The puzzling selection of Sehwag..

An interesting decision may very well extend the worries of Yuvraj Singh once again. While the tour match pointed to Dravid opening the innings, and Yuvraj playing in the middle order, now there are reports which say that maybe Sehwag will open and Yuvraj will again have to wait. Now the question here is, why does Virender Sehwag even come in the fray? Let us go back a bit, and find out why he was dropped. He was dropped from the test team, because he was not playing well in the one-dayers. Sounds amusing, isn’t it? His record in tests is by far the best amongst recent Indian openers, and the problem was that he was not making runs in one-day internationals. Yet he was first dropped from the test team, then the one-dayers. Then he was selected in 20-20. Now he figures in the test team against Australia on the premise that he played well 4 years ago in Australia. Ever heard any more ludicrous explanation of any player getting selected? Sure he is a gifted player, and sure he should never have been ousted of the test team, but the logic of his selection now defies me. As they say, two wrongs do not make a right. And what incentive does it leave for players like Gautam Gambhir, Akash Chopra (who was equally instrumental 4 years ago in India’s performance against Australia) and Parthiv Patel, who have done well with the bat in the domestic season, as against Sehwag, who has literally done nothing. If that was the logic of his selection, even Ajit Agarkar should have gone. And in every series against every country, we should include those players who played well in the last series against that country. I somehow do not understand it. It may all turn out to be great if Viru fires, but the decision in itself sets incorrect precedents.

 

Secondly, Sunil Gavaskar has asked Indian team to take tough decisions and exclude Yuvraj Singh or Laxman from the squad and ask Sehwag to open. Mr. Gavaskar, there is a thin line between bravery and stupidity, and this decision may very well be on the other side. Isn’t asking Dravid to open a tough enough decision? Isn’t Dravid the most capable Indian batsman on such tracks? So shouldn’t we be brave enough to ask him to open (for he anyway is in the middle by 5 overs), and make room for Yuvraj, given his current form. On what parameter does Sehwag deserve his inclusion ahead of Laxman and Yuvraj? Somehow all this defies logic. The simple logic as I see it is - When in Australia, play you best team on current form. Not the best team as per the form 4 years ago!

 

I wish I am proven wrong if Sehwag plays, though more than that I wish that Yuvraj plays. He may be very instrumental in this tour against Australia, but only if he plays.

 

A positive start, a cracking statement, a fairytale comeback and pathetic pitches of India...

Anil Kumble must be a happy man. He deserves every ounce of success he has achieved, and his short tenure as the Indian captain has seen some refreshing changes in Indian cricket. The Kolkata test declaration was one of those, as mentioned in my last post. A lot of people were questioning his delayed declaration in the last test at Bangalore, but I think he was absolutely correct there. Why on earth should he jeopardize a given series victory for a sporting declaration? The very same media and critics would have taken Kumble to task had India lost after a sporting declaration. Knowing all this, anyone in his senses would do what Kumble did. Bat Pakistan out of the match. Just like for Pakistan it would not have mattered whether it is 0-1 or 0-2, and hence they should always have gone for a victory, for India it wouldn’t have mattered had it been 1-0 or 2-0, so they should have secured 1-0 first. Which is what they did. Hence full marks to Kumble; for a perfect start. When he needed a sporting declaration, he did that in Kolkata; and when it was of no use, he did not do that.

In the same match, Yuvraj Singh made a comeback, and what a cracking knock he played. The more you see this guy, the more you feel for him, as he remains outside the test team. I think he has proven a point, and he will play in Australia. How he will fit in, is anyone’s guess. My sense is that Dravid will be asked to open, as most of the time he is anyway out on the middle by over number 5. Dravid is in a precarious position too, with his average in the last 9 test matches (excluding matches against Bangladesh) around 30, and with Sachin, Saurav and Laxman in good nick, he will be under tremendous pressure after Yuvraj’s knock.

And how can we forget Saurav Ganguly. The man’s return has been nothing short of a fairytale. When everyone was busy writing him off, the guy was writing a script of his own. His average in the 2 years prior to being dropped from the team was just 34, spanning over 17 tests in which he scored 1 century against Zimbabwe and 4 half centuries ( 2 of them against Bangladesh). I think the decision to drop him was correct. The manner was debatable. After his return, his average from 11 tests is 59!! This includes 3 100s and 5 50s. His getting dropped probably allowed him and compelled him to focus more, which has been a big positive for Indian cricket. Greg Chappell’s move may not have been driven by this logic, but in totality the move was good for Indian cricket. It also made other guys focus much more, as no one could take his place for granted.

Finally, this discussion is incomplete without talking about the pitch in Bangalore. An absolutely pathetic and rubbish pitch, and only the curator can tell what it was supposed to achieve ahead of India’s tour to Australia. If it was supposed to turn, it didn’t. If it was supposed to ensure India’s test victory, I think only this pitch could have prevented India from winning the series. And I do not even want to comment about the bounce. Someone could have been injured on this rubbish track (Laxman nearly was). So if I can get any pointer on what it wanted to achieve, I will be blessed. The curator should be taken to task for this. But then, that will only happen if the BCCI finishes with the more ‘important’ and ‘pertinent’ matters such as to allow Vengsarkar to write in a column or not. Marvan Attapattu’s statement about Sri Lankan selectors can be used verbatim for BCCI as well. More on this sometime later.   

 

The brave new captain

Kumble declared in the second test against Pak in Kolkata with a target of less than 350 to get in more than 75 overs. While logically this is almost close to impossible, I do not think any other Indian captain, including Dravid and Ganguly, would have had the courage to do that. Looks a refreshingly good change for Indian cricket.

The brilliance at Eden Gardens

Wasim Jaffer's innings on Friday is one of the most fluent in the recent times by any batsman that I have seen. Such was the brilliance of the innings of this man that the batting of Dravid and Sachin paled in comparison. Rarely do we see a batsman maintain the spark of his innings through out the day as Jaffer did. You really had to search for any false shot. The disdain with which he hammered Sohail Tanveer was amazing to watch. The intent was aggressive, and the execution as clinical as you would ever see in test cricket. Exquisite batting!!

 

At the same time the Pak team looked in such disarray and players looked so disinterested that it looked like either they had not been paid for the last match or they simply thought they were playing for Habib Bank against National Bank of Pakistan (two domestic teams in Pakistan, and I bet even they would have shown more fight). Another point to ponder was the selection of Mohammad Sami. Same has taken 70 odd wickets in 32 test matches, at an average of over 50. It’s amazing how he has always looked talented, but never quite converted the talent into anything meaningful for Pakistan. He is a fighter but I guess now it is time that Pakistan look beyond him.

 

Elsewhere, Zimbabwe stunned West Indies in a one day match. This was their second upset in the past 6 months. If people thought their victory against Australia in 20-20 was pure fluke, today's performance should make some of the people believe that the Zimbabwe team is recovering. Or is it too early to say that?

 

Kallis - The Greatest All-rounder?

An interesting observation led me to compare the records of Jack Kallis and Sir Gary Sobers. Kallis has hit 5 centuries in his last 4 test matches, and now has 2 instances in his career when he has hit centuries in 4 consecutive test matches (in 2003 it was 5 in 5). Add this to his bowling prowess, and you wonder why Kallis is a lesser revered name in cricket as compared to Sachin, Lara and Ponting, or even Sir Gary Sobers. A closer look at his test records would reveal a striking similarity with that of Sir Gary. His batting average is 58.2 from 111 matches, slightly higher than Sir Gary's 57.8 from 93 matches. Kallis has hit 29 centuries (astonishingly, without a double century), while Sobers hit 26. Even Sobers had some prolific patches in his career, like from 1957-59, when he hit 6 centuries in 6 tests (though not consecutive, one of the tests had 2 centuries). The bowling averages are also very similar, with Sobers picking up 235 wickets in his 93 tests at 34 a piece, while Kallis is slightly better at 31 a piece for his 221 wickets. Sobers had 109 catches to his name while Kallis has 111. Its amazing that Kallis is not considered the best all-rounder ever (as Sobers is), as the only blip I find in his record as compared to Sir Gary Sobers is no double centuries in his career. A key to judge an all-rounder’s ability is to subtract his bowling average from his batting average, and for Kallis this difference is close to 27 runs. I am fairly certain that not too many players who have played even half as long as Kallis boast of such a record. I guess even if we look at him purely as a batsman, he would score in the top few. When on song, he is one of the most pleasing batsmen to watch, and one of the most difficult to dislodge. If not for injuries, he would have been one of the most lethal swing bowlers too. Maybe 20 years from now he will be considered the greatest all-rounder. For me, he is as good as Sir Gary.

Dravid's Omission - A correct decision ?

A lot has been written and said about Rahul Dravid's omission from the One-day team. While it is harsh on a player who has given his heart and soul for his country's cause, a deeper analysis would see through the merits of such a decision. Taking the selector's word, and assuming this to be a rotation policy, I tend to agree that such a policy (of playing only 2 out of the big 3, in ODIs) is necessary, in order to elongate the career of these 3 players, given the amount of one day cricket India plays. Even if this was not a correct explanation, based on current form, it would have been really difficult to keep someone like an Uthappa out, in order to accommodate Dravid. The only other player who could have been left out instead was Ganguly, and his omission would also have raised similar questions. While there may be more to the story than what meets the eye, I think the decision in itself may not be a bad one. For one, it keeps everyone in the team on their toes, given the kind of performances guys like Suresh Raina and Parthiv Patel are giving. Secondly, it gives some confidence to younger guys, unlike 3-4 years back, when every player thought it was virtually impossible to break into the batting line up that boasts of Sachin, Saurav, Dravid and Sehwag. Whether the decision is good or bad will only be proven by time, but at this time, given Dravid's form, and the performance of the guys on the bench, it is difficult to take any other decision. It is cruel for someone like Dravid, but I guess we need to start getting used to some of these decisions while trying to build a solid one-day unit.

The Great Resurrection

They say faces tell stories. Six months ago, during the World Cup in West Indies I remember the faces of Dravid and Sachin in the Indian balcony showed the disappointment and shock of exiting the World Cup in the first round. And just yesterday, life came a full circle, as the faces of Dhoni and team showed the joy and hope of a new dawn. Dhoni has done what so far only a legend of Indian cricket, Kapil Dev could do. And we witnessed what we missed when we were just too young (in 1983). The joy and awe of watching our team win the cup. We waited and waited and waited, and it came when we least expected it. There will be people saying that 20-20 is just not cricket. Well if it is not cricket, so be it. But it was the same for all the teams. And we came out on the top in that. The power and fearlessness of youth led India to a level that no level of maturity can take. It was great and inspiring to see each player in the team, fighting whole heartedly for the team, contributing in whatever way he could, and help the team clinch the cup. And doing what they did without Sachin, Saurav and Dravid just showed sometimes how we get hooked to a certain player, and how we attach greatness to individual records rather than team records. It was a perfect display for young players to see what team work is, and how the sum of the parts in a sport can be greater than that in mathematics. Such was the effort that I found it difficult to single out a single player. Whether it was Sehwag’s initial burst in a couple of matches, or Yuvraj’s maniacal hitting in some of the others; whether it was the clinical bowling of RP Singh and Irfan, or the idiosyncrasies of Sreesanth; whether it was the brilliant catch by Dinesh Karthik, or the immaculate run outs affected by Rohit Sharma and Robin Uthappa; whether it was Harbhajan’s and Joginder’s bowling in the death overs, or it was Gambhir’s knock in the beginning of the innings; And whether it was Dhoni in the captain’s seat, or the team which he captained, I just can’t single out any one thing that led to this victory. But victory it was, and what a way to achieve it, beating England, South Africa, Australia and Pakistan in back to back matches in a week. It has been years we witnessed something so refreshing in this Indian side. And the stark similarity with the 1983 warriors cannot go unnoticed. Both were teams, that no one gave a chance in the tournament to begin with. I remember reading somewhere the odds of India winning the 1983 world cup at the beginning of the world cup were 1:2500. Both surprised everyone, and just kept winning match after match. Both won low scoring finals, batting first. And in both the world cups there was no major player who can be singled out to be responsible for the team’s win. It was a combined team effort. And the biggest similarity. The prophecy!! When Zimbabwe defeat Australia in the World Cup, we win the world cup. So keep it up Zimbabwe.

 

The Indian team is on the path to resurrection. It will be immature as well as incorrect to say that we are the best team, but this new team has shown that we have the makings of one.

 

A Fitting Finale

Just how many times have we waited for a great nail-biting finish to a tournament or a series, only to be disappointed by the sheer one-sidedness of the final match? Most of such matches in recent times have witnessed a total anti-climax, including the last 3 ODI World Cup finals, where Australia brutally hammered Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka respectively. It may be a co-incidence that the teams at the receiving end were all sub-continent teams, all of whom fought tooth and nail in those respective tournaments to reach the finals, only to be demolished by Australia. It was only fitting that two teams from the subcontinent not only defeated Australia in a cricket tournament, but also gave the cricketing world a match that is worthy of being called a final. It has been years since I saw something even remotely close to the 20-20 final between India and Pakistan. The only parallel I can draw to this is the 1999 World Cup semi-final, which I still rate as the best One Day ever played, and just like yesterday, even in that match, no one knew till the last ball about the outcome of the match. Such was yesterday’s match, a fitting end to a series where two teams, fought for redemption and lost respect. Two teams who had the most ignominious exit from the World Cup earlier this year, and faced the wrath of their fans back home. Such was the impact of that defeat, that no-one gave a chance to these teams in this world cup. But such is the nature of the sport, that you can expect the unexpected. Two teams, who are in the process of rebuilding, headed by two young guys who redefine the way cricket is approached in these nations, and without any of the big names that have been associated with these teams in the past, showed the world what competitive cricket is. It was nerve-wracking, tense and brilliant. Never in the recent past have we seen such edge of the seat thrillers in the cricket field. And what a fantastic match to finish it all. The twists and turns just tell us why India-Pakistan matches are known to be the best matches in the cricketing arena. For me, there was no loser in this match. It was such an amazing final where both the teams held their heads high, right from the time the anthems were sung. Absolutely top-notch performance!! Way to go…

A Refreshing Change

Whatever we have witnessed so far in the ICC 20-20 World Cup from India, is nothing short of scintillating stuff. A young team (average age 24), led by a young leader, has redefined the way cricket is played and approached in India. We have witnessed fielders taking air-borne catches and affecting run-outs with such alarming frequency as has never been seen in Indian cricket. The urgency seen in running between the wickets can give Australia a run for their money. The bowling has been spot on, with someone or the other taking up the mantle of carrying India’s bowling on his shoulders on any given day. Each player in this team has been a revelation, and the contrast is even starker as India just lands up in South Africa after playing fairly lethargic cricket in the ODIs in England. Absolutely fascinating stuff! Just goes to show the power of youth. Dhoni has led the team by example, and has proven so far to be right man for the job. While it is still too early to take a call, since Dhoni is yet to face the burden of expectations in this role, and it will be some burden if India end up winning this World Cup. Having said that, whatever he has shown so far, has been refreshingly good. His attitude towards the captaincy stems from his attitude towards the game, a no-nonsense and simple approach, to enjoy the game. Results often become irrelevant if a team starts enjoying the sport it plays, as more often than not, the team who enjoys ends up winning. While initially my thoughts were that Yuvraj seems to be a better man for the post of India’s captain, I must admit that I was probably wrong. Dhoni has controlled things well, and he has appeared calm.  This (making Dhoni the captain) may turn out to be the best decision selectors have taken for Indian cricket in a long while. And if Dhoni does win this cup, he may very well be the Test captain India is looking for. And he may end up making 20-20 the most popular form of cricket followed in India. I am just waiting for tomorrow with fingers crossed…

Zimbabwe all the way...

Well, Zimbabwe took just about 9 hours to prove the 20-20 effects. And prove they did, stunning Australia. As is the format of the game, Australia messed up their first 5 overs while batting, and there was no looking back for Zimbabwe after that. The rest of the match was more between Zimbabweans and the demons in their minds, as all of us thought will they, or won’t they? The game was more between Zimbabwe’s own belief and the recent history of losses. And they overcame it, which can only be better for them.

After all this, the one team that needs to beware now is England, who plays Zimbabwe today. And they will probably also bear the brunt of Australia’s loss in this match when they play Australia. As for Australia, I think they came and thought that they would have a stroll, and got hammered in the process. Similar to what happened to India in the World Cup in West Indies earlier this year.

And one more team should take note of this, which is India. The last time Zimbabwe defeated Australia in a World Cup, was this, in 1983. The rest is history, if someone wants to draw inspiration from history.

 

Well done Zimbabwe…

The 20-20 effect

As the latest form of the game evolves in its first showcase event, I realize that there could be two interesting impacts of the same, in other forms of cricket. 20-20 has 6 overs of powerplay, and once this is done, what is left is similar to the last 14 overs of a 50 over match, provided the number of wickets lost is the same in both the cases. So from what I saw in the first game between South Africa and the Windies, we are going to witness a transformation in slog over batting as we have never seen before. Fielders will field hard, batsmen will hit harder and bowlers will feel the pain hardest. A team that has lost only 2-3 wickets till the 35 over mark in a 50 over game will probably end up scoring far more than what they usually would have done, had there been no 20-20. The second and the more positive impact stems from the fact that the shorter the duration of the game becomes, the greater the chances of a minnow upsetting a bigger team become. Think of it, 20-20 will not give teams a second chance. So if a bigger team makes a mess of 4-5 overs, then the chances of coming back are remote, even if you are facing a Scotland or a Bangladesh. What these smaller teams lack is not the talent or the ability, but the belief that they can upstage a bigger rival. A win in a 20-20 match will lead to this belief. How many times have we seen minnows starting the match on s strong note only to fritter away the advantage? 20-20 might well go a long way in solving this problem. So although bowlers will have nightmares thinking about their economy rates from now on, for the smaller teams, this event should be a boon.

Shane Warne's top 50....

Shane Warne recently picked the top 50 players that he has played with or against, as per his ranking, in his column in The Times. While it is HIS ranking, and hence I should not be the one commenting on it, being an avid follower of the game, I can’t resist the temptation of talking about this. I think this list should have been more like the top 50 cricketers to watch, rather than the top 50 players to play the game. A few examples… Let me begin with Indian choices first.

 

1. He ranks Sachin No. 1, and I am happy about that. But that is more because I am an Indian, and Tendulkar is awesome to watch when on song. But is he the best player when you want your team to win? I think most people would want a Ponting or a Lara or even Dravid ahead of Sachin, at least based on his form after 2002. He is a great player, but I think he finds a place here more because Warne never played against Ponting. Ricky Ponting averages 71.9 in test matches after 1^st January 2002!!! Six years and 58 tests, and he averages close to 72, with 24 hundreds and 21 fifties. Not many players can boast of such a stretch in their careers. In the same period Sachin averages 49 in 51 test matches with 10 hundreds and 15 fifties. And If I remove matches played against Bangladesh in the same period, with all due regards to the team, Ponting’s average goes above 72 while Sachin’s drops to 44. Moreover, even as a spectator, Ponting’s aggressive attitude makes far better viewing than anyone else (ofcourse when he is not playing against India. I hated him in the 2003 World Cup Final). To top it, he would have won more matches than anyone in this period. So I guess he comes at number 8 only because Shane Warne has not played against him.
2. Ravi Shastri comes in at No 42, and Dilip Vengsarkar at No 46. Any pointers to how Ravi Shastri came ahead of Laxman?
3. Steve Waugh at No 26? Hello? Again I think Waugh was a victim of not being able to play against Shane Warne. And probably he was not the best batsman to watch. But he being 26 in Top 50, behind Darren Lehmann, Bret Lee and Stephen Fleming is what baffles me.
4. I am as surprised to see Inzamam missing from the list
5. Graham Thorpe? He probably was the only English batsman who gave a semblance of fight against Australia before 2005 after Warne started playing. And his name is missing
6. How can Shoaib Akhtar, Merv Hughes and Craig McDermott be ahead of Allan Donald?
7. Andy Flower was far too good a player to be kept at No 36. And his record against the bigger teams is outstanding.

 

Having said all this, there are a few good selections, which do not find any mention in a lot of other lists. Courtney Walsh, Ambrose, Langer, Hayden, Robin Smith, Andu Flower, Aravinda De Silva, Mohammad Yousof, Saeed Anwar to name a few.

 

The issue I think is comparing players across eras. I think the concept is incorrect. Players should be compared in a maximum span of 10 years, and even that is a stretch. Conditions change, teams change, players change, even playing styles change. Then how can we compare. I cannot think of comparing Tendulkar post 2002 to himself pre 2002. If I had written this in 2001, I would have said Sachin is the best player. Maybe Ganguly would also have made the cut. Dravid probably would have missed the list. Hence it is unfair to compare players across eras. And the speed at which the game is developing, every 5 years see such a large change, that it seems like an era. Maybe once 20-20 evolves, we will have even shorter test matches. Hence to compare Sunil Gavaskar to Mahendra Singh Dhoni is unfair to both the players. It is not an apples to apples comparison. But then such comparisons keep happening, and such lists keep being made. And as I said in the beginning of this post, it is Warne’s observation, and he is entitled to have his opinion. Hence all due respect to his opinion.

Chak De...simply brilliant...

Although this is a cricket blog, but I just could not stop myself from writing about this here. Watched Chak De India over the weekend. And only one word comes to my mind after watching it – Brilliant. Indian Cinema has never boasted of good sports movies, and this is one of those which might redefine the way sports movies are made in India. Shahrukh has acted very well, and people will definitely be reminded of his performance in Swades. The girls of the hockey team have also acted well, and some of the characters are just amazing. The movie may very well bring hockey to the forefront, and nothing may be better for Indian hockey before the 2008 Olympics.

The applause of the viewers was something to see. I think even actual hockey matches do not get such an overwhelming response, that the movie managed to get in some of the sequences. The way the team members start getting along each other is just fabulous, and the film also has a very logical flow. It is a story of how a will to achieve the unachievable can lead someone to actually achieve it. The best part is that it showcases how difficult it is to form a team with players all across India and how easy is it to criticize the lack of camaraderie in a team.

 

All in all, a brilliant effort, and a must watch for any sports fan, hockey or otherwise. After a long while I found something that I wish to watch again.

Champion Kumble...

As Ian Chappell very aptly put it, it was one of the most popular centuries of modern test cricket, not because it was a breath-taking collection of shots all around the ground, but because it came to one of the nicest known players in the modern era. Anil Kumble aka Jumbo is someone who will give more than 100% every time his captain asks for it. He is a competitor, and a fierce one, but never will you see him abusing the opponent, or showing his discontent to the umpire. The competition is limited to cricket and that is what earns him the respect in the cricketing world. A clear indication of this was the joy in the Indian team’s balcony when Kumble reached his 100. Even English players had to come and congratulate him. And the fact that he led the teams to the pavilion after the Indian innings folded, said it all. He has taken 17 long years and 118 tests to reach there, and he probably will never be known for his 100. Kumble has been one of India’s greatest players overshadowed by the dynamism of Sachin, Dravid and Sourav. Cricket is a sport where batsmen are always given due respect since they entertain, but bowlers somehow remain overshadowed. When this series began, everyone was focusing on this being the last tour of England for Sachin, Dravid, Sourav and Laxman. What we all ignored was that this probably is also the last time a champion bowler like Anil Kumble is playing there. We always forget that Kumble has probably won more test matches for India with his bowling than all of the other 4 put together have done with their batting. Sure he has taken bulk of his wickets in the subcontinent, but he made India such a champion team at home, that the Australians had to name India “the last frontier”. Over the years he has proven that he can bowl in South Africa, Australia, West Indies and England with equal panache that he can do in India. The misfortune of this great bowler has been that he never had enough runs on the board to be able to dominate the opposition away from home. Take a look at matches where India has scored heavily in the first innings abroad, and you will find that Kumble is as lethal as he is in the subcontinent. And he has been as instrumental in India’s solid overseas performances as he has been in India.

Most of the media had ignored that Kumble was playing for the last time against England in England, and it was fitting that he reminded us and everyone that he has been an integral part of this team over the past 15 years or so, and he reminded us the way we want to remember it. He hit a ton, which none of the fab 4 of India did in this series, and yet again showed that he is a fighter. Now that the Indians have 664 on board, I wish he finishes with a test match winning bowling performance, and reminds us yet again of the importance and the achievements of this unheralded hero of Indian cricket. That should be an appropriate finale to this series, where the Indian team seems to have redefined itself.

Nice read...

Beautiful article by Siddhartha Vaidyanathan!! Just sums up that it is consistent batting by the team and not really individual high scores that win you matches and series. India have not won the series yet, but they are well on course to do that. Nice read.

It takes two to Tango  

 

The Use of Technology in Cricket - III

This is the third post in this segment, and comes at an apt time, just as poor Sourav Ganguly has just been handed his second consecutive rough decision in the series. And rough is an understatement for this decision. It was such a big inside edge, that I spotted it on TV with naked eyes. The umpire missing it poses a few questions. I can understand Ian Howell (the umpire in question) missing the two sounds of bat and pad hitting the ball, but how an umpire of international standards can miss a 70-80 degree deviation in the trajectory of the ball, is beyond me. The only explanation that I can think of is that he wasn’t looking at the ball, at the time it was hitting the pad. And he looked at it after it hit the pad, and judged it based on where he saw it hitting. I can still accept this, since umpiring is a tough and thankless job, and it is easy for the umpire to miss 1 ball during the day when he has to concentrate for 540 deliveries. What is beyond me, is that once he has given the decision, and he has also seen on the big screen that it was incorrect, what is the harm in calling the batsman back? I think Simon Taufel did the same for Kevin Peterson in the first test of this series, so why not do it again. And Simon is also not absolved of the mistake he committed. The mistake was not that he gave a rough one against Sachin (I think Sachin deserved to be given out trying to play a bowler like Collingwood, with all due respect to Collingwood, with his pads and not his bat). The mistake was not calling Sachin back when he himself admitted that he realized it was a wrong decision once he saw the replay.

 

And amidst all this, what does the ICC think is the role of the third umpire. Why can’t he be used to solve all these issues? I mean he must surely have seen the big inside edge in the case of Sourav’s dismissal. Why cannot he communicate to the on field umpire that mate, you are wrong. What is with this entire ego issue about umpires being bosses? Sure, they are supposed to control the game and emotions in it, but they are not supposed to be a factor in the outcome of a match or a career. And then you fine a poor player if he is dissatisfied with a wrong decision. Excuse me, its his career and the match’s outcome on line. I do not find umpires getting penalized for the number of wrong decisions they give (with the exception of the World Cup final, which frankly was a fiasco, where the umpires deserved to be penalized).

 

I am not against umpires, but I want to re-iterate that it will only empower them if you give them the technology. There is nothing wrong in accepting your incorrect decision. Viewers and players will respect you for that. As for some amount of extra time that this process of the third umpire intervening will consume, I guess on average it would not amount to more than 10 reviews a day. Let us make that 20. On average the third umpire should take a minute to be absolutely sure whether the decision is wrong, and then he has to come out with the verdict. The player would be then have reached the end of the ground, but recalling him will not waste extra time, since the new player would anyway have to come out of the pavilion. So we can assume about 20 minutes at best being spend on this process. That amounts to 5 overs. Ask any player or viewer around the world, he would be willing to play 20 minutes more or 5 overs lesser if we can reduce the number of umpiring errors by that.

 

I also do not say that technology should replace umpires. A prime example of why this should not happen is Dinesh Karthik’s dismissal yesterday, when the snickometer did not show an edge, but the batsman accepted later that he had nicked it. Kudos to Ian Howell for getting this right. But this should not mean that technology is always fallible. Technology is fallible, but so are umpires, and more so. But together, both of them would make a strong force to reckon, or atleast a team that would be consistent in decision making in a match. And then the viewers and players can be assured that most often, it would be the performances that would swing the match.

 

Use of Techonolgy in Cricket - II : Hawk Eye

First of all I would like to welcome the decision by Simon Taufel to refer the first Kevin Peterson dismissal in the Lords test to the third umpire after giving it out himself. You need to be courageous to put your decision on the line in front of TV cameras. Kudos to Simon Taufel for that.

 

Coming back to our topic of discussion, about the use of technology in cricket for aiding umpiring decisions. I will discuss about Hawk Eye here. Hawk Eye, probably one of the most revolutionary cricket technologies in its time, has also been marred with a lot of controversies. While it has been used extensively by broadcasters to liven up the viewing of cricket, its use as an aid to umpires has been long debated. Infact it has been used in the Wimbledon for decision making, and was also involved in a controversy there. Roger Federer was clearly not happy with the technology being used in the 2007 final against Rafael Nadal (in reference to a line call that was called IN). We have often heard a lot of objections to using the Hawk Eye in cricket officially. A lot of those objections are invalid, and made by either ex players or commentators who have not gone and looked how it actually works. Hawk eye uses the same technology as used for missile tracking. It records the trajectory of the ball at various intervals, using cameras that are far more sophisticated than the cameras used for TV broadcast, as explained in this article. The same applies to the Hawk Eye cameras used in Wimbledon, where the normal TV cameras record 150 frames per second, cameras used in Hawk Eye record 1000 frames per second, thereby recording the trajectory more closely than can be viewed on TV. Hawk eye officials have refuted Roger Federer’s objection here, and stated that the hawk eye decision was not ‘definitely wrong’. This clearly shows how powerful the cameras are, and how they capture stuff that naked eye finds difficult to do. More data about hawk eye is available on its site http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/

 

Coming back to the point, these cameras track the trajectory of the ball before and after pitching, and extrapolate the data to find the path of the ball. The common objections are that it cannot extrapolate how the ball moves in the air, and off the pitch. Both are wrong, to an extent. It can capture what the ball does off the pitch, since it tracks the trajectory before and after pitching. Hence any movement off the pitch will result in that being captured. Swing in the air is the more difficult thing to capture, but so is it for the umpire. I would rather have the umpire’s judgements being based on the technology instead of his own whims and fancies. It can do whatever a naked eye can do, with more accuracy.

 

The bigger objection is that it may replace umpires. I do not know why. Since the beginning it has been said that it should be used as an aid for the umpires, rather than a substitute for the umpires. The final decision has to be made by the umpire. Atleast you can rule out some of those howlers where the umpires miss balls hitting the middle stump. Or at the very least, use it as an aid in deciding whether the ball pitches in line with the stumps. (Though to be very frank, I do not understand this rule of cricket too. If the ball pitches 1 cm outside leg stump, and the batsman pads at it, and it is hitting middle stump, why should that be not out?)

 

If the objection is that the matches would be over far earlier, I think we need to give something here to the bowlers as well. Otherwise, very soon we will have teams playing with 8-9 batsmen, since the rules would anyway not allow bowlers to be of any use. Why make the game longer at the expense of a bowler who has rightly caught a batsman plumb in front? Or if you want the game to be really long, remove this controversial mode of dismissal all together. Lets not have LBWs.

 

I think we need to realize, that the more technology advances, the more it will be used in broadcast, and the more the umpires will be exposed. This is a way of bringing consistency in the game and their decisions. And it is far more accurate than human eye. We have started using the Third Umpire for run-outs and even catches. And that has not replaced the umpires. On the contrary, it has added a lot more fun and zing to the game. Why not use this as well? The umpires will be far more relieved, and if big match stress has anything to do with incorrect decisions, this will also be avoided once they are empowered with technology.

 

Use of Technology in Cricket - I

In the last few years, as technology has evolved, I have been curious to understand why it is not used more in international cricket, to aid umpires thus stopping them from making blunders that change the course of a match. The argument given is a lame one, saying that it evens out in the long run. What a ridiculous explanation for hiding the inconsistencies of umpires? I mean, if someone had given a wrong decision against VVS Laxman in his epic 281 against Australia in 2001, would that have evened out? India would have lost the series, and Laxman would have been fined for questioning the umpire’s decision. (By the way, he was given a rough decision in the first innings of the same match!!). Assume that someone is given a rough decision in a match like a World Cup final? If someone’s career ends because he gets a wrong one from the umpire? How does that even out?

 

We have a whole host of arguments, against the use of technology in assisting umpires in decision making, beautifully explained and negated by Amit Verma in his blog 23-yards. I have been a fan of this blog, and the author clearly states the objections and answers. The author also tries to clear the doubt that technology will replace umpires. What I will do is try and take this a step forward.

 

Over the course of the next few posts, I shall try to reason why use of technology is a must, and why the sooner people realize this, the better it is for the game. But then, cricket is a game of glorious uncertainties, and umpires are the chief sponsors of those uncertainties. When shall we realize that I watch a match to see Sachin bat and Mcgrath bowl, and Jonty field, and definitely not to watch Steve Bucknor give an incorrect decision when it is least required.  

 

I agree that umpiring is a thankless job, but then that is all the more reason why technology should be used to aid umpires. In the next post we shall discuss Hawk Eye, and try to reason why people are against using it in cricket.

The 20-20 team..

So, finally the Trinity of Indian cricket have realized that it is time to pave way for the next generation of cricketers in the next generation version of the sport, 20-20. I would congratulate them on this step. This marks the end of one era and a beginning of another, and the sooner we realize this and take steps to prepare youngsters to fill in those big boots of Sachin, Dravid, Kumble, Laxman and Ganguly, the better it will be for Indian Cricket. So a good step taken by the 3 senior players and a good decision by the selectors to look at 30 youngsters must be lauded. 20-20 isn’t the most pure form of cricket either where you would require the defence of Dravid and the class of Sachin and Sourav. The good decision was to bring back players like Kaif, Raina and Pathan, all of whom were brilliant to begin with, but lost it somewhere in the middle. But then again, didn’t the same happen with Yuvraj? And look at the return of the guy, so much so that now almost everyone relies on him to see India through in ODI chases. I think all the above players have talent, and should be given a chance to prove themselves again. Here again the 20-20 version provides a good opportunity in bringing back the confidence of these guys, without putting too much pressure on them.

However, one thing that baffles me is that Dhoni is expected to captain India in this 20-20 World Cup. Isn’t Yuvraj a better and a more experienced player? Shouldn’t this opportunity be used to groom him as the next ODI captain, given that he possesses the temperament required in ODIs and has a cool head on his shoulders? I think this is an opportunity missed. While I do not take anything away from Dhoni, the fact is that Dhoni is yet to prove himself over a longer stretch, and we do not want Dhoni to follow the Sehwag trail.

Sehwag will also prove to be good here, given that he anyway stays for only a couple of overs, and hits everything that comes his way. Ideal for 20-20!! If only he could show some more application, we would have seen a lot many innings like his Multan classic. What a waste of such class and talent? However, all is not over for him, and I hope he uses this opportunity to get going again, and we see a lot more of him in the days to come. Come on Viru…

Why do we have to appeal in cricket..

Why do people appeal in cricket? Is there any other sport in which people appeal? Not that I know of. A footballer does not appeal after scoring a goal. Not sure what the reason behind this silly rule in cricket is. What it also does is that leads into umpires getting biased in their decision-making based upon the intensity of the appeal. I wonder if the ICC would change this rule rather than bringing in useless rules such as the new no-ball rule, where the next ball after a no-ball is a free hit for the batsman. Give us a break. What more do you want, 500 runs scored in an ODI, and if that is not all, the same being chased also!!  Bowlers will refuse to play cricket one day… or will ask to be paid more.

 

A Tribute to 15000 runs

As he drove the ball towards extra cover, he achieved a feat no other man could achieve so far, and yet again stamped his authority on the game. Sachin Tendulkar, now has more than 15000 ODI runs to his name, and the run machine did not look rusty at all.

 

No.. this is not a debate to ascertain it he is the best player that ever happened to the game... he may not be.. infact.. he is not...

This is also not a forum for discussion whether he should retire or continue to play..

Neither is this a place where we discuss if he should play defensively or aggressively, let his instincts rule his mind or not...

 

Here, I just pay tribute to someone, who has held the flag for India's batting for the last 18 years, and continues to do so. I pay tribute to the unassuming master, who has to carry with him the burden of 1 billion expectations and a team, which is at best mediocre. I pay tribute to Sachin Tendulkar, for trying to mould his game to what his team might require. More than anything, I pay tribute to Sachin Tendulkar for being capable of lifting the spirits of an entire nation in a matter of 4 minutes, or an over. How can we ever forget the second over that Shoaib Akhtar bowled in the 2003 world cup match against India, and the way the little master creamed him for 17 runs... I still remember the way adrenaline pumped after that, and the way India acheived the target in that match... and the way he lifted the flaggling spirits of his team and its fans...

 

I pay tribute to Sachin, for achieving yet another record...which was not exactly a new record.... for once he crossed 12000 ODI runs.. every one that he scored was a record.... Once he crossed 30 centuries... every one he scored was a record...

 

I pay tribute to Sachin, for his quest to better himself, to keep his motivation levels high even after achieving almost everything a cricketer would dream of.

 

No, I do not say that he is the best batsman, or GOD in cricket. He is not, but the little guy has to live with it that we want him to be the best batsman in the world. He carries our expectations, he fails, but again carries them in the next match. For mere mortals it is easy, Sehwag may not carry the same burden of expectations again, Ganguly may not have to do it, but Sachin needs to.. every time he steps out.. we need him to score, and more than anything, we want him to score. He fails, but we again want him to score. And again and again. He gives us the feeling of superiority in a sport where we are mediocre, and I pay Tribute to him for this feeling.

In a nation where we do not really excel in any sport, he provides us a ray of hope sometimes, and I pay tribute to him for that.

 

Well played Sachin...