India's Road Ahead

So we finally have been kicked out. Theories abound regarding why it happened and who is responsible and we will see how the BCCI responds on 6th of April. Many organizations having a pathetic quarter generally tend to hold the head of that particular division responsible and ask him to resign. I think BCCI are going to do the same to Dravid and Chappell. But it's time for a reality check.

We were supposed to be cup favorites, but I would say only if Aus, SA and NZ had their worst one month in cricket. These 3 sides were definitely better than ours and we were inconsistent even against teams like SL and WI. Proabably the only 2 teams out of the top 8 we could be fairly confident of beating were Pak and Eng. You should not be surprised too much if you start at 6th place and then can't make it to top 8. Of course we were not so bad that we should have lost to Ban. But that's the thing with World Cups. People have to accept that there are going to be a couple of minnows upsetting the giants in every world cup. It happened to WI (by Ken) in 96, Pak (by Ban) in 99 and SL (by Ken) in 03. I am sure that if we had played SL first or lost one of our warm-up matches, the compacency would not have crept in. And guys let's face it, complacency is in our blood, it's not something that's going to go away in a matter of days. Bangladesh should also not read too much into the victory - beyond the fact that it's definitely a good start for their transition - as the shock element is over and they will be thrashed now on since sides will be more alert against them.

So we come to the dissection table. Is India's domestic structure incapable of producing good cricketers? I would say that depends on how India controls cricketing world. Does it bow to Twenty20? We don't have the natural incline for that format. Again there will be a difference of opinions here, but I think we are more reliant on craft than power. And the Twenty20 effect on cricket would be similar to the one astroturf had on hockey. So we have 2 options, either we oppose it strongly enough that it cannot generate revenue and dies its own death, or we embrace it wholeheartedly and form a bandwagon of our own pune kobras (excuse the pun), andhra gultes, chennai veerans and all and paint the domestic circuit with it. But that's a different topic altogether and warrants a separate post.

Where do we go from here in the more traditional forms of cricket? Greg Chappell's time is probably up and it's time we go back to a foreigner who understands the Indian scenario better, which is why I had thought that Tom Moody was a better choice 2 years ago, since he cuts less of a prima donna figure and lets the captain seem in charge of things. My choices would be, a Dermott Reeve, a Dave Whatmore, a Jonty Rhodes, or looking back at home, an Anil Kumble (if he is going to hang up his shoes) or a Robin Singh, somebody who has a Chappellesque work ethic, minus his revolting nature, which was responsible for him trying to change the whole system too soon. The simple truth he forgot was you have to stay in the system to change the system. Rahul Dravid doesn't seem to be blessed with the leader's luck or the bastard's blood, or the Greame Smith persona, the things that I believe make an effective leader. But do we have a choice? I think we do. My top 2 choices would be Yuvraj Singh and Mahendra Dhoni. One of them should be the skipper and other should be the deputy.

There will be changes to the Australian team even if they go onto win the tourney. You will see guys like Hayden being dropped right after the world cup even though he is the man who is bullying all attacks right now. These guys won't be around for the next tourney in 2011 and so they would be asked to leave. India needs to start implementing such things right now instead of starting on it in 2010. So I would say Ganguly should exit from the ODI circuit. He has had a tremendous come back but I don't see him lasting four years. Tendulkar? Well I think he should take a sabbatical from ODI cricket and should access what he wants to achieve. There's no point playing the game just because it pays you. Dravid? He seems to have good enought touch and fitness to last 4 years.

I read a masterpiece by Mukul Kesawan about Chappell trying to change too many things. I completely agree on the fact that the domestic system isn't the most ideal but it is good enough to serve the first purpose of throwing up talent. It would be nice to have 3 paid selectors who can be made accountable. But barring a couple of incidents of alleged parochialism they have done a decent enough job over the last decade or so. The system has thrown up enough talent in the form of Raina's and Pathan's. Where it fails miserably is in its second objective, that of achieving sustainability in development of this talent. It's not a coincidence that India - if at all they fail to win the age group world cups - generally make it at least to the semi finals (this is not only in cricket, also in hockey). And don't give me that bullshit that we have players who are above their age-group. The British commonwealth, where the game is played, has all these countries - barring England and Australia- which are more or less in the same state of development and so if you allege India of malpractice, I am sure you can't let go the Lankans, the Pakis, the Banglas, or even the South Africans.

These young blokes of India are lost in transition. We, the software engineers of India, are dying for an opportunity to go abroad for studies or work, since it's quite obvious that we become smarter people after that. I don't know why the richest board in the world doesn't spend money on its foreign collaboration programs. If really Sharad Pawar decides, is it impossible for him to send a Piyush Chawla to play for a Warwickshire or a Suresh Raina for the Cape Cobras? Better still, why can't we have a 1 year Raina development program headed by somebody like Sanjay Manjarekar (as I said earlier, in coaching I prefer people who haven't had a heroesque figure as players) or a Pathan development program carried out by Javagal Sreenath? These guys must go through the rigors of domestic cricket for a full season and have all their bad times here rather than while facing a rampaging Sanath Jayasuriya or a Muralitharan in overdrive. Just to make a guess, my next candidate for second season blues - Munaf Patel. He will definitely fail in the next 7-8 months, either through injury or through a dip in form and must be withdrewn and put into an incubator as soon as that happens, rather than being made to carry drinks. Talent doesn't come so cheap and when it comes we got to exploit the last bit out of it rather than turn it into a Vinod Kambli.

As a sidenote before I end, I see Indian economy growing steadily. People now have a life of their own to live, rather than to flock the airports to abuse their fallen stars as they return. We will always gather on the nooks and corners of the roads or the smoking staircase of our company or the lounge of our school and laugh at the forward they received last night about Tendulkar selling chai at Dharavi. This time it's more of the media who have lead the bandwagon of knee-jerk reactions. But it's encouraging to see more and more of the actual public trying to strap up their knees tight and put things into perspective.

My World Cup Lineup

Originally posted on Monday, February 05, 2007

Here is what I will go for in my world cup lineup.
1. Ganguly
2. Uthappa
3. Yuvraj
4. Tendulkar
5. Dravid
6. Dhoni
7. Powar
8. Harbhajan
9. Agarkar
10. Kumble
11. Zaheer
12. Sehwag
13. Sreeshanth
14. Raina
15. Karthik

The usual suspects -
The 3 men I have dropped from my squad and who are bound to raise some eyebrows are
1. Irfan Pathan. - I don't think he looked like picking up a wicket in the solitary game he got against WI. There are suggestions that he should play as the number 7 batsman and somebody who fits in 5-6 overs every game. But let me tell you something. If as a captain, while picking him, you don't feel that you will be able to bowl him for more than 5-6 overs, you might as well pick Sehwag, who really can win you matches with bat and who assures a few quick overs every game. And Rahul Dravid, rather than being hopeful, should be honest with what he feels about Pathan. I might be harsh, but I would like to see him play somewhere near a full domestic season, may be a season in county cricket and come back as a frontline bowler. Pathan, the bowler, is far too important for Indian cricket, rather than have him earn that reputation of a batsman who bowls a bit.

2. Munaf Patel - Fitness woes personified. At present he doesn't give you the confidence that he will last a full month and a half trip. Maybe the Indian physio team is in a better situation to judge him than I am. But really it's a two way tussle between him and Sreeshanth for 1 spot and the latter wins it any day, with his enthusiastic bowling and spirited batting and fielding. Apart from when the ball is in his hand, Patel is an absolute liability and needs a lot of work on his match fitness. Some may argue that Sreeshanth is rather profligate in the one day game, but I would really put my confidence him since he looks fit and ask him to sort his length out rather than asking Patel to sort his fitness and fielding out in this one month period.

3. Gautam Gambhir - Well again, there was a race between him and Uthappa. Some may argue that it was a 3 horse race between these two and Sehwag for 2 spots. To me Sehwag, for his experience and his bowling, and Uthappa, for better performances and his athletic fielding, are clear winners. I would go 1 step ahead and put Uthappa in my starting 11 since he is still an unknown commodity and could hit the opposition hard before they know it.

Now for the men I got into my squad.

1. Ramesh Powar - Anybody who even has a cursory look at my blog, would notice my bias for this man. For me, he is an absolute must on slow sluggish tracks where the ball spins a bit. He has looked like one Indian spinner who could break through at any moment in the match. And when he does, he has that old-fashioned Montyesque celebration style which pumps life into a situation. If you notice over the past year or so, Harbhajan has been just a miser, returning 10 overs worth 40ish, which is a commendable effort in its own rank. But he has hardly picked up 3 wicket hauls in ODIs. An average of 31 (30 in case of Kumble)is not what you want from your frontline bowler. I would again get ahead of myself and advocate this strategy of opening with a spinner. India should really pull a rabbit out of the hat and go for it. After all, if you are not the best side in the tournament to start with, you need that element of surprise to make any impact, ask the Crowe- Patel- Greatbatch- Harris formula of 92 or the Jayasuriya-Kaluwitharana-Muralitharan combo of 96. With 3 specialist spinners in the starting 11, India can push Kumble or Bhajji to take the new ball and let Powar handle the middle overs. It may sound weird, but I still don't believe India have enough firepower in their fast bowling department to scare the crap out of oppositions, especially when it matters.

2. Suresh Raina - India, with many old bodies on the turf, definitely need a permanent 12th man. India need to be smart about this trick and get him on the field regularly for 20-25 overs, particularly at the slog. The tussle is between him and Kaif, and although I don't have any grudges about selecting the latter, I go for the former since Kaif has kind of fallen out of the band.

Others select themselves on merit and recent form.

Laxman's back

Originally posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Sambit Bal exactly shares my views, starting from why he should never have been in the team 6 months ago and why he must be in now -

Laxman is back

India must play Powar

Originally posted on Friday, October 13, 2006

So we are down to the most meaningful ODI cricket tourney. I call it the most meaningful since there aren't easy pickings in this one as there are in the world cup. And the 2007 edition in the Caribbean is stretched like a chewing gum, lasting 47 days. Hell that's a long time, considering the recent soccer world cup lasted just about 1 month when 32 countries participated, whereas the 2004 Athens Summer Olympics lasted all of 17 days with participants from around 202 countries. I suspect it will come to a yawning end if popular countries are knocked out earlier. Hence to me the Champions trophy presents a much condensed and competitive world.

Coming back to the point and to India's fortunes during this tourney! India have done well in the previous editions, but I think they are pitted in a tough group this time. The irony is that on recent form, it seems like the 2nd qualifier, be it Sri Lanka or West Indies, is the one that will stake a semifinal claim with the mighty Aussies.
The line up I will like to see India follow for a while now looks like this -
1. Sehwag/ Mongia
2. Tendulkar
3. Raina/ Kaif
4. Yuvraj
5. Dravid
6. Dhoni
7. Pathan
8. Harbhajan
9. Powar
10. Agarkar
11. Munaf/ Srishanth / Zaheer

Sounds interesting? I am sure the 1st spot itself will spark the 1st debate. But to me, Sehwag is an absolute ODI lottery. He gives me very little confidence that he can ever be consistent. The management’s gamble of promoting him as the next captain is certainly of some concern. His real strength is his hands. He has extremely skillful cricketing hands, the ones he uses to craft out some astonishing strokes, the ones he uses to bowl stump to stump offies that hardly bounce and the ones he uses to take some astonishing catches (his bulging tummy prevents him from being very athletic, but if you want to put a player in a position where the ball tends to fly, something like the gully position, Sehwag will be one of my top bets, just for the hand-eye synchro he possesses). But productivity isn’t always related to skill and Murphy’s law tends to get the better off Sehwag most of the times. I have a gut feeling that he will always be a hit or miss kind of a player and might not average more than an ordinary 32-33 in ODIs. India can’t afford to assign their top ODI batsman role to a man who can only be as good as that.

Somebody like a Mongia should be kept as a ready replacement for Viru. The man possesses a sound temperament, decent array of strokes and decent slow bowling credentials, something that will be handy in both India and the Caribbean. Besides he is more athletic, a southpaw which can add value to the opening partnership and he revels more when given more time in the middle.

I really think India should stop asking Pathan to come in at 3. And I am not an opponent of the experimentation theme taken by Chappell-Dravid combo. But it’s obvious that this uncertainty about role is affecting Pathan’s bowling. It happens to a lot of allrounders and it comes to a stage where they have to make a decision what their main trade is going to be. Remember what happened to Jack Kallis’ bowling when he made the transformation to the premier batsman of South Africa and the world? Pathan the swing bowler, is too crucial an aspect, to give up for Pathan the batsman. He would do well to go back to no. 7, now that he has enough batting practice under his belt.

So the number 3 spot should go to Suresh Raina or Mohd. Kaif, whoever is picked. The former is clearly the more classy and in 2-3 years everyone expects him to graduate to the next level. The problem with Kaif is that he has always been the lowest priority batsman in this lineup. When marking out the lineup, I think captains have always filled out the other 10 spots and assigned him the remaining one. In a way, that’s unjust to a man who has been a yeoman in a star-studded line up. He is also one batsman who needs to get his eye in before he starts improvising, which is why the number 7 spot is a complete mismatch for him, ironically where he has batted most of the time. Besides he is just about the fastest runner in cricket and hence having him at the non-striker end for longer periods can help others. John Right moved him up the order with quite some success towards the end of his reign.

Rahul Dravid and Yuvraj Singh have to be at number 4 and 5, the most crucial spots along with the openers in any ODI lineup. It should also be made clear to Dhoni that he is not a hitter, he is the 6th batsman of the lineup and tail starts after him. “Agarkar the allrounder” is also like “Sehwag the consistent batsman”, a dream that people outside India might laugh at. So he better be placed after the ever-optimistic blade of Bhajji.

That brings me back to the most crucial selection. India, with all the decent new fast bowling kids they have developed over the last few years, must not forget that ODIs tend to make a mockery of the best pacers in the business. The 2 main opponents they will face during this tourney, England and Australia, for all their might, are still not very capable when it comes to playing offspin. That makes Ramesh Powar the top choice along with the miserly Harbhajan. The one experiment that really should strike the management and that should really work like pulling a rabbit out of the hat is opening the bowling with a spinner, particularly on shirtfronts. I have always advocated this policy, more so against the Aussies. I was in favor of dropping one of the highly successful Zaheer-Srinath-Nehra combo and opting for Anil Kumble instead in that dreaded final at the Wanderers 3 years ago. The Aussies just posses too much confidence against pacemen. If they ever fear a species, it’s the offies. Besides, Powar is of a different type than Bhajji, as he flights it more and hence spins it more.

So coming to the most interesting part of it, the winner predictions!! India, for some reason, don’t give me the confidence of doing it. A determined bunch of Aussies looks like the most formidable choice. But then Pakistan cricket was running too smoothly for everyone’s liking for the past couple of years. Now that they have gone back to their awry methods of musical chairs, they should also be considered by the bookies. After all, a chaotic bunch of Pakis is as dangerous as a determined bunch of Aussies.

Posting a comment on -

Originally posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006

http://salilb.blogspot.com/2006/02/sachin-and-his-last-25-tests-time-has.html

The million dollar question to ask is - can his replacement average 47-dot-something over a period of 24 tests - playing against minnows or no minnows?
It's very clear and is there for everyone to see that he's a less effective batsman than he was 5 years ago, but still he isn't crap. Everyone would love to replace Sachin at 33 with Sachin at 28, but is Mohd. Kaif at 25 good enough to replace Sachin at 33?
The answer is we will not know unless we see it. I still would think that the answer is no. We have 2 options - drop Sachin at 33 and try Kaif at 25, or keep on trying Sachin at 33 and see who can get closer to Sachin at 28. Currently they are trying the latter option with some justification. Let's see where it leads for some more time. The decision they have to make is what should this time be. I would say World Cup 2007.
And I really don't see any point, getting into Sachin's shoes, that he should play any ODIs after he returns from the Caribbean in 2007. He has got nothing left to achieve in ODIs.

This is why Laxman isn't in the ODI team

Originally posted on Monday, January 23, 2006

The Ausralians who are often baffled by the fact that Laxman isn't in the ODI team, should see the last few overs of current session (Day 3, pre lunch Ind-Pak test 2). All those who want to see what is meant by lack of street smartness should also see this as a nice example.

Scenario - Dravid on 97, obviously a bit nervous to get to 3 figures and lunch approaching, a dilemma that batsmen hate facing, whether to go for it or not. Generally they like to get the monkey of the back before heading to the pavilion.

So what does Laxman do? Out of around 6 overs before the session close, he takes singles on at least 5 occasions off the last ball of the over, constantly denying strike to his skipper. Of course he isn't doing this on purpose, but this is where he lacks a sense of the moment, this is where he lacks the street smartness to manufacture a single, this is where he lacks the agility to steal a single. You could feel the frustration in Anand Vasu's cricinfo commentary when he had to repeat "And still Laxman keeps the strike!".

Not that this is a big issue and Dravid possesses too great a temperament to get affected by it, however some other batsman can easily get desperate in such situation and throw it away.
Laxman could have been such an authoritative figure if he could have exchanged some of his artistry for this kind of smartness!

If I were Inzamam...

Originally published on Wednesday, January 18, 2006

What a shame of pitch! I haven't seen in even 1 ball bowled in this test, but I can feel how hard it must have been to go out and bowl on it, in particular to people with big blades and powerful muscles. Such pitches must be nipped in the bud. People have been suggesting ways to preserve the art and the skill in cricket which really merit an attention from the ICC. Spectators who don't want to watch this art and are interested in slam-bang stuff should go and watch baseball.

Coming to the point of the post, Pakistan have gotten a headache. There is no doubt that India have gotten an equal share of it, but the one that Pakistan are facing is a dangerously recurring one. I have not seen how they countered Sehwag in this game, but I presume that they tried their unsuccessful ways once too often against him. Of course, it's easier said than done, but if I were one of Inzamam or Bob Woolmer, I would totally give a revamp to my plan A against him. The thing that I would do before that is not call him a slogger who hits the bulls eye once in a while. To be able to smack the likes of Lee and Shoaib and Kaneria and Hoggard, that too with immaculate consistency and break a long standing Donald Bradman record of crossing 150 six times in a row after crossing 100, you need serious ability. So what if he doesn't move his feet, he doesn't need to. He has gotten such a great eye and hands that he can attain balance without moving feet, and that's what you need to move your feet for- to balance yourself for playing the shot - right? So it'a a divine gift, if you can balance without feet movement.

Talking about revamping the plan, I confirmed this from one of my Pune pals, that Pakistan hardly ever had a short leg in place for him. True, as the "on the ball" http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/233300.html would tell that he patiently left all the bouncers hurled at him. But then, they bowled only 10 of those at him, which was appalling.

Going ahead, I would go in with something like this in my plan A, and I am talking about the 1st over of Indian innings.
On the off side (you don't need to know rocket science to predict he loves them there) - 1 slip, 2 gullies (as he is more likely to get thick edges than thin), 3rd man (my most attacking position and a must on any pitch for Sehwag), deep point (may be I can cut down on at least 10 of those 38 boundaries and frustrate him a bit), extra cover.
On the on side- a forward short leg, a deepish backward shortleg and a conventional midwicket.

Unless really necessary, don't bowl a single ball in his half and take out the straight boundaries, remember you haven't gotten mid-off and mid-on. Consistently try to angle in or cut into his ribs of shortish length. You need quite a bit of ability though as a bowler to execute this and be accurate enough. With the dose that has been given to the Paki bowlers, I doubt how they can manage this.

If he resorts to the pull against the short ball and does that well, then I might bring in my subsequent plans, by putting some more protection on the on side, but I won't take out my deep point and 3rd man unless I give up hope.

Having said all this and given the whacking to the curators, I can only clap for the mental makeup of the man. He just doesn't care a damn about who he is facing, what the score is or what the situation is. As much as you will criticise his irresposible play had he gotten out while attempting his 1st boundary itself, you have to salute his self-belief for daring to try and execute 47 of those.

I hope Inzamam isn't in my fans' list and doesn't know enough English to be able to read my blogs. For I can never have enough of "Sehwag against Pakistan", makes me feel like he is the one who will repay Ijaz, Afridi and Anwar along with the interest of so many years.

I still fear...

Originally published on Friday, January 13, 2006

Within 6 hours from now, the annual (I don't know if it will continue to be that way) India-Pak summit clash is about to get under way at Lahore and heaps of free time has made me read on every scrap on the reams of (web) pages expended by various pundits in anticipation of the event. That's what I am filled with, anticipation.

On paper, I would say that both teams start neck and neck. Riding on the high of their recent home bashings, there is no shortage of winning habit. For all the might of Inzamam, Afridi (note that he is number 2 on my list), Shoaib, Kaneria and Yousuf whatever, India have gotten Dravid, Kumble, Sehwag, Dhoni and Pathan (excuse me for some notable absentees) in their ranks. And as my cricketing knowledge tells me (unlike that of some, on some pathetic websites, who can write with enormous aplomb about how Yuvraj Singh will beat the hell out of Pakistan one day and the very next day can come up with a masterpiece of immature writing about how Mohammed Asif will win it for Pakistan), it's hard to predict anything about the outcome. One thing seems certain though, whoever wins the 1st test, with due consideration for the 2 coaches who have brought in fighting spirits in their teams, will have to lose the series from there rather than being beaten. Which is exactly why teams have to be at their ruthless best right here tonight (my time).

Having been a follower of the match-fixing era of Sharjah and the post-Javed-Miandad-last-ball-six-time, I still have some apprehensions about India playing Pakistan, especially when the neighbors are close to their best. And hence my list of Indians to watch out for contains those names that I mentioned. Dravid, I think he will experience an Inzamam Ul Huq effect on his batting with the captaincy coming his way, if at all he can bat better. Kumble, the tiniest smell of blood and he will be there running in over after over after over. Probably the best ever to have bowled on subcontinental pitches (his offset away from subcontinent to that in subcontinent makes me weigh in his favor rather than Murali's), he will not be kept out of the match at any stage. The other 3 are young, talented and thankfully never been a part of the apprehension against Pakistan times. They will believe that they are better than their opponents and hence are pivotal to Team India's success.

Talk about subplots for India, and Sachin Tendulkar and VVS Laxman come to the mind. Still formidable mind you, Sachin is past his dominating best, which is not a cause of concern at all. He will score runs, just based on his willpower and reputation, but I believe that gone are the days when he could be termed as the deadliest Indian weapon who, within a couple of sessions, would set up the test match for his side. He is in more of a stock batsman role, the role that Shaun Pollock plays for South African bowling. Laxman, well he is an enigma, and you better not predict about him. But I get the feeling that he will also play the supporting cast.

On the other hand, how dearly would Pakistan love their captain to play the way he has been doing for the last couple of years? I hope that the law of averages in deed catches on him and at least 30% of the battle will be won for India. I also hope that Greg Chappell has devised a strategy for Shahid Afridi and it works out in the middle, for it is this man who can remind the Indians of their butchering days with Ijaz Ahmed and Saeed Anwar. It's this sense of fear that made even a bowler as pathetic as Arshad Khan (only Rameez Raja, the Pakistani counterpart of somebody like Maninder Singh, has the wherewithal to spit into the mic heaps of praise for this gentleman) to eat them away during that shameful 2nd innings of Bangalore test and Afridi is well capable of pushing India into that mode. Danish Kaneria, it's a challenge for him but so far he has done extremely well against the Indians, mostly because he has gotten a reputation against them. I don't know where it sets in, but there are some players (quite a few of them Pakistanis, on another thought quite a few of them southpaws) who just fail to do badly against the Indians. The Haydens, the Andy Flowers, the Saqlain Mushtaqs, the Saeed Anwars, the Aquib Javeds, the Shivanarine Chanderpauls... I don't know why the same Indians, who make Brian Lara and Shane Warne look ordinary, take a bow to these guys. Kaneria seems to be following Afridi up that ladder.

Time to think about the most unpredictable factor of the series, Shoaib Akhtar. He could finally be a telling difference between the 2 sides. If he gets a hammering from Sehwag and co. (Sehwag is the lead), advantage India. If Sehwag doesn't last his 1st session with the new ball, advantage Pakistan. However, if Dravid and Tendulkar cannot blunt out his spell with the old one, it could just be game-set-match Pakistan.

I am a pessimistic writer, ain't I?

Garibee

Originally published on Sunday, November 13, 2005

I don't know who pays them to throw in such heaps of bullshit -
http://cricket.indiatimes.com/quickiearticleshow/1293710.cms

Pathetic Pundit

Originally published on Friday, October 28, 2005

Many times people with zero knowledge get into event reporting or journalism. Here is one classic example from rediff.com that I came across. Even "dainik puDhArI" might not make such a preliminary mistake I guess.

Context - India vs Srilanka, 2nd ODI at Mohali.
The writer says - "India could have well opted to use Agarkar for his spell of ten overs and then had him replaced by Super sub Sreesanth, who could have exploited the helpful conditions, but they chose not to." http://us.rediff.com/cricket/2005/oct/28india.htm?q=np&file=.htm

The guy who has written this (seems to be an official rediff correspondent, not just someone from readers' comments), seems to have never read what the substitution rule says - "Once you replace a player, the substitute is allowed to bowl only the overs that were not bowled by the player he substituted out of his quota of 10 (i.e. if the player has already bowled 5, then the supersub can only bowl 5) and bat only if the player he substituted had his wicket in tact." You don't need to know rocket science to figure out why it is so. If he replaces a player who has already lost his wicket and is allowed to bat, then the opposition will have to get 11 wickets and not 10 (or else leave 2 batsmen not out at the end). (This 1 is for the pundit himself).

I don't know why I still read those pathetic rediff.com and indiatimes.com cricket articles, may be because they feed me for my blogs.

I wish...

Originally published on Friday, October 21, 2005
I wish I could write like this -
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/india/content/story/222744.html

Time to leave sir

Originally published on Saturday, September 17, 2005

If you believe in cricinfo's inside story on the Ganguly- Chappell rift (stories can be cruelly biased), then only you should read on. It's learnt that an honest suggestion by the coach was made public by the captain. And all it can lead to is debacle. I stated in one of my previous posts about how KPS Gill obliterated Indian Hockey circuit through some startling decision making and extreme egos. And we have witnessed in the past that when an individual becomes more important than the entity that he is a part of, then it destructs the whole entity. Needless to give examples, you can take Hitler's, who sank Germany along with himself, Ganguly seems adamant to do the same for Indian cricket.

It's very difficult for some individuals to accept bad things about themselves. They can't pass an unbiased judgement for themselves. Ganguly seems to be one of those. He still believes that he can fight back. But with this latest episode, I think he will be questioned even for his successful moves, forget about the ones that will fail and hence be cruelly carnaged by the media. It's difficult to imagine his future, unless Jagmohan Dalmiya also believes that he is above the goodwill of Indian cricket and pulls a rabbit out of the hat.

A coach has the power to give an honest advice, something that Ganguly himself demanded from Chappell. And his advice of stepping down from captaincy was not wrong at all. This is the problem with headstrong people. As much as their qualities can benefit when channeled properly, so can they destruct you when they go wrong. A sachin tendulkar would not have needed the coach to tell him to step down, if struck by such wretched form (mind you he has never got into such a low scoring rut ever). But then his lack of headstrongness was the one that kept denying him his choice of playing eleven, something that he believed contributed in a big way to his failed tenure at the helm. Ganguly's obstinancy has helped Team India in the past when he demanded Yuvraj, Kaif, Harbhajan, Sehwag and many others despite their failures and later converted them into a successful unit. But it was logical to support that move as one could see him having some sort of a thought about how he wanted the team to look like in the forthcoming days (and his picture of a good team was inline with most experts' opinion from what was available then). And all of these people were young enough and had shown glimpses of promise that their zeniths lied ahead. By the same hypothesis, if you try to judge his current support for himself (believing that he has an argument like - "if I supported people with constant failures, why should I not get something back when I am struggling?" - oh I am being so supportive to Ganguly, trying desparately to be in his shoes), you still can't sympathise with him. He has failed more consistently than all these blokes combinedly had and doesn't seem to know what vision he has for the team, apart from sinking it with himself.

I can't help myself reiterating the exceptional example of Nasser Hussain. During his reign, he was not too dissimilar in his approach to Ganguly, supporting his team, mentoring his youngsters, judging talents of the likes of Flintoff and Harmison and taking on his oppositions. But when he realised that his time had come, he decided to hang up his boots to make way for more deserving youngsters. He left with full dignity and left imprints of his own on English cricket. I am not sure that history will be so kind to Ganguly, although he, arguably, deserves it to some extent.

And then you have a VVS Laxman (excuse me for the topic change), who hits out at his critics after a feast against Zimbabwe. How can people think that they have the moral high grounds to lambaste people after such performances? I have no doubt about Laxman's BATTING (I have ample doubts about lots of his other aspects necessary to be a good cricketer, including his fitness) ability, but come on man, you have given better performances than this in our domestic cricket. I would have accepted your comments had they come even after a performance against the Mumbai team, not against a joke called Zimbabwe. Laxman, you still are precious to Indian TEST side, you are not agile enough to be in the ODI team (there are quite a few, Ashish Nehra to name one, who fall in this category, but then it's your bad luck that we don't have fitter replacements for them and we have quite a few for you. Don't whin about it, try to be fitter, if you can at all). You have taken a good step ahead, but that has been your problem man, everytime you take a step ahead, you think you have reached the pinnacle and rather than focussing, you start airing your views about how they have been doing injustice to you. Learn something from a man called Anil Kumble, you don't need your favorite opponents, the Aussies, to learn from. See how he fights his omissions from the team.

Back on the issue, I believe it's better to look at a problem from the solution end. We have to first think what if Sourav has to leave. Whom do we have to replace him with? Probably we have a better answer (or the only answer that can be better justified) now than we had in the John Wright days. With Greg Chappell there to enforce the cockiness and provide the flamboyance and the instinctiveness, the Ganguly part of the Ganguly- Wright combination, Dravid can sit back and do the strategic thinking, the Wright part of it, something that he is better off doing. He can pretty much leave it to Chappell to take on opposition captains and stuff like that & you can rest assured that there are few competitors to him in that department, even in his bald days in cricket.

It has been sad for an admirer of Sourav like me to watch the way he has faded over a large period of time. I don't know how we are going to address a rift between two most important persons of the touring party, when it is known to all and sundry. It must be difficult enough to be a member of the team at present, particularly if you are a newcomer. I can't think of a reconcilation here. A senior member of the team could help may be. But then there is no point in trying that out. It's very clear that the combination can't work and it will take just one more failure for the cracks to open up again. The BCCI simply has to make a decision about what they are committed to, Sourav's future or Team India's. That will decide if it's send-off time for Sourav or Chappell, after a marriage that got over even before the honeymoon.

A tale of sour grapes

Originally published on Tuesday, August 30, 2005
A hungry fox noticed a juicy bunch of grapes growing high on a grapevine. He leaped. He snapped. Drooling, he jumped to reach them, but try as he might, he could not obtain the tasty prize. Disappointed by the fruitless efforts he'd made to get the grapes that day, he said, with a shrug, to comfort himself, "Oh, they were probably sour anyway!"

No prizes for guessing who the hungry fox is in this story. Ricky Ponting's comments after the Trentbridge test and an interview with Melbourne Radio has been nothing but a great example of this story. His stand on the England's substitute fielders usage, coupled with his blatant reaction after getting ran out at Trentbridge and his media talk later on have been shameful to say the least. But then he has never been put in such situations before which is why he isn't matured enough to handle them.

Ponting's claims about England's unfair use of substitutes may be justified. But what England is doing is strictly within the laws and Australia should be the last team talking about spirit of the game which they have so often violated while in the middle. His allegations could not have been more mistimed as his concerns were not arising from the current match, but over the whole series. Then why was he not whinning about it earlier? Or was he waiting for one of the substitutes to actually get him ran out?

Duncan Fletcher asked a very good question "If one of our bowlers is unfit, why will we bring someone on who doesn't have fleet feet?" And is it England's fault that Garry Pratt was the one who managed to hit the stumps when Damien Martyn and Ponting planned a suicide for themselves? I would like to ask another question. Would Ponting have been as outrageous if he had not gotten out to a substitute fielder's throw? I guess that wicket did not increase the severity of the issue of England's use of substitutes. And no one can claim that the run out was the cause of Australia's defeat. I don't know why they can not wholeheartedly accept that they were outplayed by a team that was far more spirited, if not necessarily superior.

Remember what Ponting did when the Aussies could not chase a paltry target of 107 at Mumbai? Instead of accepting the inability of his men while playing on dust bowls, he kept shouting all the way in the press conference about the dust bowl itself. Agreed the wicket there had many devils in it. But even Indians in the past have shown more maturity when they were made to play and were subsequently mauled on the cattle-grazing fields in New Zealand. The way Ponting acts and the arguments he makes in such situations, suits a child cricketer owning the only kit being used to play in gullies of a small town, not the skipper of the 1 st ranked team in the world.

If he really had a case and wanted to take it up, he should have taken it up right after the Old Trafford test, which the Aussies saved despite English dominance. But then it's hard for an Aussie captain to accept such defeats. Perhaps the last (and one of the very few) Aussie captain who would have reacted in a more amenable way was Mark Taylor. Ponting should have used the example of the Don himself, who complained about the balls being whirled at Aussie batsmen more to kill them than to get them out, right after the 2nd test at MCG which the Aussies WON and not after losing a test, during the defamed body line series. And that was an issue of far more magnitude than the trivial use of more agile substitutes. That's when yours appears as a valid case and not as just an excuse to a mediocre performance that costs you the game (not that this is an attempt to call the Aussie performance at Trentbridge mediocre). Otherwise the statements that you make will always be perceived as nothing but a tale of sour grapes.

I wasn't following it

Originally published on Monday, August 29, 2005

How could I be so cruel? I wasn’t there pressing my favorite F5 when the (de)famed Indian batting line-up was being 007ed by Bond … Shane Bond. I have been made up of a true Indian cricket fan’s irrepressible ability, hope. Even when they were 8 down for 44 (yes only India, of course apart from the Windies and the Zimbabweans can manage such a plight against the kiwis, Bond or no Bond), you would have found me banging the F5 hoping a rare crack from Harbhajan or Pathan, or whosoever it is. And yet even after knowing that India were due to play there 1st game against the kiwis today, I lost track of it, and entered cricinfo to get some ashes bites with the breakfast tea, only to discover “Bond Blitz floors India”.

I, for one, have been an ardent supporter of the men in blue, and their super leader, Sourav Dada and also the real dada, Jaggu Dada. I believed these people -for all the things they were accused of doing for themselves – did some serious things for Team India taking it in the right direction. But hope has its own limits. I was one of the few who did not lose patience when the crowd attacked Mohd. Kaif’s house in UP after India lost to the Aussies in the league match of 2003 world cup. Hope did not betray me then, as it had a firm basis to be alive. I could see them coming back in the groove, based on the CONSISTENCY they had maintained throughout the year preceding that tournament in the limited overs game. But as age is starting to show up on the Aussie team, so is impatience starting to show on me. I don’t know where India go from here. And I believe that now is the time to drop dada. He isn’t getting any younger, neither can I say any hungrier, nor any better. And Team India is going from bad to worse. Justine Langer once told Glenn McGrath that you got to hit the rock bottom to come back up again. But rock bottom standards for McGrath were quite high by Ganguly measurement scheme. All McGrath had done was missing one season due to an ankle surgery, and not picking up noticeable amount of wickets in around half a dozen appearances on return. Ganguly over the last two seasons has seen a considerable amount of drop in his average from 44 to 40 in ODIs, which is quite significant and I am not even dissecting his test form which has been, barring the sole Brisbane hundred touted as a tiger’s knock, abysmal.

There has been a lot of pondering done on India’s losing cause in the recent time. A point has been missed time and again though, which I believe lies in their dreadful ODI bowling. It’s there for every one to see that they have lost an important man in their world cup mission, namely Zaheer Khan. The man needs to rediscover himself somehow, if he has to fill in the shoes of even Javagal Srinath, forget Kapil Dev. Same can be said about Harbhajan Singh. I have to really stress my memory to recall when Harbhajan took his last 3 wicket haul, an achievement which should not be far beyond an Indian ace spinner’s capability. But he has literally looked incapable of picking up wickets recently and if he keeps going on the track he is now, we might need to force him to retire alongside Anil Kumble. Have I lost my marbles? Remember what came Saqlain Mushtaq’s or Mushtaq Ahmed’s way? And when they were kicked out, they were bowling at least a notch above the supremely straight stuff that Harbhajan bowls these days. I mean even Kumble spins it more than Bhajji these days. Is it not the worst abuse ever for a spinner?

Was it just a purple patch for a bunch of mediocre batsmen who would look potent of chasing any total against most attacks, if not all, that took them to the world cup finals 2 years ago? Yuvraj Singh, for a long enough period of time, has been ugly; bad could be a complement for him. And they still hope that he will get runs CONSISTENTLY. I don’t care about a solitary hundred that he strikes against a futile West Indies attack. When time demands him to bat, he’s either foxed by a spinner, or if he avoids it then he sweeps him into the hands of deep mid-wicket, or else he edges a quicky to the slip cordon. Virender Sehwag is the replica Sourav Ganguly of the early years of the millennium. While Sourav was prolific in ODIs and dismal in Tests, Sehwag’s the opposite.

They now realize the value of their batting champion Sachin Tendulkar. As his critics shout, he may not play a Brian Lara or a Steve Waugh or an Inzamam Ul Huq for his team, but I have seen him score hundreds on days when he hasn’t timed a single delivery and has been completely out of form, still at a reasonable strike rate, through some thoughtful and soulful stuff. Those knocks may not win matches for his team, but they never let his team be embarrassed to the extent of 8 for 44, that too against a soul Shane Bond, I don’t count Andre Adams a bowler.

That brings us to the question of where to start the cleansing job. I guess it starts at the top with an axe on the skipper. England can afford a non performing skipper, India cannot. The man to wear the hat should be the only permanent member of the team, Rahul Dravid. Or if they are prepared for the tough decision, then they should go with different men for the two versions, Dravid with the test squad and Kaif with the ODIs. Have I lost my marbles now? If Ganguly is to go and Dravid is not a long term option, then the only person that stands a chance is Kaif. He has batted more consistently in ODIs than anybody else apart from Dravid himself and, although at a junior level, has previously led a world winning team. The next axe falls on Yuvraj, who must be asked to win a place back in the team by doing some notable stuff at the domestic level. And for god’s sake I hope they don’t bring back an ever unfit VVS Laxman as a replacement. If Sachin manages to come back sooner rather than later, then they must think about whether Sehwag deserves a place in the playing eleven. I believe it’s better to lose by trying out young blokes like Suresh Raina, than by chancing continuous failures like Yuvraj.

And what about the bowlers? It has to be made clear to Ashish Nehra and Zaheer Khan, that the BCCI has wasted enough money on their fitness and travel tickets. It’s time they do something about it or accept that they were never made for the highest level, a sad realization that came very late in case of Ajit Agarkar. But giving it a second thought, is there an option? I fear that the answer is no. If strike-rate-wise the best ODI bowler to immerge from a nation happens to be called Ajit Agarkar (believe it or not he still holds the best strike rate for an Indian taking more than 100 ODI wickets), then god save that country. And if you drop Harbhajan, the only bowler who has averaged less than 4.5 runs per over since the 2003 world cup, is it not a suicide?

So do you really count it as the captain’s failure? Or is it the impotency of his men that’s responsible for the debacle? That brings me back to the original question, was it just the coinciding purple patch of a few ordinary people that gave us hope of a CONSISTENTLY high performing team? Well only time and (maybe) Greg Chappel could tell. For the time being, my breakfast menu has changed to English style to avoid tummy-aches like 8 for 44.

An Expert's Take

Originally published on Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Just a couple of days ago did the ICC come up with its new recommendations for one day cricket and left the experts analyzing its after-effects. The Cricket Committee of ICC had suggested many ways to revamp the game, 2 of which were approved by the Chief Executives’ Committee of ICC. One day cricket did need some resurrections, particularly the slam bang stuff that is played in the subcontinent, with scores of 300+ not being secure. I, as a knowledgeable spectator, would have liked to see the battleground between bat and ball more flattened, rather than bowlers left in an open field to get bulleted by batsmen with no place to hide. I would have also liked to see it in a less predictable form, with teams needing to think at all stages of the match, rather than having big burley openers (read Adam Gilchrist) clatter their way through hapless and “boundary protection-less” bowlers (read Zahir Khan, or better Javagal Srinath, still better Venkatesh Prasad) during the 1st 15 overs, then swift runners (read Paul Collingwood) setting it up for the mighty sloggers (read Abdur Razzaq) to put their teeth deep into the flesh of the already bruised fielding side. But where do the new rules lead us?

The ICC has approved a rule for introduction of a substitute during the course of an ODI. Purists have dismissed the case saying it’s not cricket, but soccer. Revolutionists have welcomed it saying ODI cricket needed a change. But what the situation demands is an analysis of its effect on the experts front, while an ability to think dynamically and react to the situation to best exploit the rule on team management front. As I am leading the former, I will try to analyze it.

The rule says that a team can call upon a substitute during any stage of the match and the player substituted cannot take further part in the game. But it hasn’t made clear when the team has to be announced. There needs to be a clear guideline saying when you have to declare the final 12 men and the starting 11. As of now, the final 11 have to be named before the toss. Going by this theory, if a team has to announce their final 12 and starting 11 both before the toss, then the rule leads to nothing but a gamble. With this rule, the most obvious use case is to use an extra batsman while batting and replace him with a bowler while taking the field. But if they have to name their starting 11 before the toss, they will not know whether they are batting 1st or not. So they don’t know whether to include an extra batsman or bowler in the starting lineup. Suppose a team names 6 batsmen, a keeper and 4 bowlers in the starting lineup and has to field 1st, then the 1 bowler left on the bench is rendered ineffective. In case the team replaces the extra batsman with their bowler, to make up for the 5th bowler then the replaced batsman is gone for a toss. If the rule actually allows you to announce your starting 11 after the toss, then it undermines the whole purpose of the rule change that is to reduce the predictability of ODI. In most cases the substitutions will come at obvious stage of the match, the innings break.

The other regulation introduced is a good thing to have, as it will actually help make the game more unpredictable and has a scope for more shrewd tacticians. I don’t quite agree with the increase in number of overs for fielding restrictions from 15 to 20. The game is already loaded in favor of the bat and this probably will add to that. Probably the ICC has increased number of field restriction overs to maintain the effect of the current number. A 15 over fixed restriction will be as helpful to the batting side, as a 20 over restriction with only the 1st 10 being fixed, the other 10 coming at the fielding side’s discretion. 3 slots of 5 overs, with the 1st being mandatory at the start of the innings would have made it more favorable for the poor old bowlers. But then the rule will surely make the teams re-devise their strategies.

What I would have liked to see is a reduction in the effect of toss on the predictability factor. At many venues, particularly those hosting flood lit games with the dew factor coming in late at night and also those hosting it with the morning dew, the result is driven by the toss outcome. I liked a Sanjay Jha solution to this, where he proposed to split the 50 over innings into two 25 over slots. The 1st team bats their 25 overs, followed by the 2nd team’s first 25. Then the 1st team resumes its innings for the remaining 25 and then the 2nd team completes the rest. The idea was to have a single innings per team (not 2 different innings), split in 2 parts. This would have made both sides bat and bowl in all kinds of comparable surrounding conditions.

There is another good step that ICC has taken, that is to ask the MCC to review the restrictions on the size and material of a cricket bat. The last thing we want is heavyweight boxers hitting crafty spinners out of the ground after actually getting beaten in flight, yet using the edges of their mighty bat blades. Some limitations on the willow could do well to preserve the skill and art in batting in the long run.

Looking from the Indian perspective, the substitution rule could be a blessing in disguise. It’s a well known fact, that India’s best ODI all-rounder in the last 10 years has been Ajit Agarkar (if you don’t count Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid with wicket-keeping gloves on), which is a shame in itself. This rule could serve as their filler for an all-rounder, with the ability to use their 5th bowler only for bowling purposes (with the kind of bowling they have in ODIs, they will probably do well to have 391 of them). With a lucid thinker like Greg Chappell at the helm, we can relax a little, that the Indian camp is sound in terms of thinking caps. What we have to hope though that the rule change doesn’t do an Indian Hockey (remember what we got when they moved from grass to mat and then marred the dribbling skills by canceling the offside rule), although it took a K.P.S. Gill to complete that debacle and a Jagmohan Dalmiya is all the more acceptable.