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

A lesson on T20 bowling from Polly's handbook

Mumbai set a none too imposing 162 for Sehwag's Daredevils in a do or die match for the former. Great fielding and good bowling in the face of a lone Sehwag onslaught kept them in the hunt for much of the Delhi chase. Even after Sehwag's departure Shoaib Malik and Dinesh Karthik kept the Daredevils in the hunt. They were beginning to accelerate. Daredevils needed 55 from the last 6 overs and looked on course.

Shaun Pollock the captain had a choice to make. He had scalped the in-form left hander Dhawan in his initial 3 over spell. Now he decided to bring himself on for his last over. The very first ball broke the Daredevil partnership as Shoaib Malik skied a catch to mid-off. At that point of time the TV analysts showed Polly's 'pitch maps' against Delhi's left-handed batsmen, and then the right handed.

As expected both pitch maps were a cluster of numerous dots in that familar back-of-length area [propose to rechristen it as the 'Pollock-McGrath' zone]. Just one pitched up delivery each for the left and right handers. The interesting part: that only full ball he had bowled to the left handers fetched him Dhawan's wicket and the one to the right handers got Malik.

That map indicated the full ones were not slip ups but deliberate invitations to batsmen itching to break loose. Only they were bowled slightly slower in pace, with fielders perfectly placed to take an uppish drive (Dhawan) during the powerplay overs or a skied mishit (Malik) during the slog. For the batsmen, they are overwhelmed by temptation when they see a 'loose ball' from the master of parsimony.

The batsmen, meanwhile had changed over and a set Dinesh Karthik was taking the strike. I was wondering about that pitch map when Pollock came on to bowl and sure enough bowled that full slightly-slower ball to Karthik. Sure enough Karthik failed to resist the bait and spooned it up in a bid to hit the ball out of the park but luckily got away with 2 runs as he managed to place it wide of the fielder.

That Malik wicket decisively tilted the game towards Mumbai.

I will go a little further and state that the bowlers are gradually finding their feet in Twenty twenty cricket. Succcessful defence of medium sized totals in each of the last three games is proof of that. Hope some other bowlers can learn and perfect (it is a high risk bait) Polly's trick to further improve the balance between bat and ball.

Update: The bowlers have found their feet and are on the kill, in fact. Tanvir destroys Chennai Super Kings with a 6-for!

"And then there were none..": Pictures speak louder than words

While searching cricinfo for those pictures of Greg Chappell in the previous post I came across a rare photograph showing 3 Australian greats Rod Marsh, Dennis Lillee and Greg Chappell on March 14, 1986 after their last match. Like everyone else I too have always known that Australian cricket went into a downward spiral for better part of a decade after an exodus of that magnitude. But this picture told the story with greater precision and impact than all I read on it earlier.

And it reminded me of a similar issue closer home that hit me harder. It is a sad and horrific thought that we are getting closer to the inevitable day when cricinfo uploads a similar pic showing any 3 or 4 of Kumble, Sachin, Dravid, Laxman and Ganguly.

Again I have read on the imminent Indian exodus more than once. I have even touched the issue on some of my blogs. But the visualisation of that future picture is far more grim than all the words I took in or churned out.

Afterthought 1: March 14 may be a jinxed day for cricket followers across nationalities. Look what happened 12 years later - Richie Richardson retired from all cricket after that scarcely believable semi final elimination in the 1996 world cup. Wait - this one too had come up in the previous post! Isn't that proof enough that I am getting repetitive even outside of crying about missing Brian Lara? Now you get why I post so less these days.

Afterthought on afterthought 1: While on that 1996 semi final, I suppose Curtly Ambrose still rues the way he and Courtney failed to get the skipper back on strike in that fateful last over. No wonder he compensates amply by supporting his erstwhile boss in another sphere by playing base guitar to Richie's rhythm guitar in their famously named band - The Big Bad Dread and The Baldhead. I would sincerely love to see Steve Waugh float a band sometime soon and get Tubby Taylor to lead it. Imagine what a clash it will be when the two bands perform some day on the same stage for the "World Beater" tag (unofficial). Especially after Steve shares some entirely personal thoughts to Dreads' base guitarist on what he should be doing.

On his righthandedness Rohit Sharma

IPL's Deccan Chargers sank to another defeat today (Well, yesterday - the clock struck 12 just now). The match did not even turn out to be close in the end. Warnie is the new Australian Guru in Indian shores even as the old one is still around nearby in the same state of Rajasthan. In fact Warnie is one up - in addition to coaching the Rajasthan Royals he is also captain and key bowler of the team (not just at the nets or behind the bowling machine).

Something in this DC-vs-RR match will linger on in our minds though. In the final overs of the Hyderabad innings we went back to sepia tinted mode. We were back to a once familiar sight of number eights and nines struggling to last and connect every ball to hand over the strike to the well set specialist batsman at the other end. There was every chance of remaining wickets all collapsing in a single over with the number four stranded. This used to be quite a common cause for chewed up nails for supporters during the 80's and even early nineties in all pre-T20 forms of the game. [Famous example: Richie Richardson in the 1996 WC semi final]

A little more specifically familiar was the way all that tension in the air would vanish for some moments whenever the number four was taking strike for one or two balls in the over. He was hitting everything his partners allowed him to face for a four or a six. Every one of those was an absolutely gorgeous cricketing shot played with all the time, elegance and disdain in the world.
Gosh, those exquisite drives through cover were something else. Aah - those pulls. And those lofted drives - slurrp. Those ugly hoicks - absent!

"Wasn't that Brian Lara batting for the West Indies on one of those days of his?"
"Nope, he retired around this time last year. "
"Wasn't there a technical snag in the telecast which they decided to fill in with a replay of Brian's logic defying 153* with Curtly & Courtney in Barbados 1999?"
"Nah - the ball was red and the attire was white in that match rather than the other way round. This man's wearing a biscuit shaded suit. And your Brian was left handed, silly."

That was I talking with me2. And I soon realised what me2 was saying. Yes, this was another match and that was Rohit Sharma of India. Yes, Brian was not number 4 but number 5 in the 1999 match. Yes, Rohit's classicism has more home grown Indian spice than Brian's Caribbean dash. And yes - Rohit's speciality had to end too quickly for my liking as the twenty overs were over.

Wonder what this game, in all three formats, has in store for Rohit Sharma's rare batting talent if he carries it forward thus. Earlier in the day Peter Roebuck hailed IPL in this piece but he also said:

"..India has not produced a high-class batsman for a decade."

We, Rohit's compatriots, will hope to say "you were wrong, mate" to Peter one day.

Meanwhile since it is already May 2nd, let us say 'Happy Birthday' to the guy Rohit so much resembled today in lateral inversion. We have just completed a year of missing the Prince. It was tough and that gaping hollow even made some like me drift away a little from our favourite sport. Let us hope this new kid fills some of it up by showing glimpses of that unmistakable combination of batting genius and audacious flair more often.

Update: Youtube video of the innings highlights including some of Rohit's boundaries can be viewed here.

T20 or Test, Bhajji is a pest

Just crapping with the subject line there. But the incident that happpened today goes to show the essential danger of trying to be something else without getting to the depth of it. When Australians or South Africans sledge, they are mostly putting on a facade that they consider part of their professional duty. There's always this underlying knowledge that this is an act. When an Indian sledges, he is not acting but often reacting to someone else's act. That itself indicates emotion and not logic is ruling.

Sledged players often get eager to get back at the 'offender' by letting the emotions out instead of ensuring to pay him back in cricketing kind. They often forget that a teenaged Sachin has made a worldful of verbal enemies vanish into thin air just by adopting that silent punishment procedure. Any other reaction to a sledge, and the offender has succeeded.

We have often egged on the 'young brigade' for their 'tit for tat' approach to the big teams but today when Bhajji behaved abysmally with another temperamental Indian player Sreesanth after an IPL loss, it is a slapping proof that bad behaviour can easily be bad response to pressure and most Indian players are not really putting on a rehearsed act.

And I even traced a little bit of history of the latest showdown in a Test match earlier this year. It was no less shameful. Sreesanth may have dropped an easy catch off your bowling but you simply cannot do that to a teammate, Bhajji! How much you must be letting the proceedings affect your reason to behave in such fashion with a colleague in a Test match.

VVS' vision and Ishant's mission

VVS Laxman must be very very sad after losing today's IPL game, his 3rd in a row, to rival skipper Warne's last over Symondsisms (meaning sixes - in case you are suspecting any reference to is year's Sydney Test).

VVS is under pressure for bad personal batting form and dubious decision-making as the Deccan Chargers skipper but look at the vision of the man. In the midst of the hot and happening IPL he says his aim is to make India the number one Test team in the world! This guy has forever looked like an other worldly entity with a bat in hand but this statement, with the IPL right there on his platter, makes us think if the world is lucky to be having him.

Laxman's decision to forego the icon status (and so losing out millions for the sake of a better team) sounded queer to our monetised ears then and looks a tragedy now as his team has crashed to 3 straight defeats right at the start. However these observations can only belittle us, people that can view things that way. They do not even faintly touch a man of Laxman's mental makeup.

He knows his priorities in life and will not budge from them. After an unsuccessful stint as opener in the late 90's Laxman, at the turn of the decade, announced himself closed from being considered as a prospective India opener again. That could have meant early curtains to his career as the middle order was a traffic jam. Today he has not changed much. Even a Great Indian Distraction lke the IPL fails to shift his focus from the fact that a full strength Indian team (with the big five + Ishant / RP / Bhajji / M Kartik et al) facing Australia later this year will have their best ever chance to become the best Test team in the world.

Hope they make more men like him in the 21st century. India and her cricket will keep needing them.

Not that I am disappointed with Ishant's rather opposite natured comments on IPL but I still hope he can get over his 'mission' and then get back to what he was born to do - stay fast and fit for fiery spells home & away in Test matches that make other sides spend 50% of the match-eve meeting time on him.

If ever he is short on inspiration Ishant can just glance at a tall man in his slip cordon.

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.

Singh is Prince

Indian movie star Akshay Kumar is the brand ambassador of IPL's Delhi Daredevils. He performed a stunt at the start of DD's 1st IPL match on Saturday, perhaps to live up to the Team name and as a justification of his own reputation of a daredevil star who frequently performs his own stunts. A movie of his, 'Singh is Kingg', is lined up for release in the coming months.

Akshay's team won. The first 3 matches indicate that the inaugural edition of IPL T20 is off to a satisfactory start. However the same cannot be said about the captains of the 6 teams to have played so far. While Rahul Dravid and MS Dhoni have returned single digit scores, the others too have not exactly set the stage on fire. Warne scored 14 in the first match (besides bagging no wickets), Ganguly 10 and Sehwag 12.

The only skipper from these 6 teams to go past the par score of 20 in his first match is Kings XI Punjab leader Yuvraj Singh (a quick 23). Not a bad start but still some way off the expectations from the King of 'Kings XI'. Yuvraj is easily amongst the best batsmen around in T20. He is a likely candidate for the player of the tournament. This Singh was a Prince in his first match and there can be no doubt that he can be the King.

Another Singh has recovered form at the right time for the IPL. After his stellar show against South Africans in the Test series Harbhajan Singh, who did rather well in the T20 world cup, can be a principal weapon for Sachin's Mumbai Indians. So we actualy have more than one Singh who can be King.

Akshay's Delhi Daredevils have no Singh though; no way that a Singh from his team can be a King!

Footnote about that part on Harbhajan's form: It is interesting that the Test batting form of a batsman can be no guarantee of his success in T20 and vice versa while the bowling form of a strike bowler spans across all forms of the game. The two Singhs are expected to provide adequate evidence over the tournament.

Who's the best puller of them all?

Ayaz Memon on Adam Gilchrist:

"Quick of eye and reflexes, he can adjust in a nanosecond to play off the front or back foot. He is orthodox in the sense that he drives through the line, but he is otherwise a tremendous improviser. I also rate him the best cutter and puller in contemporary cricket."

Hard to refute that 'best puller' tag if you have seen Gily play, and even harder if you search cricinfo for photos and find pics like this and this.

But one man will raise his arm in protest, and when he does I will think over a second and decide to support him with pics like this and this and this. And to prove that he too always played the shot bloody well, this. Not convinced yet? Judge it yourself.

An unsolved mystery called Sachin Tendulkar

Accepted Sachin is still not 35. But then he is playing international cricket for over 18 years. He has carried injuries for extended periods of time. Biggest of all, 3 years back he had started believing that he cannot play in that old unfettered fashion at this stage of his career.

Then where is Sachin's present batting coming from? He has been facing Brett Lee the best quick bowler in the world for over six weeks now. With every passing week Lee has sought to comtinuously upgrade his bowling standard. It came with a growing sense of being the leader of the current Australian pack. But Sachin?

Will you believe that the Sachin we are seeing this season is an avatar of the same man that was supposedly some way down from his peak in the last Australian trip of India, even opting for omission of some of his most productive shots from the repertoire for survival at the crease? He is four years older now. But amazingly he looks much better on this trip than he did in the earlier one.

No batsman, not even a Lara and a Gavaskar, has been as comfortable and yet as positive against genuinely hostile quick attacks this late in his career. Sachin looked completely at ease facing a charged-up Lee today. Sample these two shots off Lee today - straight drives on either side of the bowler off consecutive deliveries. [Please pardon me the terribly shaky video work there; I could barely put the camcorder on when those replays were being aired on telly]

I was immediately reminded of Aravinda de Silva's brace of boundaries against Shane Warne in the 1996 World Cup finals during 'The Innings'. Like Aravinda's twin fours, Sachin's couple of fours today came across as a stamp of supremacy from a batsman in complete control of his game, a batsman who instinctively realises himself approaching the prime of batting prowess and zeroing in on a zone where no bowler can expect to get away unscathed from him. Improbable though it may have sounded even 6 months earlier, Sachin Tendulkar is once again putting his name up on the secret list of unsolved mysteries maintained by top bowlers even as Ricky Ponting's poser is facing a serious challenge from rookie Ishant Sharma.

Are we witnessing the effects of some magic drink that Sachin laid hands on? Maybe the truth is far simpler: perhaps Sachin has had a new dawn somewhere deep down, as in the song 'Roo-ba-ru' from the movie "Rang De Basanti". He may have done a reality check on his, well, 'residual' capabilities as a batsman and found them to be a lot better than he imagined. Maybe that is why Sachin has a renewed belief in his special talent and is on his way to reclaim that "bowlers' nightmare" status he willingly conceded over the present decade.

Any batsman in the second half of his career surely faces a great degree of difficulty in re-discovering form after a slump. Needless to say, terrorising bowlers once again in the 19th year in international cricket then takes considerable doing. Even if you are born Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar.

The Future Guys of Indian cricket & the non-‘plus’sed seniors

I could not believe my ears when I heard Maninder Singh defending Yuvraj Singh in the face of questions raised on his form and fitness in a tele-discussion on dropping Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly from the one day side.

Upon being reminded of Yuvraj Singh’s inability to last long in any of his Australian outings Maninder argued that Yuvraj is mostly getting dismissed through slip catches in the first class matches; however since Yuvraj bats at number four / five in ODIs & T20s there will be no slips when he comes in and he should score! Whether that comment was more insulting to Ponting’s captaincy or Yuvraj’s batting ability is for you to decide.

I have long been supporting the cause of picking only those players in ODIs who are either good batsmen or good bowlers depending on their trade but who necessarily have the accepted ‘plus’-es called good ground fielding and deft running between wickets. The philosophy is more rigidly applicable to T20 teams.

I have always believed that Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly should have retired from ODIs just after the 2007 world cup. Both are very good batsmen. But unlike Sachin Tendulkar the Lords 1996 twins do not have quick feet; they are neither skilled ground fielders nor quick runners between wickets. They are not going to contribute that little extra to the team in normal ODI / T20 conditions where we need slip fielders (Dravid’s specific plus) for only 10-15 overs and part time seam bowlers (Ganguly’s specific plus) only in overcast conditions. This means they are susceptible to finger pointing and selection hazards even if they do not perform in 2 or 3 games. You don’t want to see players of their calibre facing it.

However Australia is a place where the Golden generation boys’ batting assumes greater importance than that of the next generation of batsmen simply because the men hold their performances in these shores while the boys have been unable to do so. It happened during the 2003 tour and it has happened this time too in Test matches. I see no reason for that not happening in ODIs unless the matter is as simple as explained by Maninder.

These two ex-captains should have deserved serious thought from selectors just as the right, experienced horses for the course. There are horses by the dozen for Indian courses but the away courses have not yet been happy for the colts. The benching of the senior pros could be postponed by one series in this context.

Moreover, the specific ‘plus’-es of Dravid and Ganguly (and even Laxman’s catching, for that matter) come into play so much more in Australian conditions.

Let us ignore that all. Now we go to their ‘minus’-es, i.e. lack of the commonly accepted pluses. Since both were dropped after a very short run of failure in ODIs and don’t look likely to be considered for a re-admission we can safely attribute their dismissal to their minus-es which can no more be improved unlike form.

Surely we can then safely assume the chosen few for the ODI side for the tri-series to have those ‘plus’-es.

Let us check up on the facts with the names in the announced squad. We will call them the ‘Future Guys’. Bowlers first.


S Sreesanth
Speciality: bowler
Plus: Virtually None - not much batting, was not impressive in the outfield in the last series he played, is coming back from injury

RP Singh
Speciality: bowler
Plus: Virtually None - not much batting, not the quickest outfielder.

Ishant Sharma
Speciality: bowler
Plus: None - No batting at all, quick legs but lousy outfielder.

Piyush Chawla
Speciality: bowler
Plus: batting has never clicked in international matches, but a good outfielder.

Irfan Pathan:
Speciality: bowler
Plus: Has developed into a very good outfielder, good runner between wickets
Plus 2:. Very capable with the bat

Praveen Kumar is unknown to me. Harbhajan is an adequate selection displaying some plusses for his lower order batting and decent outfielding in ODIs.

The batsmen’s list: Mahendra Singh Dhoni (capt & wk), Sachin Tendulkar, Yuvraj Singh, Virender Sehwag, Dinesh Karthik, Robin Uthappa, Gautam Gambhir, Suresh Raina, Rohit Sharma.

All the batsmen are good outfielders, and most are good runners between wickets. Some are excellent catchers.

So even if the omission of Ganguly & Dravid looks unjustified if we look at the bowlers, it looks less debatable when we see the people they are competing with. If some of these guys can perform like a Ganguly or Dravid in his prime over the upcoming tri-series they would be justifying the selectors’ faith in them as the ‘Future Guys’. They would have then rightfully ousted the two iconic batsmen from the ODI squad simply by being better than them.

What if they do not live up to it? It has already happened once, and the same Ganguly was at the centre of it.

We will all be watching. We have been hearing this ‘blooding youngsters’ theme for sometime now. We have seen how our youngsters can be relentless in 20 over games some months back. And we have also seen in the very next ODI series against Australia how they start looking like amateurs in longer games. We have seen confirmation of it in the ongoing Test series.

We remember that these same ‘Future Guys’ fielded incompetently and batted poorly for first half of the ODI series at home against Australia. That they won two matches out of seven. That the 1st win came from the bats of Sachin & Ganguly, the second from the bats of their bowlers and they wasted the platform to win a third that was laid by – who else – Sachin and Ganguly.

It is not the fault of the ‘Future Guys’ themselves. Many of them are talented, agile and intense (enough for T20s) but have not yet acquired the stamina required for long games. Moreover Sourav and Rahul are greats – and to replace such people you must develop their successors over a period of time. You can’t just select their replacements in the hope that you will be as lucky as the guy that picked the two of them for the same trip 12 years back. The system they came up from did not ensure Sourav and Dravid were excellent by the time they played in the national team – they just turned out that way. Are we living in the hope that such players will just emerge out of nowhere?

We hope the concerned people – the selectors, the board members, all that are party to this young team theory - have studied the reasons of failure of the earlier ‘Team building for the future’ effort ahead of the 2007 world cup. We hope they have ensured that the youngsters included in the sequel to the big flop are adequately groomed. If not then I’m afraid the whole exercise, even when done with best of intentions, can look like one big and dangerous experiment quite resembling a conspiracy against the seniors to replace them with inferior players. Just as it did the last time.

Suresh Raina has already faced one such ‘battle with oldies’ in his first stint with the national team. It may not be good for people like him if they are to be declared losers in this ‘war’ the second time round. The missile, however, has been launched now.

The future of Indian cricket will look healthy if the Future Guys achieve the double bill of performing with the primary skills as well as the 'plus'-es right throughout the series. However if they do not then people representing the BCCI selection process should accept their inability to develop (as against ‘select’) replacements for the older generation in public and ask the rich board of India to arrange a detailed training for them from Cricket Australia.

Meanwhile, the effect this selection has on the team morale ahead of the Adelaide cruncher remains to be seen. I would have no doubts on the effect if Dhoni was also the Test captain. However Kumble’s absence from the ODI side should help calm down the dressing room infinitely.

PS: Let’s give the selection guys, at least one of them, some relief. Vengsarkar picked and backed Ishant Sharma all through and must be complimented for the way he identified this boy’s gift of natural bounce and accuracy.

[cross posted on Desicritics.org]

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.

Now & then..

7 years ago, another 17th consecutive win beckoned Australia at Eden Gardens.

They had to beat India to get it.

They lost the match.

It was pretty similar today at Perth. Not just the figure 17 and the opposition, but some other things.

The similarities?

At the outset India winning the match appeared as unlikely then as it did this time.

Then too India got out of jail through the batting of VVS Laxman & Rahul Dravid.

Australia, on both occasions, were led by a man widely regarded as the world's best Test batsman under pressure.

India were far from fielding their best bowling side in Eden 2001 & Perth 2008.

An unheralded rookie took the wicket of the Australian skipper in both matches.

But there were big differences too.

What were the differences?

That rookie (Harbhajan) bagged 13 scalps in the Eden Test Ishant took just 3 here. [Did I say just? That hour of tormenting Ponting culminating in his wicket had the impact of 3 or 4 wickets, I reckon]

VVS and Dravid never met on the crease in the second innings this time round.

Like 2001 VVS was the no.6 and Dravid the no.3 when the Perth match started. But unlike 2001 they hadn't swapped positions in the 2nd outing.

There were no centuries in the Perth Test.

Harbhajan Singh was not playing in Perth.

Indian pacers did extremely well this time. (Zaheer's series tally in 2001 was 3 wickets if I recall correctly, same as Tendulkar's. They were the joint highest wicket takers outside of Bhajji)

There was no follow on this time. [And perhaps there never will be in an India-Australia Test match]

Ponting was quite disppointing in the 2008 match but still managed more than thrice his 2001 series aggregate in the Perth match alone.

India win at Perth: video clip of the moment

Captain Courageous collects a stump after RP castles Tait

and

Look who's captain too - Sehwag!

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.

Waiting for the wrong side of 30

Sehwag's 29 now.

He scored 29 the day before.

And he's on 29*..

WACA

This man was the fastest and best in his trade during the early 90’s. At the time he must have been the most suited to play in Perth. Why, even the home Association of Perth has a name resembling him.

It is therefore no mean tragedy that ‘WACA’ Younis never played a Test match at WACA.

Viru carries Indian hopes in comeback match

Now this is interesting. We are not going into the right and wrong of exchanging one Punjab Pipegun for Delhi Dynamite and the other for Baroda Bomber. Let’s just say India have put up an interesting combination. At this particular point of time they have perhaps given themselves their best chance to turn it around. They will also need to bat first here - only Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly amongst the Indian batsmen have, in recent memory, looked likely to script an innings of note on the last two days of a Test match. टस जीतो और बल्ला घुमाओ। (That was 'win the toss and swing the bat' in Hindi, for the interested)

If Virender Sehwag fails, it was going to happen anyway with one of the openers. But if his 100 in the previous innings has brought back some of the good things that he used to unconsciously do right in his glory days then we may expect a good match here. For this is the only surface in the series where Australia are most likely to find their ultra-successful plan B (strangulation) removed from the equation.

Both teams need wickets to restrict the opposition here – which is not necessarily bad for an Indian team fielding Viru at the top and an extra half-batsman at the bottom. Of course we are merely speculating on the 20% chance India have in the game. I’m afraid all of it hinges on them batting first and young Indian fast bowlers adjusting their lengths well in the face of seduction by the legendary Perth bounce to go astray.

It's crazy, the kind of effect this man Virender Sehwag has on people's expectations. Now I was calling his selection a mistake and now I am writing a post with this heading.

Marlon Samuels' quicker one..

..is under the scanner once again. I am unable to speak on the legality of his action in delivering that 'Perth special' but I was amazed a year and a half ago that he could deliver it at that kind of speed. 82 miles an hour, to be precise.

He was bowling those darts off five steps when India toured West Indies in 2006! I have a sneaking feeling that the trauma of watching Marlon effortlessly go past them on the speen guns was too much for our nascent medium pacers to handle. Irfan Pathan lost his pace soon after, Munaf Patel his fitness while Zaheer had already lost his form and place in the Test side at that point of time. I am reproducing what I thought at the time about the delivery that shattered their psyche:

"AND.....this creep n' slime delivery got unleashed while their fast bowler Ian Bradshaw was consistently clocking late sixties from the other end, with a flummoxed Carlton Baugh standing up at the stumps. I almost screamed in protest (muted it with great difficulty, as it was midnight in India) when the otherwise lovable bore Tony Cozier tried to vilify the poor keeper for missing a stumping chance. Guess he wanted to call the little gloveman a dumb ass for not realising, after all those years of keeping to 'fast' and 'slow' bowlers, that a stumping was easier attempted off quickie Bradshaw?!

West Indies cricket losing potential quick bowlers to basketball? Huh! Ever thought of blaming off-spin?"

Why just blame the Indian bowlers for succumbing to the Samuels shock? If you think hard about the match where he clocked such speeds and the state of Indian cricket in its aftermath, it is easy to rule that the 1 run defeat in that 2nd ODI against West Indies toppled the fortunes of Rahul Dravid's invincible ODI juggernaut and turned them into a shellshocked lot over the time span of a 50 over match, a setback that they are still recoving from.

You say the 82 mph stuff is taken a few miles too far? Well here's more damning evidence. It took R P Singh's vigorous 140 kph stuff at England in the summer of 2007 to assure the poor Indian pacers and their supporters in India that the the giant leaps of our quicks could yield slightly better results than the 5 steps of Marlon. You will agree that the Indian new ball bowlers, post RP's quick overs in England, have looked a more confident lot and done far better than they did in 2006 in all forms of the game. Zaheer got back his hunger and Pathan his place while Ishant Sharma is making people sit up and take notice.

It is hardly surprising to me. These days all four (those three along with RP) are easily capable of crossing the 82 mph barrier..

Not that we love mother less but that we hate monkeys more

That's the Symmo-Hogg standpoint. It's not necessarily so in these parts of the world where, as Steven Waugh knows better, calling someone a monkey will not be deemed a serious insult unless used in a boardroom meeting.

Let's get into the Indian standpoint on such insults through the words of Kalki on Prem Panicker's Smoke Signals:

The Indian team is now expected to argue at Harbhajan’s appeal hearing that he called Symonds a Maa Ki… (he abused Symonds’ mother) in his native tongue, according to a report in Daily Telegraph.

"Looks like with this defense Hogg and Harbhajan will be brought on to the same level of offense and will be let off with a warning."

What the hell!! When I was in school/college, abusing someone’s mother was the ultimate insult and there have been cases of violence and even murder reported just because somebody called someone a bastard. And calling someone a monkey was one of the first things you learn as a toddler. Looks like as we grow up, we have to re-learn how to abuse others.

Indeed it's all down to cultural differences, Steve. And how your successor tried to cash in on it.

Update: I am quite prepared to let Mikey's word be the last one on the 'monkey' controversy coz' it hits the off stump right at the top:

I do not understand how this (monkey) is a racist term. The scientists say we all came from monkeys, so how can this be deemed racist?" the fast bowling legend said.