The "50/100 openers' rule"

‎80 years of playing Test cricket, and Indians still don't understand the basic requirement of scoring big in pitches favouring quicks. 


It is called the "50/100 openers' rule".


This rule is simple: 
Either 
(a) the openers need to play in a way that maximises chances of a 50 run opening partnership, Or 
(b) it really is the plan-B, essentially that in case of an early dismissal of opening partnership the next pair plays to ensure that 2nd wicket falls after team total crosses 100. 


While playing away, I haven't seen India do well in batting other than the 2 conditions getting satisfied.


After that, what more runs the opener gets or does not get CEASES NOT MATTER there will be someone else to score his runs.


Cowboy opening has worked for India ONLY WHEN these conditions get fulfilled..how many runs the opener got individually has hardly ever mattered to outcome of game unless it met the above criteria.


There can be failures even after those criteria are met, but there is certainly no success without it.


Probably it needed 2 series like these (Eng 2011 & Aus 2011-12) to show the value of Akash Chopra in the 2003 Oz series..or a chastised Sehwag in Perth / Adelaide 2008.


There is no 'aggressive opener' barring Michael Slater who has done well in quick-bowling conditions without being circumspect for the 1st 50 team runs. Not Gambhir, not Hayden, certainly not Sehwag. Partly because they did not have the techniques to counterattack fast bowling at its best... in their best innings these guys left the attacking for the stage after team crossed fifty.

[this 3rd straight rant in 15 mins time frame is also cross posted from FB]


PS: If you are wondering who penned the "50/100 Openers' rule" and how long back, then please rejoice at being part of history being created in this post!! This is the first time I am 'publishing' the rule.

Sehwag: Should he open again in Tests outside India??

"Laxman? Gambhir? Dravid? Kohli? Who gets dropped in 3rd Test?" We debate.


But why not sehwag? 


This series is not in india. He is not going to be watchful like he was in Aus'2008on a comeback trail..and will look to a 'free' century in Adelaide to maintain his 30 avg outside...(to be complimented by a 70+ at home and thus maintain the total 50 plus avg!!)


He does not 'ensure' anything except his failure outside India. Then should his position outside india be ensured?

On NOT losing the 1st Test of an away series

How important is that?


In that context, I have always rated that Brisbane'03 century by dada Ganguly (after 90/4) as the 3rd big turnaround point of Team India - after Eden 2001 and Leeds 2002. It changed the series from 'chin musicology' to 'unforgettable'. 
And considering it came from a player who never scored another away Test ton against big teams of his time (Oz, SA, Pak), that 144 was monumental.


And then he was also captain. Now we know the importance of a skipper under fire (warne's chin music chant) salvaging a match early in the series. In contrast, MSD has struggled badly in major away series except Eng 2007. Especially at times when a responsible 40 from him against new ball can extend the innings by 70-80 runs.


Aus 2003 was zenith of Dada the skipper. Is it MSD's time to reassess his place in Indian cricket?


I am a Dhoni fan, and no one holds the lack of bowling resources against him..but his presence is making us start behind other Test teams when playing away.
Also, he is into his 5th year of captaincy, a job that has NEVER been carried out this long by anyone except Border without disadvantaging the team dynamics.


[cross posted from FB]

Test batsmen and spectators bid adieu

AUs-vs-RSA, 2nd Test, 2nd day at Jo'burg


Tahir with Steyn.
Top class leg spin with express pace. 
Joyous to see both bowlers make the ball talk on same pitch, on same day.


It could be called a great session of Test cricket, if only we had batsmen brought up on better stuff than T20...batsmen who "don't look at 3rd slip fielders as aliens encroaching their space" [to borrow the commentators' words]. Pathetic state of things. And ominous when seen with Eden crowd not crossing 10000 on any day. Tells us that a generation of skilled Test batsmen and their spectators are all bidding adieu across the world hand in hand.


Pink ball day-night first class cricket must be tried next season, if not this one. It can't be worse for either cricket or cricketers than this...and it can always be eased out after letting the 'evening cricket' generation have a taste of cricket in whites.


[adopted from my FB wall post]

Indian Cricket team: who stole their cheese?

On a 2nd day home track designed to their strengths, they lost about 20 wkts for 209 all out. Between them, the 2 openers were virtually dismissed abt 10 times to short catches and no balls before they finally got out...this while playing a bottom-halfer team, West Indies.


I pray not, but I suspect the England series whitewash might have disturbed them like the 2004 'Final Frontier' home loss did. Dada lost his bearings as a skipper following that, and Greg C worsened things..


MSD and Fletcher may have a BIG repair job in coming years..even if India scrape thru this series. and they are abt to lose 50+ yrs of Test batting experience in coming months.


NOW...NOW even a World Cup win might start looking like snatching laddoos off infants!


[reposted from Facebook status]

WC2011 - Ind-vs-Eng ODI@Bengaluru

Another bashing festival on a bowler killing pitch! Only the result and the build up to it (i.e. final 10 out of 100 overs) will stay in memory, besides the rather indifferent captaincy by MS Dhoni before PP3 was taken by England.



Interesting takeaway of match:

Powerplay 3, dreaded by fielding captains, came to the rescue of both skippers when they were cluelessly ultra defensive in the face of slaughter by opposition batsmen. These Powerplays yielded crucial wickets. Instead of aiding the batting side who chose it, the PP3 of each innings produced important breakthroughs and upset the smooth 'milking operation' that the batsmen were carrying out in the face of inert captaincy combined with placid pitch.

I see merit in introducing an additional 5 overs of Powerplay (say 26th to 30th over). Modern captains are feeling the pressure and tend to give up on aggresive strategies altogether. Together we saw another example of a skipper, a celebrated one like Dhoni, not showing aggression even when defensive strategies had leaked runs badly without looking like producing a breakthrough. It was almost as if he was prepared to lose the game that way rather than try something more positive to upset England.

By having another middle over powerplay, skippers will be FORCED to be positive at and left with no choice but to back their bowlers with wicket taking field settings. We saw today what a major difference positive fields (resulting from PP3) can make even in a match that was virtually dead by 92nd over. Time for PP4

[source: expanded from my Facebook wall post after the match]

The fast and the Injurious

Munaf Patel is being flown in to replace Ishant Sharma in the tri nation ODI tourney at SL.
Reason: Ishant is struggling with a knee injury.

A tinge of sadness comes upon hearing those 2 names. Together, in the same sentence. In another depressing news of injury to an upcoming Indian fast bowler. As of today neither are quite the 'fast bowlers' as per the first three words of that report, none bowling with the menace associated with fast bowling. Certainly not any more.

And yet, this is what we got, and England had to believe they got, from Munaf in his first Test in early 2006. Those indeed are the dry stats and may not reflect much. But which Indian cricket fan can forget the thrilling memory of a debutante Munaf Patel sending down genuinely unplayable balls, balls that rose from length with English batsmen at Mohali wondering what hit them?

It was great while it lasted - all of one and half series.

Ishant the 'up your nose' fast bowler lasted a little more - about six months. This was his 'coming of age' match - and for the next quite some innings in all forms of the game he had 'The' Ponting (of 2007-08) as his bunny at the latter's own backyard.

Don't let your recent memory of Ishant's nightmare spells (inside IPL and out of it) make you snigger at the thought that his knockout spell on that overcast morning of the Perth Test ever happened. In case you have forgotten, you can check it out here. Forget the analysis by ex-cricketers in that video. Instead, look at the sheer number of deliveries and ways in which Ponting was lucky to survive for many overs in that 'up there for keeps', never-ending, unlucky-till-Ricky-fell 9-over spell by a 19 year old debutante. And the boy-man was almost as nippy and dangerous in the 9th over, when he got Ponting out, as he was at his first bowl.

Very recently, Ishant had once again looked intent and difficult-to-play in some spells of the 3rd 'Laxman & Ajantha' Test at P Sara Oval last week. That is where melancholy comes. Munaf went the 'can't retain top pace in the international circuit' way and broke hearts. Ishant did the same and broke hearts. Now that Ishant looks to be turning back ever so slightly he has to get injured at his knee.

The only hint of positive note that the news has: Munaf gets another chance to turn his clock back...and hopefully find his top pace again.

Aftermath of 16 part 1 versus Aftermath of 16 part 2

Twice in the current decade an Australian Test team has won 16 Tests on the trot only to be stopped by India from winning a 17th. On both occasions the 16th win had also come against India. However there could be no greater contrast in a losing team's acceptance of the supremacy of the winners than those 2 occasions of 16th consecutive wins.

Mumbai 2001 demoralised Indian fans and made them lose any hope of their team salvaging even a draw from the mighty Aussies under Steve Waugh. The next match, Eden 2001, has unquestionable cricketing merits but it is sweeter to Indian supporters because it came after the mauling that was Mumbai 2001.

Sydney 2008, on the other hand, was infamous. I am not referring to the much discussed non-cricketing mud slinging associated with the match. I am only referring to the unusually large number of umpiring decisions that went against India in that crucial test match, some thing that cannot be refuted by the 'it all evens out in the end' argument simply because there were so many of them going in one direction in a single pivotal game. [An instance of what could have been: India could have drawn or even won that Test and become the first team to defeat Aussies in a series Down Under ahead of South Africa].

While the Australian hunger for a win and their attitude of not giving the match uptill the last ball was amply on display in that Sydney'08 win, it was not accepted as a deserved win for Aussies even amongst their wise & sporting home fans, leave alone with the Indian team and cricket fans (including yours truly). One of questions I asked in my rant after Sydney 2008 was:
“Is the Australian team confident of beating India fair & square – even in Perth?”
Perth was the venue of the match following Sydney 2008. Subsequent developments might well prove that I had been foolish in casting apersions on the ability of a team that has just won 16 Test matches in a row (Not that it would have taught me any lessons. Thanks to my habit of predicting results / form on this blog, I have a chequered history of having egg on my face with predictions). I do not remember my exact frame of mind while making that post but I distinctly remember that the question was not asked in a fit of rage and that I believed in that question. India's first innings total at Sydney and Kumble's composure after the match, and not misplaced rage at being forced to lose, had a lot to do with that belief.

Sydney 2008 may have been Australia's 16th win in a row for the 2nd time but it looked a lot different from the first sequence. Back in Jan 2008 they were still a great team but looked more beatable than the team that lost at Eden 2001. Australia are set to play another Test match at Sydney on 3rd of January, 2009 and I think this is a good time to revisit that question. How do I stand today after having raised the question?

Here's a study:

Aftermath of 16 part 2
Since that 16th consecutive win at Sydney on 6th January, Australia have played 13 Test matches till end of the year 2008 and here are their results:

4 wins, 5 losses, 4 draws.

The 4 wins have come against the 7th & 8th ranked teams - NZ & WI.
3 of the losses have occured at home venues.

Aftermath of 16 part 1
Now we look at the 13 matches they played after Eden 2001:
8 wins, 2 losses, 3 draws.

One of the 2 losses was in the 3rd Test of that India 2001 series against post-Eden Indians and the other was against England attributable mainly to a sporting declaration followed by a marvellous fifth-day knock by England's Mark Butcher.

A note about the 3 draws would help complete the picture: Contrary to popular belief that Indians in 2003-04 were the best performing visitors in Australia in this decade (till SA this year), the NZ team that played in those 3 draws should be rightfully given that credit. True they do not have a famous win like Adelaide 2003 to show for their efforts. But we need to remember that the Kiwis were playing a full-strength Aussie team including Warne-McGrath and yet they pushed Australia to a stage where they had to bat rather well on the 5th day of the final Test to save the series (after Warne had scored 99 in the 1st innings!).


I have been a lifelong admirer of the Australians from a rival camp. But memories of the Australian team (including Gilly dearest) violently celebrating Sydney 2008 win has kept pricking me like a thorn, just like India's loss against Zimbabwe in 1999 World Cup and the rain-forced abandonment of last day's play of Chennai 2004 Test against Aussies. That video of last moments of Sydney 2008 brought back some unpleasant memories. But the post-Sydney'08 performance summary of the Australian team amply demonstrates that they have not got near enough to another such hysteric celebration since the 6th of Jaunuary 2008.

Predicting Australia's strategy on the 5th day

I had a chat with blogger friend Homer a while ago on the fourth day's proceedings. He thinks Australia are playing for a draw.

I do not think that is the correct assessment. I would say that, unlike other Australian teams from the past 10 years that tried to force results with both bat & ball (even from positions of disadvantage), these guys have gone back a step and decided that bat will save the match and set it up for ball to win it. Automatically that cuts down chances of a result as slower scoring rates mean less time to get the opposition out. However as I see it, the Aussies are backing themselves to bowl out India on the final day. And if that is possible in their book, why not reduce risk of losing the game at the same time by batting longer in the second essay?

Of course they would still have liked to set India in excess of 400 with nearly 5 sessions to go. But the Indian tailend resistance, combined with the absence of one Shane Warne and one Adam Gilchrist (that time Australia got 44 more first innings runs batting a session lesser than in 2008 on the back of Gilly's near-run-a-ball 104) , have denied them the luxury of having the best of both worlds. They will not risk losing for a result - at least not in this crucial 1st Test - and have designed their plans at Bangalore around that. It may be a retrograde step and give India space to escape with a draw, but I will still be pleasantly surprised if India manage that.

Now the reason why Australia feel they can bowl out India in the second innings even in the limited time remaining:

India have a few performances in the past 3 years that will encourage even teams much lesser than Australia to think that Indiare are more than likely to succumb if asked to secure a draw by batting over 2 sessions on final day. Leaving out the Sydney Test (which we could have surely saved had umpiring been better) we have done horrendously on the 5th days of 'live' Tests. Thank heavens that the current one is not the final Test of the series, which makes the filtered results even worse.

In the recent past the Indian batsmen, barring Sehwag & Sourav, have excelled in becoming sitting ducks on the fifth day by allowing the scoring rates to dip way below 3 very early in the final 3 sessions. That will again be the death trap that Australia will lay in the first 25 overs of the Indian innings tomorrow. They will try to remove Sehwag and then revert back to just restricting India for the 1st 2 hours. The 2nd burst of attack will come much later, after the drinks break in post-lunch session.

India will need to score at least 85 or 90-odd in those 25 overs without losing too many wickets. If India get stuck up in the first 25 overs, even retention of wickets will not matter in the end and they will certainly be in a soup. Getting stuck automatically means that the asking rate (for a win) goes beyond 5 with more than 40-45 overs remaining. An India win out of the equation rather early, Oz can then start manning up fielders around the bat that much earlier and prise out wickets.

Greg Chappell was around and has noticed the unbelievable transformation of Indian batting tigers to stagnant sloths on the final day in quite a few Test matches. If he missed Bangalore 2004 vs Aus and Bangalore 2005 vs Pak, he was with the team when India messed up Mumbai 2006 vs Eng. Then India repeated the story in Kingsmead 2006 & Capetown 2007, both against SA. The last occasion was not even a 4th innings, but the match was handed over to South Africa on a platter by an inexplicable withdrawal into shell by Dravid-Sachin in the 3rd innings leading to subsequent (and inevitable) dismissal of all middle order giants barring a positive Sourav.

It was almost the same story at Lord's 2007 vs Eng but rain came to India's rescue.

Rain and MS Dhoni, to be precise. Dhoni tried to be positive in that innings without being cavalier. In each of those above-referred innings of capitulation there has been at least one Indian batsman (even a lower order one) who has seen through the problem and tried to be positive. This batsman was the best player in the ruins mostly due to his right approach to the situation at hand, but lack of support from others had generally undermined his efforts and led to a loss. Kumble at Bangalore 2005 stands out in memory, as does Sachin at Mumbai 2006, Sourav-Dhoni at Kingsmead 2006 and Sourav at Capetown 2007.

During his stint as Indian cricket coach, Greg Chappell had identified the malady of the 4th innings immediately. He made an attempt to address it in Nagpur 2004 vs Eng, a match that saw India lag behind England all along, by sending out Irfan Pathan at number 4 on the final day. Ahead of Sachin. Agenda: playing a cameo quick innings. There was a controversy on that promotion and it was not necessarily a solution to the problem. I still think that promotion, and Irfan's quick 35, was a 'bluff' to prevent the strike rate dipping too early than an actual attempt to carve out an unlikely win. But it certainly did prevent England from manning up close-in positions till the final session (i.e. too late) and the game was 'successfully' drawn. However, the familar problems returned later in the series at Mumbai to cost India a series win.

As we can see in the instances above, India have been caught repeating the familiar "crumbling to own methods" act at the business end of Test matches in recent years, twice at this venue. We have seen no indication of any lessons being learnt by the middle order batsmen. They are still without glares while crossing the highway called "5th day" across to safety of a draw and the headlights of a car called "Rivals' stifling strategy" can still catch them unawares in middle of the road. Greg Chappell and Ponting will the last people to let go of this opportunity to throw back the hosts' old ghosts on their faces and try to eke out a 1st Test win that will hugely impact the outcome of the series.

Lessons that will not be learnt

Cricinfo quotes Australian captain Ricky Ponting thus:

"Some of the older players are probably looking at this as their last Test series. There are all sorts of things going around in the media at the moment, with claims that some of them will be forced out and told they have to retire at a certain time. Guys like Laxman and Dravid. And who knows when Sachin is going to call it quits.

"He's probably going to be the only one who is going to have the luxury of deciding when he is going to retire by the sound of it. I'm sure they'll be reminded of that on a daily basis, and not just by us. Their media will be all over them if we start the first Test well and put pressure on them in lots of different ways. "

Sad part is: Perhaps he is true with that last sentence. I remember the Australian captain saying similar words ahead of their 2004 campaign as well. It is like saying 'Indian media will help our cause.'

Even sadder: Very few, if any, in media will feel insulted by Ponting’s insinuation at the the way Indian sports journalists put pressure on THEIR players instead of the opposition. Most of them will STILL do as Ponting says if Australia do well in the first Test.

Ponting goes a step further and predicts the exact words that will come out in criticism of some Indians:

"If we can make their fielding look as bad as it is by some good running between wickets and good hustling and good pressure," Ponting said, "then you know straight away all the old stuff about the old bodies and 'Ganguly can't field' and 'Dravid looks a bit slow', all of that stuff will come out."

The two sides of the IPLT20 coin

Side 1:

Amit Varma raises his voice, defending both the quality of cricket and the money in it.

Purists – and I used to think of myself as one – often speak of Twenty20 cricket
disparagingly, as if it has reduced the fine game of cricket to something absurdly simplistic, where sloggers rule, hand-eye co-ordination matters more than finely honed technique, and bowlers are irrelevant. If you’ve been watching, you’ll know that isn’t true. Twenty20 is not a dilution of the game but an intensification of it.

Some commentators take issue with so much money being spent on a sport in a poor country. "[M]ost of these millions will be leaving India," de Lisle wrote in his
piece, "filling the coffers of Australian stars who are already very highly paid. Money shouldn't travel in a direction like that." If that logic was correct, we might as well stop poor countries from importing anything. Every trade happens because it leaves both parties better off, and the IPL's foreign players are being paid so much because they bring that much value to the table. That value, the return on those investments, will happen within India.

Side 2:

Gideon Haigh sees some light in the new toy but is concerned about the numerous dark patches. Those patches involve both the money and the quality of cricket.

On the cricket:

Already, however, I'm struck by the fact that what I've enjoyed are those moments when Twenty20 has looked more like cricket rather than less. And this is a problem, because there simply aren't enough of them. Twenty20 is envisaged as a concentrated form of cricket, without the pauses and longueurs that test the patience and understanding of the uninitiated. But it's less concentrated than crudely edited, and what is missing are those aspects of the game that make it linger in the mind, that impress on the imagination, that take time to understand, that need effort to appreciate. It requires nothing of its audience but their attendance and their money. Apparently, the first episode of Shah Rukh Khan's Indianised version of Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? airs later this week. Pardon me for thinking that Khan's two new presentations have a few things in common.

Twenty20 has rightly been called a batsman's game, but it is a very particular kind of batsman: the type whose game is built on eye and strength. If a new Dravid were to begin emerging now, I suspect he would face a career as a second-class cricket citizen.

The game's skills, meanwhile, have been massively rationalised. What we see in the main is not so much batting as hitting, not so much bowling as conveying. The batsman is assessed by the change his strokes are leaving out of six; the bowler is like the fall guy in a comic routine stoically awaiting the inevitable custard pie.

And on the money:

Profit maximisation is the name of the game - and that goes for administrators, franchisees, players, managers, broadcasters and sponsors alike. The possible negative consequences for other countries or other forms of the game are of no account compared to the commercial, and doubtless also political, ambitions of the likes of Lalit Modi and Sharad Pawar. It is not even about giving the people what they want; it is about giving the people what Modi and Pawar want them to want, and can then make a packet out of selling them.

Exactly why the people deserve this is not abundantly clear. Perhaps it is an instance of what I once saw defined as the Golden Rule of Arts and Sciences: "Whoever has the gold makes the rules." But the contrast I noted earlier between the proceeds of my own humble cricket event and the IPL's was not merely a matter of quantum. All of the Yarras' hard-won $583.50 will go straight back into the game's beneficiation. Of what proportion of the billions raised by the IPL, I wonder, will that be true?

Gideon's taken a goofy dig at the clamour from various quarters, including the English players' clan, that ICC create a window for the IPL in its annual calendar:

You don't have to be Einstein - hell, you don't have to be Napoleon Einstein - to realise that if the IPL contains even a glimmer of promise, it won't be stopping there: pretty soon cricket's schedule will have more windows than the Sears Tower.

Follow whom?

Rahul Dravid’s decision not to enforce a follow-on allowed England to escape with a draw in the last Test. But it is amazing, the Indian media’s obsessive desire to keep cricket in the centre of a controversy with the current Indian skipper preferably at the wrong end of it. The debate on Rahul Dravid’s non-enforcement of follow-on in the Oval test refuses to die down. It was a national shame, it seems, that the think tank led by the captain inflicted upon a proud cricketing nation.

Excuse me? Are we talking about the same nation that sent that team management on a three month long far-n-away tour without a coach and carrying a grandfatherly manager? The same team that is forced to make a gutsy wicketkeeper play as a Test opener and is lucky to see the gamble come off? The team in which the captain, upon arriving at venues, learns that his duties include assigning room allotments to players with little or no help from people generously sent on a benefit tour of England in the guise of official post holders? The team that has never put forward either a bowling quartet that surprises none when it takes 20 wickets or a set of Test fieldsmen that routinely complete fielding innings without allowing a few important batsmen of the opposition to bat twice?
We can go on, really. Is that the same country where the cricket Board considers its job as done merely by issuing ban threats to an alarming multitude of first class players joining a rebel league and thinks nothing of starting a dialogue to get to the root? Are these players not playing for a board that goes on to call a meeting amidst this Indian Cricket League controversy - only to complete the far more critically relevant job of trying to identify a future replacement for the present Board President a good part of a year ahead of his expiry date?

To call a spade a spade, Rahul Dravid was afraid of even chasing 150 odd in the final innings of the Oval Test. He was not taking a risk – the great Indian last-Test-last-innings ‘chokes’ efficiently led by the man himself in numerous recent home and away series (v-Pak-05, v-Eng-06, v-SA-07) played on his conservative mind. He was being defensive. Rightly so. An amateur, playing against a professional, plays with a clear mind and takes a few risks when he has nothing to lose; however when some of those come off and our amateur friend secures a position of ascendancy he is happy to just ensure that there is no reversal ‘coz the ascendancy is win enough for an amateur playing a professional.

Rahul wasn’t defensive in Trentbridge (2nd Test) at the toss. He had precisely 2½ in-form bowlers in his team (one Zaheer, 0.75 Kumble, 0.75 RP and a wandering spirit by the name of Sreesanth) to take 20 opposition wickets, none a run-through’er and the 1st innings of the 2nd Test was likely to decide it all. Fresh from the ‘glory’ of saving the Lords’ Test Rahul the India-A captain (A for amateur) saw nothing to lose there and backed his two-and-half to try and give their best. Rahul hit a jackpot when they went further and bowled out opposition for less than two hundred. Further, the makeshift opening pair, not expected to last this summer, virtually wiped off the deficit without getting separated. At this point the captain woke up from his daydream and, sensing ascendancy, decided to close out the opponents by not taking any more risks.

We are yet to grasp the extent of Indian fortune there with English batsmen generously helping the Indian bowlers remove them before the latter could get tired and look around for the non-existent backup. Dravid the captain could do with some praise coz’ he decided to field first without still being fully confident of ineptness of the English tail (Prior had a near match winning partnership with KP in the opening test)

Coming back to the follow on, if I had arranged rooms and pairings for players (like Dravid had) and found myself in a scarcely believable position in the series on the fourth morning of the Oval Test, I would gladly opt for any option of closing out any remaining risk of not winning the series even in exchange of my own chance to extend the lead. Throughout the series the Indian seam bowlers punched way above their height inspite of shoddy fielding support to their efforts (the latter led by Rahul himself). Rahul the skipper did not want this miraculously succeeding setup to be tested by the English professionals once too many.

In other words. Rahul played the 14th and 15th days of the series as if he was captaining an amateur cricket team on the verge of giant killing history. And I see no misinterpretation by Rahul there, for all the messages that the Board administrators directly or unwittingly sent to its players in recent times through its handing of the game and its burning issues scream and say ‘we are amateurs’.

In all the gung ho about Rahul’s timid decision making we recall having seen that decision by India on Australia at Sydney 2004. I supported it then, and I support it now. Yes, if this ‘timid’ ploy were to be adopted with the opposition 1-0 up I would have questioned it. That is the time for amateurs to take risks, isn’t it? And I would definitely have questioned it if this team with a lead were a profesional setup.

Interestingly in both the Oval and Sydney matches we might have won notwithstanding the defensive ploy but for fielding lapses. It’s been three and a half years and we still offer crucial let-offs just as merrily. Just as well; learning for mistakes is for professionals, not for teams picked by selectors doing their services on honorary basis.

Now can we stand up and appreciate the Indian players at all levels for what they achieve inspite of these hitches?

PS: I was a bit too harsh there – actually they were semi professionals playing under amateur administration. How else do you explain Rahul Dravid offloading important duties to other senior players and coming out triumphant? For the first time I wish guys like Sachin, Anil and Sourav retire immediately and kick out some of the BCCI ****ers functioning irrespective of place value much like those asterisks. I seriously back our players to do a better and more honest job of ruling Indian cricket any day.

Thus ends a cheaply peddled World Cup..

..when I am down to writing a blog post away from live television even as the final stages of a game no less than a Cricket World Cup final is being played out.

Scene 1: A damp morning awaits the World Cup Final. Play starts in the morning after a 2½ hour delay. The match is reduced to 38 overs a side even before a ball is bowled.

Scene 2: Chasing Australia's mammoth total of 281, Sanath Jayasuriya falls into the vicious trap of Duckworth Lewis. He eyes the rain clouds and senses that a rain interuption, possibly the last one, is round the corner. He desires to keep his team ahead. In trying to manufacture an ugly across-the-line swipe off the last ball of a Michael Clarke over he surrenders his wicket and sets Sri Lanka further back on the D/L chart after the loss of third wicket.


Scene 3: The 5th ball of the 25th over is bowled. Fairly dense droplets of rain are pouring for quite a while now. The pitch is getting mucky and the outfield / bowling run up gets more dangerous by the minute. However the batsmen Chamara Silva and skipper Jayawardene do not budge as that could mean the last of their team's hopes to win the cherished title. Umpires Steve Bucknor and Aleem Dar had hesitated on forcing a pause of play under the exceptional circumstances but now they decide enough is enough and call out for the covers.

Scene 4: The play resumes soon with two overs missing from the over quota available to Sri Lanka and the target reduced to 269. For the last few overs a couple of new-to-the-crease batsmen of a brave team making a valiant attempt to chase a steep target against the world's best side in the biggest and most watched cricket match of all have had the small additional worry of looking at the skies after every delivery as well as the 'parallel' scoreboard of M/s D/L for playing to two different game plans at the same time. One game plan is to win the game over the full distance, the other to stay ahead if rain interrupts the match.


All of this is actually taking place even though the tournament rules provide for a reserve day for EACH of the matches of the tournament. Unbelievable! When I first heard of the extra day during the group league matches I failed to appreciate the cricketing logic behind curtailing rain affected matches by more than 10 overs at any time earlier than the 2nd day. I still cannot reckon just how they could allow a final to be played under that same set of rules.

Perhaps remaining true to their ever-greedy selves that owe allegiance only to the telemedia & their sponsors, an all important group of entities that naturally want the matches to end on scheduled days, the rulemakers of International Cricket Council have decreed that:

(i) the reserve day is to be used "only if we have a match with any unfinished innings of less than 20 overs" for any of the sides; and that
(ii) the match starts afresh on the next day instead of the simple matter of completing an interrupted but full 50 over match over two separate days.

And who on earth would prefer that sort of painfully obnoxious enforcement of the word "one day" in "One Day Internationals" in exchange of a proper game of cricket? Who would refuse to even spare the Big Final that crap? Of course the self styled 'keepers of the game', the International Cricket Council.

As indicated in the previous mid-match post I had reckoned Sri Lanka to be overwhelmed by the concession of 30 odd extra runs to sublime big hitting skills of the Aussie wicketkeeper, runs that Adam Gilchrist had no business getting against a bowling side as good as the Lankans, runs that turned a potential nail biter into an expectedly one-sided affair barring an improbable 2nd miracle. However the speculation about the final margin - a fair one - is destined to remain just that as Sri Lanka, who unlike Australia had to suffer mid-innings downpours and consequently let a few crucial mid overs go by while they were helplessly torn between the two game plans, have been as badly hit by the ICC's rule makers as by that blinder from Adam Gilchrist.

Shame on you, ICC. Can you not just do us cricket lovers a favour by disappearing from the face of cricket? The game cannot seriously go on any worse by itself than it is doing at present under your central regime.

Update: These excerpts from cricinfo's text commentary sums the sad end to the people's World Cup aptly. Read on:

6.12pm The light's been offered and Sri Lanka have taken it - meaning Australia have won the World Cup again. They certainly deserve it and are huddling in celebration. A bit of a damp squib of an ending, which is of course fitting.

Now what's this? Aleem Dar is having a word with Australia, telling them they can't yet celebrate. Officially this match isn't over. You couldn't make it up. You don't have to.

And the farce continues! Now the stands for the ceremony have been brought on... and are off again, as the umpires shoo them away. My word.

6.17pm It's what is traditionally known as night. It is so dark but the umpires are now saying the match will continue. Heads should roll for this. The man is out putting the 30-yard circles back out. He needs a torch to do so. The batsmen are heading out to the middle accompanied by a guide dog.

6.30pm Congratulations to Australia who were the best team from the first match and maintained their relentlessly high standard throughout. Sri Lanka gave them a game but on the day came up just short.

There's a certain irony that cricket's four-yearly showcase ended in farce ... Australia, Sri Lanka, the Caribbean and millions of spectators deserved more but given what has gone before today, it was almost inevitable. You can spin it all you like, this tournament has not done the game any favours and people at the top, if they had any decency, would be contemplating their futures. But we all know that won't happen.

[cross posted on Desicritics]

The Big Swim - Where My Heart Still Goes On

Disclaimer: All characters in the story are fictional. Any similarity with anyone living or dead is purely coincidental.

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

April 24, 2007: It is the 43rd day of our trip. An amazing cool day awaits me on the breezy deck of the cruiser. It is an irresistible combination, always provoking a liberating sensation in the midst of the sea. You feel on top of the world, another world.

Let me introduce myself first.

On second thoughts I do not matter here. Let's say I'm a lot like The Anci.. OK, it is the third millenium so it is proper to say that I am like Jack Dawson of Titanic the movie minus his Rose. I had my Rose too but..

I walk ahead and stand near the tip where the railings from both sides of deck meet. This place floods me with memories. My Rose used to stand on this railing with both hands stretched out like wings and eyes closed, dreaming of flying like a proud albatross. A childlike joy dripped from her countenance when she emulated Titanic's Rose or the albatross - I'll never know - and I loved her for it. Fifty feet below where I stand, the cruiser is cutting through the cold seawater at a leisurely pace. It is following four guys that are swimming in the ocean for an ever-nearing destination ahead. Those guys are Oz, Kwi, LionL and SpBok, in descending order of their ranking positions in the quadrennial Big Swim.

The guys are participating in a month-and-half long swimming challenge of several rounds spread across seven seas. The Final Destination is now just five days ahead. I am holding the pre-trip prediction sheet where 90 days ago I jotted down four prospective winners from the starting lot. My heart still wants to take one last look at the piece of paper before jettisoning it with other redundant paraphernalia into the milky turbulent trail of the four valiant swimmers that is being continously devoured by our dogged vessel like a never-ending noodle.

The four names were noted down in large fonts and fourth one was later touched up in a loving red hue. A sprinkling of gold from the morning sun today makes that name look nearly as beautiful as the person herself. I had backed Oz, Green, LionL and my Rose, in that order of ranking, to remain in the hunt when the final week began. Green inexplicably got off at the first port and the other, the love of my life, sank into the depths soon thereafter. But Kwi and SpBok, two of the next three on my rating charts, managed to stay on board. (I had rated Kwi and Windz joint 5th and SpBok 7th.)

Immune to logic, I pick up the pen and circle off the two lost names on the sheet to write Kwi and SpBok above them with a strange introspection. I peep across the sheet at the four moving images challenging the wavy sea in the distance. SpBok was the crowd favourite to win the challenge at the outset. I dedicate a silent round of applause to him for doing better than I thought but his swim (so far) has been more of the seasick guy from my predictions than the prospective champ he was made out to be. Not too many people around would argue that SpBok would have been following the Big Swim on his bedroom telly this weekend if even one of Green and Rose could have stayed on for a half-decent duration instead of letting two valiant but inexperienced prize fighters called Bong and Irlos take their places in 11 of the 24 Swims in the Super Round. If..

The caressing breeze stops abruptly. Logic intervenes along with the smell of rotten fish being thrown out from the deck. My Trance of Lost Romance is broken. Soothsayer designates are not permitted any 'if's. All that reasoning and ranking counts for nothing when two of the four contestants you had backed to be swimming into the last week are out and down by Day 10 of 48. No droplets of mercy for my dead prophecy ever welled up as all the talk of 'two bad days' went around the deck. The format was circulated well ahead of the swim and I laid my bets knowing full well of the rules, the scheduled face-offs and their pitfalls.

There goes my prediction sheet into the ocean. It gets wet rather quickly and sinks. The blue embraces the red Rose and takes her home. I repent not making a boat or swan out of it like childhood days. It could have floated a while longer in the ocean and sung a final song before going down.

April 25, 2007: LionL has eliminated Kwi in the one-on-one challenge last night. The bout between Oz and SpBok is scheduled for tonight. Only one of the two winners gets to complete the swim in the swim-to-finish thereafter. In four days we'll know who gets to stand on the railing with both hands stretched out like my Rose when the ship reaches the Final Destination cheered by admiring onlookers.

The winner will no doubt have earned the applause by dint of stamina, bravado, hard work and good luck. However by then the faithful cruiser ship would have done enough to get a fair share of the applause because strangely the journey has been tougher for the lifeless ship than the living, breathing, struggling and retiring contestants in this edition of The Big Swim.

[Cross posted on Desicritics]

When will we learn?

Inzamam poured his heart out at a press conference yesterday and urged the Pakistan media to first sort out the right way to support their own national team and then show the public the way to do it. He asked, "Are we not Pakistanis any more after losing two cricket matches?" At last a captain from the sub-continent has openly expressed his views on the role of media in whipping up mass hysteria, a phenomenon that prevents players of this region from playing cricket as just another game.

Anil Kumble also formally announced his retirement from ODIs yesterday. Even without going into Test exploits Anil is arguably the greatest one-day bowler to serve his country post-1983 just as Inzy was Pakistan's finest one-day batsman since 1992.

Anil Kumble, being a restrained personality, spoke at a much lower pitch than Inzamam's and asked the people to stand by the players in the midst of a crisis. But enough was on show around us yesterday to suggest that that is not going to happen anytime soon in this emotional country where a sensationalist media aims to make a living out of fanning people's baser emotions.

If we look past Kumble's last few years in ODI's, he has served as the go-to bowler for the skippers he has played under. Whenever the team needed a wicket the ball went to him. When the situation demanded drying up of runs he would have to bowl. His average and strike rate are less impressive than corresponding figures of some other contemporary ODI bowling greats. But have we not heard all and sundry complaining these days about Sachin and other Indian players being unable to deliver the goods under pressure? You only need to catch up on the videos of India matches between 1990 and 2000 to believe that none in this Indian team knew that essential part of the international game better than this man Kumble.

But all that we did for him on his day of ODI farewell was dilute his big farewell decision by diverting the attention away from it. Only NDTV concentrated on Anil Kumble and his on field achievements. Most of the other news channels failed to get over their sensationalist streak and instead concentrated on Ian Chappell's suggestion that Sachin Tendulkar should consider retirement. It was more or less the same with print and online media. The big theme for the day was: Should Sachin join Anil and Inzy?

Anil Kumble is without any doubt the greatest ever Test player of India and was also the country's best ODI bowler over a significant period. For such significant contribution to the most popular game in the country he received little or no share of the adulation many of his peers and juniors enjoyed and encashed in the form of sponsorship deals. His achievements are mentioned with muted appreciation rather than gregarious delight. No one mentions his name in any kind of on-the-street opinion polls. Even on the day of his one day retirement it was no different. People were busy answering queries on Sachin's future rather than Anil's past.

Anil Kumble hopes to carry on playing Tests for some time and end his Test career on a high note. He may well do so by cricketing yardsticks ( I hope he does) but chances are he will be an also-ran on the cricket news columns of Indian media even on that day. For he is a cricketer, not a sensation.

Update: Shekhar Gupta writes in the Indian Express:

"It is precisely because our cricket has improved over the years that our expectations have risen. We have recently won 3-1 in
Pakistan, convincingly against England, the West Indies, Sri Lanka and South Africa at home. Not just that, our Test performance has improved a great deal in the past five years or so. We beat Australia in India and came closer to beating them on their home-turf than anybody else had in their decade of total dominance. We won a series in the West Indies just last year, after exactly 30 years, and won our first Test match in South Africa, in our third outing.

And just as an afterthought, can I ask you what was the one common factor in almost all these great victories? From Kolkata to Chennai to Sydney to Jamaica, it was a batsman called V.V.S. Laxman who stood up to be counted, a real match-winner. How come he is not even a fraction of a star
that so many of the others are? "

Shekhar concludes ruefully:

"...if V.V.S. Laxman does not have the same star quality, the same fan following, as so many of the others, it only means one thing: we may be equal to the South Americans in their sporting passion but we don’t quite know our cricket as well as they know their football."

Thou shalt not predict

A look at that dated screengrab from the DC homepage last Sunday tells you a story about the risks of predicting results in sport. That one was a pundit-fan’s response to Pakistan's exit from World Cup 2007. After Black Friday it is now India’s turn to bow out with a whimper.

In recent months I have often acted like a self-styled crystal gazer and predicted with considerable authority that these two teams would be amongst the semi finalists. Now that both have missed the Super 8 with the same degree of authority I am left wondering - what do I strike off? The punditry, perhaps.

Promoting cricket beyond the borders or killing the Golden Goose

Some ICC events are planned in the months after the World Cup with the 'aim' of pushing the geographical boundaries of the game. But like all other first-time exercises these off-shore series / tournaments too need to have an impact asessment study done on them. To the extent of my knowledge there is a fair history of such exercises in world Cricket. I would like to know if the ICC has done scientific studies on earlier such series played in the name of popularising the game.

Why do I suddenly think of that? Because India have a couple of such series coming up in the course of 2007. You find Indians everywhere, and wherever they migrate and settle they keep going crazy about this game. With varying intensities the pattern is similar with other sub-continent / South Asian expats, and perhaps also with Australians. But does playing a high- profile cricket series in a 'targetted' expansion area actually catalyse development of interest amongst other kids and youngsters in that region that do not think much of cricket?

It may, or it may not. Frankly I do not have a take or theory on that. The phenomenon is far too complex to be predicted on a blog post by a bloating neighbourhood bowler with no stamp on his passport. Not that anything was ever going to depend on such take. But surely it is important that the ICC studies past history of such tours before cramping an already cramped players' calendar with more such events?

One of the earlier outland-ish series was the Indo Pak Sahara Cup played in Toronto, Canada from 1996 to 1998 before Kargil put paid to its continuation. It was more of a BCCI-PCB event than an ICC one. No one's complaining on the quality of cricket played (in fact the first two series were outstanding) but I would love to hear from one of the 15 men in the present Canadian World Cup squad - or even some of their fringe players who missed selection - that he picked up a bat / ball after watching Sachin / Waqar in those series.

It will show that the exercise, the choice of venue in particular, was not entirely futile, which will be a momentous pacification for me and, I'm sure, many others who still feel that some events related to that Sahara Cup tournament killed off an in-form India's chances to win the 1999 World Cup long before the first ball was bowled.

I will recount the mysterious chain of events for you. The 1998 edition of Sahara Cup at Toronto was scheduled in September, the usual time. However it clashed with the Commonwealth Games cricket matches to be hend in Malaysia, where India had agreed to send a team. The IOC (indian Olympic Committee) refused to settle for a second string Indian team and so did Sahara, referring to their 5 series contract.

BCCI procrastinated typically till matters came to a head. The team that knit together a string of tournament wins in 1998 was consequently split as a last-minute 'masterstroke' and sent in opposite directions for participating in both tourneys. It was an act that in retrospect amounted to splitting the golden goose in two halves. Both the halves fared badly, and could never again be the sum of their parts even after they were reunified.

Admittedly smart scheduling can avoid involvement of such high stakes for any individual team. But times have changed since 1996 and international cricket is no more a fun game in the sun. The players are getting worn out by a combination of increasing number of matches and skyrocketting pressure to keep performing. The injury list ahead of the World Cup tells a story the ICC and cricket boards may not want to hear.

God knows what further tolls the list will include at the end of the longest World Cup and then at the end of relentless 2007. Did these players, the guys people pay to watch, not deserve a month or two of time away from the cauldron in the aftermonths of the showpiece event? If not, then when?

On the other hand if the ICC has serious (rather than financial) reasons to believe in the promotional effect of past 'beyond the border' series and shares the study reports on previous such exercises with the players, the latter will feel gratified about the service they are putting in for the spread of their beloved game. It will do little for the aching knees, ailing backs and bruised elbows but deep inside it may just make this maddening lack of respite a lot more bearable.

I refrain from commenting upon other teams who play far less than India in the coming season but the Indian players would need mental marijuana like that to survive the Tsunami of 15 Tests and 38-46 ODIs (depending on success in tourneys, and adding the 3 ODIs in Ireland vs. Aus) awaiting them between May 2007 and April 2008.

So can we train eight guns on the matador's forehead and expect him to fight the raging bull? In other words do we really expect Rahul Dravid's boys to concentrate on just the World Cup at hand? After all early elimination from the showpiece allow them some much needed (and well deserved, in my opinion) rest to prepare for the FTP ordeal.....

Update: This link via Homer suggests worse is in store. Guess 2007 is the year of cricket beyond the boundaries - of cricketers' physical abilities. 'Do paise ka tamasha' indeed, Homer.

Gimme the name & I'll give u the rule

The BCCI is about to admonish the North Zone selector for criticising Rahul Dravid in public. cricinfo reports:

Although they will not directly take action against Bhupinder just yet Cricinfo has learned that the BCCI will be writing to Bhupinder on Wednesday seeking an explanation. They will also, in the same missive, be reminding Bhupinder that it is not in his place to be making comments about individual players in the Indian team.

Your first reaction: "That is impressive". But I am afraid you are in for a long wait if you are about to take your hat off to BCCI on that. No way, they just won't let you. Apparently these press ettiquettes, e.g. not singling out players for direct criticism, are to be expected ONLY from the selectors, those necessary evils that rank just below the players on the list of topmost necessary evils.

That ettiquette book, however, gets thrown out of the window when the board secretary speaks. He is obviously swimming in another ocean and can blast any individual player in public at will. Niranjan Shah has this to say about Munaf Patel and his mysterious injury:

"I had yesterday summoned John Gloster to get a report from him on Munaf Patel. According to his report Gloster said they had taken all the fitness tests necessary and felt that he was totally fit. I think Rahul [Dravid] and the other members of the team management must also have been convinced of Munaf's fitness before taking him in the eleven. Certain injuries are such that the physio may believe that the player will recover any time. Whether the player has that same confidence or not is something else. The players should be honest with themselves, there's no point blaming the physio."

Moreover, if you get into the intent behind the Bhupinder blasting then it sounds more the rant of a disappointed Dravid fan than the planned assault of a ruthless critic sharpening his knife since the ODI debacle. Let us take a look at Bhupinder Singh Senior's take on the probable reasons of Rahul Dravid's unimpressive returns on South African soil:

"I just feel that Dravid's mind was not on the game....."

"Maybe the poor form of the top order was affecting his confidence. We all know what he is capable of and lack of runs from his bat definitely wasn't helping our cause."

"Dravid is like a bedrock on which our batting revolves. He looked a far cry from the kind of batsmanship we are used to seeing from him. In fact, the whole batting department was a big disappointment."

If I were the Indian skipper and had done my job to the best of my abilities, I would perhaps be a little hurt by that first line. But I then would also feel reasonably compensated by the stuff that follows. It is a veiled appreciation for Rahul Dravid the batsman, an indirect proclamation that we take Rahul's overseas success as granted and that even reasonable shows by the rest of our middle order batting could not compensate the unexpected failure of the 'bedrock'.

Do write back if you feel "India's most promising fast bowler for the future" would think the same of his board secretary's discourse on his physical misfortune to the media.

The great folly of the greats

In team sport and, inevitably then, in life there are two kinds of people. One group projects they are doing the needful. The second group does the needful.

The first group does it because they lose focus of the job at hand and start thinking of the negative possibilities and the criticism it will bring. So they take an option which, even though they know it to be second best, looks hardworking and thus inevitably brings them the sympathy of having trying hard.

"What will be said about me if I fail" becomes an intimidating thought to these men and women and following the processes that fetched them success becomes an impossibility. They stop realising that their chosen path is adverse to the job they got to do. They keep on taking this option even though they have perished with it time and again. So much for the argument of 'maybe this was the right way for them'.

In the process these people undermine the efforts of that other group who have not lost focus and who indeed were trying equally hard, and in the right way.

On the fourth day of the 3rd Test, as in that 3rd Test against England in Mumbai in 2006 and against Pakistan at Bangalore in 2005, [that is, the defining moment of many a Test series in the recent past] Dravid and Tendulkar belonged to the first group while Karthik, again, confirmed his place in the second group.

So was Dada. The highest run aggregate amongst Indian batsmen in the 3 Test series came from the reinstated Sourav Ganguly. Comebacks this late in the career have seldom been more emphatic than that in Indian cricket.

Some time before the 1st Test he had shared his ways of success at Potchefstroom with others in the team. He followed those narrated methods right through this series. By the end of the 4th day at Newlands Dada's approach has been confirmed to be correct in emphatic fashion, while the reluctance of some others to heed his well-meaning advice shows them in rather poor light.

These are extreme moments when we actually start seeing some worth, and purpose, even in Viru's recklessness.

True that there were other let-downers like Laxman and Zaheer who got out to themselves and were an insult to the basic education of cricket and to the faith that millions of people, including the selectors, place on them. Also not too insignificant were the umpiring blunders that have continued over the series. Fascinating how most of them go against Asian teams whenever they are (deservingly or otherwise) on the verge of inflicting humiliation on one of the 'big' Test nations. Since those errors come from many umpires irrespective of nationality, I sometimes wonder if that ability to err against the Asian side at critical moments is a pre-requisite for becoming an ICC elite panel umpire.

Yet the partnership between two of India's best ever batsmen at a seminal moment for cricket in their country will remain the most unpalatable of them all irrespective of the result this fascinating match throws up today.

Their coccooning disheartened all viewers that have seen them batting with purpose in the past. Worse, it confirmed a sense of deja vu that came with the dismissal of Ganguly in his born-again avatar of the free-scoring strokeplayer of yore.

The "Shoot 'em or Hang 'em?" variety of cricket journalism

I do not expect the ‘Go Chappell' / 'Remove Dravid’ section of the media to exactly salute those 2 gentlemen for the successful move of opening with Dinesh Karthik in the opening day of the 3rd test. This section plays on the baser instincts of sports lovers and prefers spewing venom in retrospect when a move or a strategy fails.

Surely everything Dravid and Chappell get right – like today’s Karthik move, like the bowling combination in Jo’burg, like the vindication of continued faith in Jaffer even as Pathan was left out - must be the craftwork of some bald-n-bearded ghost the two of them summon after the team meeting by rubbing an old lamp that Greg Chappell bought from Sharjah while commentating there in April 1998.

A specific case of tale-twisting comes to mind in this regard: the Irfan Pathan affair. So many of these people sat on the fence and heard clearly when Dravid – during all those heady (one)days of late 2005 and early 2006 when Pathan could do nothing wrong with bat or ball – kept repeating in press conferences that Pathan was merely a bowler who could bat. It must have been clear enough message for Pathan that he was getting picked solely on his bowling.

More than a year has passed but nothing has since been said either by the team management or even Pathan himself to indicate a modification of that primary role expected of Pathan. Yet the daggers came out when Pathan’s bowling took a dip and his struggle with the bat unfortunately coincided with it.

Only these helical thinking people – perhaps still nursing a hangover from the Ganguly-Chappell split - can explain exactly how ‘Pathan’s bowling was destroyed by Greg and Dravid when they made him bat higher up’.

Agreed that the team management deserve some criticism for their obvious inability to rectify Pathan’s degenerating bowling and yet not calling for the services of a bowling coach. At this point of time, it is bloody unnerving to know that one fine day such trouble can also befall Srisanth and then the present supporting staff for the Indian side would be able to do precious little to get him back on track except suggesting a return to domestic cricket – to the bowler’s personal bowling coach, to be precise!

But it still beats me how his pinch hitter role in batting – on which he was not being assessed – could even be proposed as a reason for that bowling problem he continues to suffer from (apparently he conceded 108 for 2 wickets today out of the the opponents’ score of 270 odd at close to 5 runs an over in the Ranji match versus Uttar Pradesh).

Needless to think of them media nitpickers; those no-hopers making up such stories are forever attempting to yellow people’s minds by speculating on the first and third ways that the Dinesh Karthiks (and Irfan Pathans) do not even bother to think about.