Mohali test

who on earth got his brainwave of having a test match at mohali in December? Of all the paces in India - Mohali was chosen. It ought to be common knowledge that fog and bad light will disrupt the match.

Rewriting the script

There are rarely such matches that provide so many thrills as the recently concluded Chennai test between India and England. While England dominated the test for most of the time, it took three brilliant innings of different styles to really snatch victory from the English team. While Sehwag’s belligerent innings was the difference between the two teams, it was Sachin Tendulkar’s measured approach to the target that won us the match – not to forget Yuvraj Singh’s performance.

For long I have been extremely critical of Sachin’s ability to win matches on his own – and used to rant about a long list of matches where he could have won us those but either gave away his wicket at a crucial juncture or got out. However, this year alone, he has played two amazing knocks – one in the CB series final against Australia, and this one now against England in the Chennai Test. Both innings had determination written all over them – that he will not give up before taking the team home. The Chennai innings was special, since about 10 years ago, on the same ground, Sachin had failed to win a match he single handedly set up for India. That was probably his best inning till date – fighting a back problems and a terrific Pakistan bowling attack. The only blot on that innings was that he got out with India needing some 15 odd runs, and we lost 3 wickets and the match after that. It was heartbreaking!

So it was only apt that he chose the same venue to rewrite the script, and take India home in this record chase. Let us hope we see a lot more of these innings from him now, as the pressure on him gets considerably lesser.

And I think we need to leave Dravid alone. For 2 months – let us not ask for his head. The guy will be back with a bang. He alone has saved and won more matches for us than a lot of the others – he has been the mainstay of this team for ages – he deserves to be left alone by critics and media for some time.

What happened to the review system?

Ok.. So, after a long hiatus, I return to write something here. Whoa, this has been some period – 2 great India Australia Test Match series, the IPL and changes in the Indian Cricket Team; the emergence of Ajantha Mendis in world cricket – and the retirement of a few greats. More on these in some later posts!

The review system was introduced during this period – and for some reason – continues to be in trial, in spite of unequivocal good that it brought to the game. Now for starters - the main critique of the review system is that I consumes too much time – and that we could live with a few mistakes from umpires as human errors. I even heard some absurd comment from Sanjay Manjrekar in a recent series – he claimed this took up almost 20-30% of the time of a test match. I still wonder how. Each innings can technically have 6 unsuccessful reviews – 3 by each team. I am not adding up the successful reviews – where the umpire’s incorrect decision is changed – since that is the purpose of the system, and that is the necessity for a fair game. After all, every one of us would be ok with a correct decision being made. So coming back to the issue - even if a review takes 3 minutes (if it takes more than we need more competent 3^rd umpires) it works out to 18 minutes in an innings, and about 72 minutes in the game. Out of the 1800 minutes that the game has, and assuming all 4 innings are completed and all reviews are utilized, we still lose only 72 minutes – that is 4% of the game time. So I do not know how Mr Manjrekar came up with this statistic. He also went on to say that he is willing to accept the umpire’s decision as a human decision and carry on. Hello!! I am sure a commentator would be willing to do that – but what about the players. I have said it earlier – people turn up to watch Sachin bat and Bret Lee bowl – and not for Rudy Koertzen to umpire. So I as a spectator am not willing to accept the incompetence of an umpire make a mockery of a cricket match. Sometimes I wonder who makes these guys a commentator.

And we have not even accounted for the positives it brings to the game. Players appeal lesser – or let me put it this way – unnecessary appealing is cut. I do not want to calculate the time of Harbhajan’s appeals every time the ball hits the batsman’s pads – but I am sure this will be comparable to the earlier stats we have discussed. Players have started walking – since they will anyway be given out in the review system – if they are out.

The only argument that stands negatives of the review system is that we may not have technology to be 100% sure of decisions. Fair enough – if we are not 100% sure – then we accept the field umpires decision. But when we know he is wrong – blatantly at that – why should we shy away from using a good system. We do not need the third umpire to definitely come out with a decision every time. He can aid the on-field umpire with a few replays. What could possibly be wrong with that? I sincerely hope the systems returns – as it is again being tried in the New Zealand – West Indies series.

And the Man of the Match award goes to ... Pakistan

This is something I found while surfing through www.cricinfo.com. Probably the only instance of its kind in ODI cricket. In this match between England and Pakistan in 1996, the entire Pakistan team was adjudged the ‘Man of the Match’.  Shadab Kabir, a Pakistani player, made his debut in this match, and won the ‘Man of the Match’ in his debut match despite being dismissed for 0!! In all he played 3 matches, and scored 3 ducks, and yet is one of the players to have the record of winning the ‘Man of the match’ in his first ODI!  

Thanks Gilly

Very rarely do you find players, who apart from being great players change the way cricket is played. Jonty Rhodes revolutionized the concept of fielding, and after his arrival, fielding became as integral a part of the game as batting and bowling. Vivian Richards showed that aggressive nature may not mean reckless, and test batsmen can be aggressive too. Sir Gary Sobers and Kallis and Flintoff showed the importance of allrounders and their necessity in each team. Cricket goes through a phase shift when such players happen, and is never the same again after these players showcase their skills. Adam Glichrist will be known in the coming generations as one such player. He showed that a wicketkeeper who is an accomplished batsman can be the difference between winning and losing, and for a long time, he was the key difference between Australia and their competitors. He completely changed the notion of a wicketkeeper who could be a handy batsman, chipping in with 20-30 runs when he bats. Adam Gilchrist was as good a batsman as anyone else in the team, and that suddenly allows the team to have the luxury of picking one extra batsman or bowler. His batting average of almost 50 in test cricket is far ahead of anyone else who has been a wicketkeeper and played that long.

Apart from this, his opening in one-day internationals also had a similar impact for Australia. When you have a wicketkeeper who has a strike rate of 95+ and can open the innings, you suddenly transform into a very powerful unit. Again the luxury of picking up an extra batsman or bowler is more often that not the key difference in winning or losing. Before Adam Gilchrist, wicketkeepers used to be wicketkeepers. After his arrival, they were allrounders, who could do well in more than 1 aspect of the game, like any other allrounder.

Australia has been a force in the last 10 years in international cricket, and this man has had a big hand in that. Often overshadowed by the likes of Waugh, Ponting, Warne and Mcgrath, Gilchrist has probably been far more instrumental in Australia maintaining their supremacy in the cricketing world. He belongs to the ever shrinking family of players who walk before the umpire’s decision in cricket, but he is not one who would walk away from a challenge. And when you felt he is down and out, he would come back and strike. What better example than the 2007 world cup final? Gilly had a bad series by his standards, but chose the final to tell the world what he is capable of. He blasted 149 off 104 balls, which more or less finished the match for Sri Lanka. Gilly played 96 consecutive tests for Australia, out of which Australia lost only 11, and astonishingly, won 73!! That tells you something about this team and this player.

Cricket has never been the same once Gilchrist arrived. Each team started looking for a wicketkeeper who could be an accomplished batsman. Teams without such players look inherently weak against someone who has such players. And I do not think cricket will ever be the same again after Gilly departs. We will thoroughly miss a player, who had the capability of changing matches on his own. He made cricket richer. As the PA system announced appropriately at the end of the Adelaide test – Thanks Gilly…  

India conquers Perth

There are days which are good for a cricket team, and then there are days which get imprinted in the memory of the fans. 19th January 2008 will be one such day for Indian cricket fans, when India humbled the mighty Australians in a ground known as their fortress. Australia had not lost a test in Perth since 1997, when Curtly Ambrose led the West Indies to a memorable win. This time around, it was a bunch of rookie quicks, with a combined test experience of less than 20 tests, that went right through the Aussies. The spell which young Ishant Sharma bowled to Ponting on the last day of the test epitomized it all. A 19 year old quick, barely 3 or 4 tests old, bowled a hostile spell that continued for 8 overs, against arguably the world's best and most consistent batsman, and had him all at sea right through the spell. And at the end of it, Ishant Sharma got the better of Ponting, and that for me was he defining moment in the match. Never in the recent past do you remember a young pacer from India bowling such a hostile spell to a premier batsman. It was a memorable test, capped by some memorable performances, be it Sachin's innings on the first day, Laxman's grit in India's second innings or Sehwag's bowling in the last innings. It was an amazing display of teamwork, and you cannot find a single player who was more responsible for the win than anyone else. Anil Kumble has already shown in his short tenure, that he should have captained India far earlier, and his inspiration has driven India against all odds. It is probably a matter of time that dictionaries in India start using his name as an example for the definition of a ‘leader’.

 

India has emerged as a strong test team in the past few years. They have won test matches abroad in locations traditionally known as fortresses of home teams. Be it Sabina Park against the Windies in 2006, Johannesburg against South Africa in 2006, or Perth against Australia now. Fans would still have not forgotten the Adelaide win in 2003, and this team has given them one more memorable moment to reflect on. This has to be one of the best wins for Team India in test matches, if not the best. 1-1 going into the last test would have been a fair result for this series, but India can hold its head high even going 1-2 into it. India has been the only team who has challenged Australia successfully in the last 10 years, and this intense rivalry continues to keep everyone interested. It definitely sets up Adelaide for a thrilling finale.

Shouldn't Ponting be banned for this??

I borrowed this from a recent article by Prem Panicker
Many people might not have read that, so I am re-writing it here. Have a look at the image on the left. Ponting appealed right after this. That the umpire did not give Dhoni out was another matter. But as a captain, shouldn't Ponting be penalized for setting an incorrect precedent. As per ICC Code of Conduct, this amounts to unfair play and a level-three offence. Other captains have been penalized in the past on this evidence. Rashid Latif is a case to remember. So how is Ponting any different? And the most interesting part is, the match refree who banned Rashid Latif was none other that Mr. Mike Proctor.

The Morality Issue

So much has been said and written about the Sydney test match so far, that it becomes futile to write too much about umpiring decisions atleast. For long I have been a supporter of higher technology use, and have also highlighted the usefulness of Hawk Eye in some of my previous posts. So I guess this test match will be a landmark episode in the transitioning of cricket from using umpires to using umpires aided heavily by technology. The argument against it is that Technology so far is not fool-proof, but then we have already seen if umpires are more fool-proof than it. So why not aid the umpire with it, just to make the combination far more strong if not fool-proof.

 

There is not too much to write about the Harbhajan episode as well, since this for me does not even qualify as a case against him. For 3 reasons. Firstly, I trust him more than Michael Clarke, and I believe he did not say it. Secondly, assuming he said it, there is not evidence other than Clarke and Hayden’s statement. Now, in which court of the world has the defendant ever been asked to prove that he is innocent? Normally it is the onus of the prosecution to prove it beyond doubt that the crime was committed. Unless it is proven, the defendant is innocent. Why Mike Proctor’s court is any different is something I do not understand. And Thirdly, it does not seem quite right if Aussies complain of someone allegedly making racist remarks against them. They have never been the cleanest of cricketers, with uncountable number of sledging episodes. Now the key difference here can be claimed to be sledging versus racist remarks. But did the Aussie team always ask before sledging the other team if the word being used to sledge has racial connotations or not. I do not think so. Chances are that they would have used that, and the other team was less of a crying baby than the Aussies, so they did not report it. Personally I feel Andrew Symonds needs to go back to school, to understand that everytime someone taunts you with something, it does not necessarily mean you go and cry in front of mama. And I am thoroughly disappointed that he claims to be part of a team that claims to play tough cricket.

 

The third and the most contentious issue here is of morality. Ricky Ponting may want all of us to believe that his integrity cannot be questioned, but his deeds on the cricket field seem to suggest otherwise. The guy plainly claims a catch that has been grassed, and asks us to believe him that he was 100% sure that the catch has been taken. He also claimed that he was 95% sure that he caught Dravid in the first innings, but given his magnanimous and upright nature, he said he was not sure. Well done sir. Three issues here. Firstly, morality is absolute, and that is precisely why it is one of the most difficult traits to practice. You cannot be moral once and immoral at other times. So if you are morally responsible, and you want people to believe so, you need o practice morality at all times, whether you are fielding or batting. So if Mr. Ponting had walked when he nicked the ball, and not stayed there after the umpire ruled him not out (incorrectly), we would still have believed him. Secondly, what is this 95% funda. How did he calculate this? Does he have some statistical models running inside his brain which calculated the probability that Dravid’ edge carried to him in the first innings? In that case, he should have been a professor of statistics, and not a cricketer. Would have served the game better on that day. Thirdly, how can you claim that your teammate (Michael Clarke in this case) is as upright as you, and that he will also be honest when he claims Ganguly’s catch? This is the same Michael Clarke who refused to leave the crease after being caught in the first slip via a waist high catch, saying that he did not walk because he never does so. Hello!!! Please explain him what does walking mean. Walking is a concept when a player returns to the pavilion after getting out, without waiting for the umpire’s decision. Most of the times, this happens when the player is caught behind, since the edge may not be clear. It does not mean that you get out caught in 4^th slip and do not walk. What more is left Mr. Clarke? No walking when you get bowled. Saying that you have never been a walker. And these two guys claimed Ganguly’s catch. How on earth do they expect anyone to believe them?

 

This team of Australia has tarnished their image as champions. I used to really respect their game, but this ugly face has really made me feel sad. For once I felt Sreesanth should have been in Australia. Win or lose, he would have gotten under their skin. For once I thought Harbhajan should have actually abused Symonds, and I hoped he is not punished. Unfortunately for all us cricket fans, the series which promised to be a cracker, is already gone. What is left is just pride of Indian cricket team, and I really hope that is restored in the days to come.

SCG = Sachin's Cricket Ground

What do you do when your opposition has a batsman, who kinda loves one of your home grounds, so much so that he average 326 there, and has scores of 148 not out, 45 , 4 , 241 not out, 60 not out and 154 not out in test innings spanning across 16 years on this ground? You name the ground after him, just like one spectator did in his banner today. SCG was not Sydney cricket ground anymore; it was renamed Sachin’s Cricket Ground by the banner. Such an amazing knock was played just the previous day by VVS Laxman, that it really needed to be someone really gifted to overshadow it the very next day. It was a terrific show of skill, power, intellectual ability and execution skills of Sachin. He kept on changing gears throughout the innings with ease, and along with India’s tail, really showed glimpses of the Sachin Tendulkar we used to see in the late 90’s. Another interesting incident will probably throw some light on Sachin’s special liking for Brad Hogg on this tour. Recently, Hogg got his wicket in a one-dayer in India, and there was a photo of this dismissal which Hogg asked Sachin to sign. Sachin obliged, and also wrote “This will never happen again, Hoggy”

 

Not much can be written about an innings like this. It is an experience for cricket lovers, and Sachin fans and can only be enjoyed as you watch. As someone rightly said in another banner today – “Commit all your crimes when Sachin is batting. They will go unnoticed because even the Lord is watching”