group league match: Watching Pak after a long time

Once again pals, I can only share my match summary as posted on Facebook a while ago after the SL-vs-Pak match ended:
 

SL vs Pak: At last a proper WC match...where we got good batting and good bowling in both innings..Would have been a very good match with close finish if Chamara Silva would have scored more than 13 in his first 40 balls...

First the backdrop of my Pakistan review that will follow:

I was watching Pakistan today in an ODI after God knows how long..certainly more than 18 months. The last was perhaps the Ind-vs-Pak match in ICC trophy 2009 - which came after a similar previous gap.

It is no better in Tests, and perhaps slightly better in T20's. I have missed all the controversial stuff tht Pak were involved in. I missed the entire career of Mohammad Amir..except in highlights. I barely followed even Indian cricket in the last 3 years, and hence the only familiarity I have of non-India teams / players are those that played against India.

So here's my observation, again from Facebook:

Pak reminded me of old days.



Early wickets while batting , followed by great middle order work, followed by stop start final overs (inspite of having magnificent hitters)..


And then while fielding they showed variety+quality in pace & spin.......combined with good outfielding and terrible catching.



And a proud, fiery skipper who bowls brilliantly at crucial times and backs his players @ 'unforced errors' (While also getting livid when they serve up poor stuff) - almost saw reflections of another mighty Pathan lurking in Shahid today



Only change from those days: their keepers used to be ALWAYS good...(Akmal can cost them the cup)...and their pace bowling was even greater!!! [Qadir looked like a relief to most - so you imagine].



A rejuvenated Pak was much needed for the Cup...now there is an outside chance of this edition becoming a bowlers' cup!! May be Afridi's..



Abdur Rehman / Shahid Afridi / Umar Gul / Akhtar can make life difficult for right handers coming their way - it is a little too much variety for 'sameness' fed right handed batsmen of today to handle over 50 overs...Sri Lanka needed their left handed opener to last today.

Some 'fresh additions', in case you think I have sold out to the dark world of Facebook:


1) Ahmad Shahzad looked like the only one capable of catching anything, just as Mr. Sania Mirza - or whatever his name is with same initials - did in matches played 8-9 years back. [Well I am being dishonest here for sake of crude humour - I rate Inzy as a good catcher]


2) In 12 WC matches over last 3 world Cups spanning across 2 other decades, Shahid Afridi pouched only 7 wickets. 2 matches into this World Cup, he has bagged nine scalps. Five of which are all to him (bowled / lbw). He also leads his team in 2011.


Compare that to Dravid's WC career who started with Shahid in 1999. Tell me you have seen any greater paradox??!!

FB wall posts on 'silly' ODI's

Disappointed at the tame end to the 3rd Test with South Africa, and also sensing some upheavals on personal / professional front, I made this 'wall post' on Facebook couple of days back:

Apologies to my non-cricket loving friends for an overdose of cricket (Indian cricket, actually) related messages on my wall. For next 3 months there will be overdose of silly ODI's and sillier T20's, so not much chance of me getting as excited as the SA series...

However after the 2nd ODI with SA ended THAT way (see commentary in the link) I am on the backfoot once again (like Team India at the start of any series these days):

Did I say ODI's were silly? Smelt some egg on my face during the closing stages of 2nd ODI with SA today..Today I played in a cricket match** and watched another to re-learn that 'catches win matches'..glad that India did better than learning it bitterly.

**Don't laugh, I actually did - but managed not to raise howls around the field by avoiding bowling and batting in the 12-overs-a-side tennis ball match. We missed catches offered by the best opposition batsman during their chase and he made us pay dearly by leading his team to an eventually facile win.

I issued that 'retraction statement' to mitigate my humiliation, but I suspect I may have to keep eating some of my words steadily till the current series is over.


Update: Siddharth Monga of cricinfo has noted this incident, as a fallout of a strict commandment issued by World Bowlers' Association stating "Thou shalt bounce Suresh Raina whenever thou spot him":

"The moment he saw Suresh Raina, Lonwabo Tsotsobe went on a bouncer spree. So excited was he that he nearly bounced himself with one, pitching it at his toes in a way that the ball almost hit him in the face during his follow-through. Smith, fielding at straighter extra cover, had the best seat in the house and fell down laughing."

"Believe it or not" stuff at the 2nd Ind-SA ODI at the Bullring

I am not referring to India's thrilling 1 run win defending 190. I stopped short of stating a cliched "yet another comeback from MSD's men", in case you did not notice..

It is a curious few seconds of unusual sight that struck me. I thought I actually watched Munaf Patel running like a gazelle and fielding off his own bowling even with a close-in fielder around. In FB jargon I "superliked" it.

Something more in Munaf may have changed than physical fitness. Besides NOT looking forever disinterested at all times except the delivery stride like the Munaf of old, "Munaf 2011" also spoke about bowling a lot at the nets at the MoM award ceremony. [Besides the point: I do not see the point in organiser making these chaps struggle with a language they have not been educated to speak - how about well-spoken skippers doubling up as translators in absence of better alternatives?] 

Does IPL and his RR skipper Warnie have something to do with this transformation? Or is it primarily the work of the MSD-GK combo?

To make things better, Munaf Patel is bowling well in successive ODI series spread across nearly half a year, in surfaces as drastically different as in Sri Lanka and South Africa. If only his pace goes back to the early-2006 stuff...

Serendipity and cricket legends

Sneaked into cricinfo today to check the latest on the silly Randiv no-ball controversy - more precisely to check if Sangakkara was involved in asking Randiv for that no-ball as some Indian news channels claimed.

Let me confess - I was planning to get more updates on Sanga's guilt so that I could write a post relating this incident to the final sequence of the movie 'A Few Good Men' where marines Dawson and Downey are deemed guilty of "conduct unbecoming a United States Marine" (Haven't watched the movie? Check the last para of the plot section here) for executing unethical orders from their senior Colonel Jessop.

Not to suggest that Sehwag looked remotely as 'unable to fight for himself' as the movie's victim William T Santiago, or that Sanga was as hot or as brilliant on Monday night as AFGM's Jack Nicholson (Jessop).

Thank God I had this petty craving to send down an uninvited e-lecture 'coz I chanced upon a great page under development.

It is to die for - the legends of cricket section with features and videos on greatest cricketers that ever played the game. It looks to be growing - and we will need to wait for a fully developed page covering other legends. I am not complaining. We have to give it time. Such splendid stuff takes considerable time and effort to compile.

ESPN-Star's timeless cricket footages have been married at this page with the excellent cricinfo reports and stats in this never-before section. Happy watching and reading! Probably some day priceless snaps of these legends can also be linked into this section.

If you are still in two minds on investing the next few hours on this page, here's a clincher: the first entry on that page (and hence the subject of the default video feature that autoruns on opening this section) is Sir Isaac Vivian Alexander Richards.

Comparison of Warne and Murali (Test bowling career stats only)

Purpose of this post: Stating a closing argument against the malpractice of deriding Murali's achievements in comparison to Warne's.
[statistical closure, I meant - there is no remedy to people using baseless 'arm twisting' tactics of getting away from the statistical argument]

The Test bowling stats of Warne and Murali
The career Tests stats - TAKEN EXCLUDING BANGLADESH AND ZIMBABWE - demonstrate that the two bowlers were statistical twins in geatness stakes, both in terms of their averages & strike rates against various oppositions and also their averages in various lands.

I suspect the Murali baiters will still fish through and come back with one glaring aberration - I am including my closing note on that point at the bottom of this post.

Murali's stats (Tests excluding Zim and Bang):

[Click for LARGER view]

Warnie's stats (Tests excluding Zim and Bang):

[Click for LARGER view]

Dear Murali baiter

I hope you have found out from above career figures
- that both bowlers have consistent and similar bowling averages & strike rates against most teams,
- that England is a common delicacy at (or near) the top in menu for both bowlers
- that both bowlers fare poorly against India (Murali struggled more when touring India, while Warne struggled both home and away).

That was the House of Commons.

Now the BIG DIFFERENCE:
Your favourite point, perhaps: Murali's bowling average falls to an abysmal 75 when he tours Australia (5 tests) while Warne does not have figures anywhere close to those against any team or at any country...

Well are you seriously looking for explanation why that happens to a bowler who is specifically targetted by 30000 strong crowds for heckling in the ground over 5 days, then by the umpires and then by the media including the nation's President?

Let alone bowl, Shane Warne would be unable to turn up in the field during SL tours if the crowd there had gone for his throat by flashing his underwear clad sleazy photos across the grounds and the media. Picking even 12 wickets in 5 matches (Murali's figures in matches played in Australia) would look like matching Laker in such hostile conditions.

Summary:
Even excluding Zim-Bang matches, Murali still scalps better than quarter-to-six wickets per Test @ a bowling avg that is 2% better than Warnie's and a bowling strike rate that is 2% lesser than Warnie's.

Forget the six wickets per Test - it is that big due to Murali getting longer bowling spells with lesser bowlers. Those other two comparative figures tell the story of their amazing equality of greatness in bowling capabilities - within 2% within each other in any which way we look at it.

Should we now close this issue once and for all???

[Stats courtesy: cricinfo]

PS: There is a case for delving further into their stats and finding percentage of top order wickets against each country. But I will leave that exercise to others.

Greatest cricketing moment of this decade

2009 is coming to a close. Rahul Dravid chose to play an uncharacteristically racy knock against Sri Lanka in the first Test started today. Certainly a memorable knock.

Or is there another cricket-memory that you recall far more vividly than Rahul's 27th Test ton, something that effertlessly defines the decade of 2000's for you?

I fancy some of you writing back on the comments section of this post on the event or moment that you consider as the greatest cricketing event or moment of this decade.

You can give us a line on either "The cricketing event / moment of the decade" or "The Indian cricketing event / moment of the decade". As you wish..
But please put just one entry per person - the most favourite entry for you.

I guess my "Cricketing event of the decade" was the masterful match-saving 150+ by Ricky Ponting in the 3rd Ashes Test of 2005. It was scored on the 5th day in daunting conditions. A critical series was at stake, and he needed to keep out the best fast bowling attack that Australians faced over a whole Test series in the current decade.

My Indian Cricketing moment of the decade? Laxman-Dravid returning unseparated after a complete day's play at the Eden Gardens in 2001....

Eleven XI's

I found some thoroughly enjoyable selections in the eleven greatest XI's in ODI's.

Some of the nippy comments made to support the various selections:

Brian Lara (in All time World XI): "Not many can guide a waist-high Waqar delivery outside off-stump over fine leg for six. Fewer can make a massacre look beautiful."

Glenn McGrath (in All time World XI): "No bowler makes batsmen more doubtful of their judgement. He wrecks confidence in inches. He knows that two inches are all you really need."

Azharuddin (in The most elegant XI): "The Nizam batted like one. We must display his wrists in the Salarjung Museum (after he departs, of course)."

Bishen Bedi (in The most elegant XI): "Sent the ball on a beautiful loop, which, long after the batsman had departed, left a rainbow on the pitch."

David Gower (in The most elegant XI): "(C) If Michelangelo were alive, he would have sculpted this David, in cover drive position."

Glenn McGrath (in the most boring XI): "What a great bowler! And with just that one delivery: the ball swinging away a wee bit from the off-stump."

Ravi Shastri (12th man in the most boring XI): "That this man once hit six sixes in an over in a Ranji match makes us believe in miracles."

Jonty Rhodes (in the fielders' XI): "Do we need to explain? Was the first superstar of fielding. He redefined the art. He did to fielding what the Wright brothers did to transport."

Shane Warne (in the Fielders' XI): "Despite the fervent text messaging, his fingers were always up to the responsibilities of fielding."

Wasim Akram (in the Left handers' XI): "Because we swear we saw him bowl an inswinging outswinger. And because he planned—and succeeded at—a dismissal involving a set batsman and a full-toss."

The wall has now pouched more balls than it has bounced

But is Dravid India's finest slip fielder as Sambit says? Well for a period in the late 90's I thought he was India's best close-in catcher at all positions. When Sachin & Azhar manned the slips, Dravid the newcomer would pouch reflex catches all around the batting crease like Akash Chopra would do a few years later during the 2003-04 Australia tour.

But if we are actually talking of the best Indian fielder to stand beside the keeper in Tests, I still think Azza was the finest I have seen play for India. Had he fielded in slips over the whole of his Test career with the likes of Srinath, Zaheer, Sreesanth, Ishant, Nehra and RP bowling for India, Azhar would have a few more catches to show than he finally finished with.

Aussie wicketkeeping A.G.....and B.G

Cannot curse my current busy work schedule enough for encroaching upon that 'final frontier' in my personal life: following the last India-v-Australia Test series of this decade.

I missed the entire 2nd Day's play at Bangalore. Today, the 3rd day, was a Saturday and yet I did not get a chance to watch a single delivery live on television. Worse, I failed to catch up with the scorecard after the tea time score of India limping at 195/6.

Coming back home I rushed on to Neo sports and found solace in an ongoing highlights package. Solace stayed for a moment and disappeared soon. I felt a pang. 'Coz the man in baggy green keeping wickets during the Indian innings was not the guy that I would have loved to be seen there forever. There was Hayden at his familiar 1st slip position. There was Ponting with his old signalling habits, Clarke making Indian batsmen look like his bunnies once again, Lee generating the same effortless pace but not the same guy to collect those perfume balls.

It hurt to remember that Lara and Gilly are not playing Test cricket anymore. I removed the sentiments and got back to the game on hand.

I had a second look at the man behind the stumps. By now he had stopped sticking out like a gold coloured button on a black shirt. I recalled that I had liked this guy for his gritty and positive displays at every opportunity he got. I have not seen too much of his keeping but his batting should be as good that of the guy on the other side of Gilly,Ian Healy, which was bloody bad enough for opponents going by the occasions he chose to rise to.

And then I discovered what I did not expect. Watching Brad Haddin in whites for the first time I thought his persona has glimpses of Ian Healy himself. Not to say that the two men look like identical twins; but I thought I saw a reflection of Healy in the stature, manner and movements of Brad Haddin. If you are wondering if it was an illusion effected by tears welling up at the grief of losing Gilchrist, I suggest you have a peek at the photos below.

I have sampled 7 pics apiece of the two Aussie keepers on either side of Adam Gilchrist from cricinfo photos. The 1st four pix cover their keeping, the fifth pic shows them celebrating dismissals, the 6th & 7th ones are snaps of their batting.

Haddin pic 1, 2, 3, 4; Healy pic 1, 2, 3, 4

Haddin pic 5; Healy pic 5

Haddin pic 6, 7; Healy pic 6, 7

Let me know what you thought.

Footnote: I shall be unfair to Brad Haddin if I fail to add that he is a classier batsman than Ian Healy. The pics 6 & 7 are adequate indicators. By the way, that "A.G." in the title really stands for "After Gilchrist", even if you found that too horrendous after guessing so.

Rashid Latif at his best

If you ask me to vote for the best keeper in the last 2 decades I will perhaps overlook even the towering Ian Healy and point the index finger at Pakistan's Rashid Latif. He was not only neat and efficient but attractive and magnificent too. He was the Brian Lara of wicketkeepers.

Only a few cricketing feats stay as clear in my memory as his breathtaking diving effort to see the back of an accelerating Mohammad Azharuddin in the 1996 World Cup quarter final at Chinnaswamy Stadium, Bangalore (for young kids: it is the same place where IPL's Royal Challengers have been unable to win a single home game). The catch was off the bowling of Waqar Younis near his peak and the deliberate edge was passing by the vacant first slip . Rashid did it like it was everyday work.

Catch up on that brilliant moment at 1:46 minutes of this youtube upload.

Fielding: The single biggest gift of T20 for Tests

It is still too early to take a call on the impact of T20 on first class batting and bowling standards, except that I personally find more worth and no greater harm in T20s than the neither-here-nor-there ODIs of modern times. I still love the Test matches and I do understand that a misconstrued perception of success in this game amongst young cricketers can bring danger upon Test cricket. But that apprehension is related only to the key skills, batting and bowling.

Other than purposeful batting, the other big positive contribution of limited overs cricket is the improvement of fielding standards all around the world. Fielding had always been an 'also-ran' in first class and Test cricket. It started to change as limited overs cricket started gaining ground. Catching was not the be all and end all of fielding anymore. A run-out per innings was more of an expectation than a bonus for the fielding. A player saving 3 boundaries over the match had brought down the asking rate by .24 points single handedly - no mean feat. Ditto for the swift runner in the batting side who stole 6 singles where there were none.

However the 50 over format still allowed a little space for less athletic people. Uneven balance of skills tend to even out as the period of play gets longer. The longer the format the more value you get for your specific skills. Conversely, the T20 format asks for more players with all-round skills than specialists at a specific skill. You still have the McGraths and Asifs but then you have to be THAT good. It is quite natural that fielding now becomes a permanently ticked 'option' - also called 'compulsory' in the English language. One dayers need most of your fielders to be excellent while some passable ones can always be accomodated for brilliant bowling / batting skills. In the very near future T20s may well demand ALL fielders to be excellent.

The biggest benefactor of this new outlook should be the subcontinent teams, renowned for brilliant batsmen and master bowlers but also infamous for batsmen refusing to steal that extra run and bowlers refusing to give their all on the field. The 'take it easy' policy will now have to disappear into thin air..

...if it already hasn't, that is. Going by Ashish Nehra's unbelievable diving boundary save for Mumbai Indians on the long on boundary in the 16th over of the Delhi innings today, we are already seeing a new era of commitment in fielding emerging in Indian grounds. The ball looked like a metre away from the rope when he appeared like superman in the frame from nowhere. Due to the uncomfortable angle left to him he had to put his bowling arm at risk to make the save but he still did it.

Nehra played over 5 years of top flight cricket before injury and a question mark on commitment halted his international career. He played almost all his domestic cricket for Delhi. No one has perhaps seen Nehra do anything like that. Especially the familiar Delhi guys - they were so certain of getting a boundary off that shot that they managed a last-minute single in it where 2½ were on offer!

Only a day ago I thought the catch taken by Dale Steyn to dismiss Rohit Sharma in the Royal Challengers - vs - Deccan Chargers match would not have been taken by any Indian bowler. It is barely 24 hours and I am already wondering how many more days before we see an Indian bowler taking a similar catch in a Test match to tilt the balance of the game (such catches almost always seem to make an impact, don't they?).

Correction: Steyn caught Shahid Afridi yesterday, not Rohit Sharma

Perth Win: An Analysis

What were the major factors behind India's Test win at Perth? We have discussed all of them barring three in various posts on this blog since India landed in Australia.

One of the factors we did not discuss was Matthew Hayden's absence. Such is his dominance over all Indian bowlers in both Tests and ODIs (less so in T20 till date) that they get a low just by seeing him at the batting crease. They often let their bowling plans drift and tend to forget that they can at least try cracking up the other end. To have a nervous rookie playing as his replacement at Perth would have felt like a belated New Year Gift to the Indian bowlers.

Let me list out the other factors tha we have already talked about.

A. Winning the toss & batting first, playing Viru & getting team selection right, Indian bowlers not getting carried away by the Perth bounce, Perth pitch not supporting Australian 'strangulation' method: discussed in this post on Perth Test.

B. Good opening stands, the Australian catchers' susceptibility & Indian catchers not returning those favours: we discussed these in the series opener preview.

C. Australia being aware that faster pitches may backfire and end up reducing difference between the sides: Find a line on it here and try to forget the rest - Perth should help us to move on.
D. Having good catchers at right positions: Kumble got it right on the 4th day with Dravid back at first slip (RD caught well through the current series and has left behind his frightening catch-dropping spree since England last year) and Laxman at silly point. It wasn't so on the 3rd day (as we discussed in the concluding section of this post)
I said we had not discussed three factors. The second & third are Ponting's continued failure and Indian quicks moving the ball in both directions to up the pressure on opposition batsmen. We will discuss those two in unison, both of which happened in the first session of 4th day's play.
1st session, 4th day, Perth
The Indian quick bowlers exhibited pack hunting intent in the pre-lunch session and that was not lost on Australia. Ishant Sharma's role in that memorable session and his act of removing Ponting in that extra over induced by Sehwag cannot be discussed enough. It is the best passage of Test cricket I have watched since the 5th day of the Old Trafford Ashes Test of 2005 when Ricky Ponting showed his true calibre as a batsman against genuinely fast swing bowling and saved the Test almost single handedly (Mcgrath will think he can take some credit; I included the 'almost' for him).
Ponting and Hussey did an admirable job in keeping the bowlers out for so long on 19th morning. And that is not something we can say often when Indian quick bowlers are concerned. It is common experience to see one of them start yielding soon; the stranglehold seldom lasts this long. In the preview post we had discussed relentlessness against a big team like Australia. We have seen it in the past from our great batsmen. We have seen Kumble do it on Indian pitches with help of other spinners.
But the 4th day morning at Perth is the first session in a long time where I have seen it come from a pack of Indian quicks on an away pitch that is not necessarily the best for their kind of bowling. It would have come to nought had Ponting, the batsman who I believe could actually help his team to this total, stayed on till lunch. But then as cricinfo put it, justice would have been denied had Sharma not dismissed Ponting.
If we watch a replay of the Ponting dismissal we find that the Australian skipper has played at a straight ball from Ishant Sharma on the 6th stump and edged it to Rahul Dravid at 1st slip. To someone who missed out on the morning session this might look like a batting error. Had Sharma been bowling only outswingers all along, Ponting would have left this one alone with ease. Had Sharma been bowling just in-cutters this ball would not have happened. Ponting had barely survived close lbw shouts from deliveries that jagged back from pretty much the same spot. He was eager to get outside the line of his off stump to the one that moved in. The ball held its line and sucked him in.
It was pretty much the same with Hussey. He had obviously gone through videos of his dismissal in the first innings and was intent on not letting the outswingers from the two Indian left arm bowlers kiss the edge of his bat. When Pathan was bowling he saw a few balls get pitched within 2 inches from the off stump line and still left them alone. Being left handed in batting, he was armed with the knowledge that Pathan is only going to swing it outside with the new ball.
RP came and bowled the same outswingers for a few deliveries. However I suspect he bowls to certain plans and backs it up with adequate practice. He is the only Indian pace bowler who looks comfortable bowling around the wicket, something that requires good practice, and employs the move effectively as demonstrated in England. Here he stayed over the wicket to Hussey but soon came up with one that pitched in line and went straight towards the stumps.
RP's extra pace combined with Hussey's predetermination (borne out of having seen only outswing all morning) made sure his bat came down a little too late. Hussey was a tad unfortunate with the lbw decision considering the height where his pads were rapped, quite like Sachin in the first innings. But the ball could beat the bat mainly because the surprise delivery moved unlike the stock one.
UPDATE: Ishant's spell to Ponting can be viewed in a cricket Australia FB video; watch here.

Bowling vs Batting

Most of us believe that the bowler is more important in Test matches than the batsman. They are there to win you Test matches. Perhaps the great bowling sides of 70's and 80's have also supported this 'bowlers are king' theory. Today we will explore the validity of this assumption.

For all their runs the batsmen won't get you the 20 opposition wickets you need to be a victor. To get the 2 points you need 4 good men to handle the red cherry. The value of bowlers can not be undermined in any way.

But the coin has another side. The batsman can score 600+ in an innings and make sure that the opposition will never win the game. For all their wickets, the bowlers cannot ensure that the draw is the worst result for their team. Fundamental difference is good performances from bowlers shorten the game while competent batting ensures greater length of play.

Let us put it this way: a team requires a good bowling arsenal to turn (i) a potential loss to a win, and (ii) a potential draw to a win.

However the bowlers cannot turn a potential loss to a draw. You need the batsmen there. And the only time a self-respecting team considers a draw a decent result is while playing a better team. That is because against the better team a loss is more likely than a win, and when the former looms large the draw seems more honourable. Batsmen must stand up and be counted against higher ranked opposition.

But then the need to opt for a draw depends on the game situation. The importance of the batsmen's performance, therefore, is a dynamic quality. Are the bowlers allowed to think likewise? Are they exempted from performing in the 3rd innings when at the end of the second innings the team will be happy to earn a draw by batting out the 4th innings? They are not. We need the bowlers to do well regardless. As long as a team keeps winning as the first option the bowlers will have to strive for wickets irrespective of quality of opposition and game situation.

That is where the bowlers are important: they drive quality through the very nature of their role. They bowl to win. Their primary role is to aim for the ultimate result - a win - while the batsmen's primary role is to support bowlers by giving them time and runs to achieve the aim.

We tend to think of big 4th innings chases where the batsmen are apparently 'batting to win'. Are the batsmen too not winning us games there? Well, are they? There may be the odd instance when they actually are winning games that could only be won by them (Brian Lara scoring 15o odd against Australia in 1999 comes back to my mind). At all other times in 4th innings chases the batsmen may only be playing catch up, covering up for their deficiencies in the first innings and / or their bowlers' inadequacies in the two opposition innings.

The ongoing Test match in Perth is a case in point. At the end of the 3rd day the Australian batsmen are battling to make up for their bowling and batting drawbacks. The Indian bowlers are bowling to win. And the best thing about it is the draw being taken out of the equation.

Corollary

Where does the fielder (the catcher, to be specific) figure in that hierarchy? Well he supports the bowler directly. He is no less important than the batsman. Their positions in the field must also be wisely chosen, much in the way batting orders are for batsmen. Asking Sourav Ganguly to field at point while hunting for wickets is a far bigger indiscretion than asking Rahul Dravid to open the batting in Australia without an adequate notice period (or even not selecting the more compact Dinesh Karthik ahead of Wasim Jaffer as Sehwag's opening partner for Perth).

You may have taken 600 wickets, Mr. Anil Kumble. You are even allowed to bear a grudge that your phenomenal Laxmanesque feat of taking 100+ Aussie wickets at around 5 wickets per match in an era dominated by them has gone virtually unattended in the media. But you cannot put fielders at wrong positions in a match where you need to hold on to all your chances and forget worrying about all other things.

Update: This post was made before start of 4th day's play at Perth. The task turned out to be too steep for Aussie batsmen.

Boxing Day 2007: A series preview

A lot of talk in the media has been about how India have done well ahead of the crucial Australia tour. Why, the Indian young brigade is seen as ‘talking’ well too! Well I’m only partly impressed. Talking looks good ONLY when it is backed by the doing. Post T20 success the Indian team has not fielded too well in the ODIs or even the Tests.

I hope they prove me wrong but the Indian lot seems incapable of exhibiting top class fitness throughout any match that lasts more than 20 overs an innings. The concentration wavers, the fumbling / dropping reappears, the bowling intensity tails off and the silly calling between batting partners resurfaces in the latter part of ODI innings. The Indians lost the ODI series against Australia 4-2 (could have been 5-2 but for rain) but won convincingly against Pakistan. People were joyous at an improved performance.

‘Improved’? Well we all saw in the Australian series that Indians would drop an early chance from a key Australian batsman and he would then inevitably ensure a 300-plus target for Indians. As expected, Australians would refuse to return the favour of ‘life’ when they fielded. The Indians continued in much the same vein against the touring Pakistanis. The difference: Pakistan would magnanimously allow lives to TWO Indian batsmen.

We can expect these problems to get more glaring in Test matches. However the beauty of Test matches is that it allows you to somewhat make up for lack of one skill through added brilliance in the other. Middle order batting and Kumble’s bowling are the only areas of cricket where Indians can claim to have Test standard fitness. And relentlessness, one may add. That can cover up a bit for a lack of stamina and fitness amongst Indian fast bowlers. But to expect the ageing warhorses of Indian batting to make up for both bowling and fielding lacunae will be like expecting your 70 year old papa to carry you in his arms midway through a 10 mile walk because your legs are aching and his are not.

Just like Sourav’s men four years back the present group too have to bat gallantly right from the opening stand, bowl decently and catch (if not field) relentlessly to fight the Australian team over the length of the series. The fielders must take the responsibility that their bowlers need not have to dismiss the difficult-to-dislodge Haydens and Pontings twice every innings.

The Australians may be a good fielding side. But their main catchers are ageing, and if put under pressure in the latter halves of Test matches they can give Indian batsmen some unexpected lives. The Indian catchers need not return that favour.

The ravine between a 1-2 and a 2-1 can only be bridged by good opening stands and relentless smart catching from India.

From the Australian angle, the success of their batting is certain and only the extent of that success will be decided by the Indians. Their options lie elsewhere - early wickets or hard work. Their bowling line up look more than likely to do the job. But in case they do not, their batsmen will be under extra pressure to perform. And we all know that Australians can handle it all.

For the sake of engrossing cricket we hope that their talented adversaries live up to the expectations in inspirational fashion. And the two sensational keeper batsmen in either side contribute to a glittery New Year in cricket.