Some nitpicking on a superb day for cricket fans

This isn't a party-pooper sort of post, but I guess its the right day to get it off my chest, in no particular order.

• Harbhajan and Yuvraj shadow-boxing after Hayden got out was totally hilarious. I'm very surprised Ponting doesn't see the funny side of it. He told NDTV something like "Harbhajan finds new ways to celebrate. It wasn't very funny". I agree with you, Ricky. It's hard to find it funny when you're copping it! Then again, it certainly wasn't an unprovoked celebration!
  
• Apparently Harbhajan is in trouble with the match referee for making monkey gestures and spitting, both directed at a section of the SCG crowd. Is this guy a moron or what? He's just about managing to get into trouble every week! He was in a definite soup over the 'monkey' abuse issue, and evaded a ban because of a combination of inter-board politics, administrative gaffes and a lack of conclusive evidence.
  
• Brett Lee's beamer to Sachin Tendulkar is just another beamer in his international career. Notice how none of the commentators actually says 'beamer'. He seems to keep bowling one so regularly. Please find me other bowlers who do that. In 2005, he bowled one to Abdur Razzaq in retaliation to Razzaq bowling him a beamer. Then, it was McCullum's turn, which drove the Kiwis mad even as some Aussies made some pathetic excuses about lack of height, the ball slipping, it wasn't high enough to qualify as a beamer, etc.. He didn't apparently learn from his 'mistake', for he then bowled one to Trescothick during Australia's Ashes tour in 2005. I have absolutely no doubt that Tendulkar accepted the apology mainly to avoid yet another controversy.
  
• Was it really tough to lipread what Virat Kohli, the India under-19 team captain, was shouting after his side won the tournament? Hint #1: There were two words he kept repeating. Hint #2: The first word has 4 alphabets, the second has 3. Hint #3: The first word starts with f, the second starts with o. I know he was letting off steam. It's huge pressure for a young kid. But there're younger kids watching the television, those aspiring to be under-19 captains one day. Such language is unacceptable. After all, if the national team cricketers abuse opponents, or their mothers, it is assumed that it is a must-do thing in international cricket!

Labels: australia, beamer, Commonwealth Bank Series, harbhajan, hayden, india, lee, ponting, tendulkar, under-19 world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:35 am | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Double standards, Athers!

Mike Atherton argued for a one match ban for bowlers who bowl beamers. In a post on AOL blogs, I pointed out that England's bowlers and fielders were guilty of a similar offense - hurling the ball back to the keeper with every chance of it making contact with unsuspecting batsmen. And they've been doing this for 2-3 years now!

The reason I see double standards in Atherton's call for a ban is that he was very charitable to Brett Lee in 2005 when Lee bowled a beamer to Trescothick in the NatWest Series final. He wrote then:

The furore that has followed his rather too frequent use of the beamer is easier to justify. The beamer is the hardest ball for a batsman to pick up precisely because it pitches (or doesn't pitch) so far from where the batsman expects. If it is bowled on target, as Lee's invariably is, then it can be lethal. Lee was visibly sheepish after his latest beamer at Marcus Trescothick during the NatWest Series final. After taking Andrew Strauss's wicket shortly afterwards he remained head bowed rather than celebrating in his usual fist-pumping fashion.

His visible embarrassment and immediate fulsome apology convinces me that Lee's beamers are unintentional, although other international bowlers doubt that such a quality performer can be so far out of kilter. The other reason for giving Lee the benefit of the doubt is that he is such a demonstrably decent fellow. His popularity among team-mates, current and former, is legend. Michael Slater, one of the few Australian pundits prepared to speak frankly about former team-mates, says "he's just a champion".

So Brett Lee's popularity lets him get away with bowling a beamer ever now and then! If Lee kept having a 'bowed head', offering a 'fulsome apology' and looked 'visibly embarassed' every time he bowled a beamer, he'd never be able to turn his head, for he'd have a royal pain in the neck!

Update: Just realized that Mukul Kesavan has written on similar lines on Cricinfo!

Labels: atherton, australia, beamer, england, lee

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:39 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Well done Sreesanth!

On Day 3 at Trent Bridge, towards the end of India's innings, Zaheer Khan and Kevin Pietersen got into a slanging match. This is what Cricinfo had to say:

Zaheer and Pietersen exchanging insults and the umpire has to step in as Zaheer brandishes his bat. It's all kicking off and so unlike the shy and retiring KP to speak out of turn. "Sure you've got the right man," he chirps as the umpire tells him to calm down

When I saw that on TV, the first thing I told my brother was that Zaheer needed to give Pietersen a 'perfume ball', not of the bouncer variety, but a beamer. Coincidentally, the first ball Pietersen faced yesterday was from Zaheer, but Zaheer bowled a terribly disappointing first ball. A few overs later, Sreesanth had the ball and he did what Zaheer didn't, albeit perhaps unintentionally.

Sreesanth to Pietersen, 1 no ball, oh dear, that was unintentionally nasty - a beamer from Sreesanth heads straight for Pietersen's head. Pietersen crashes to the ground, taking evasive action, and Sreesanth apologises immediately

Next over, Pietersen was out twice - the first time it wasn't given (caught behind) and a ball later, he was out lbw to a beautiful banana inswinger from RP Singh. I must confess that my earlier skepticism about RP Singh seems misplaced. He has a lot of ability and potential. He's shown that he can handle the job of the #3 seamer quite well. He bowled brilliantly in England's second innings at Lord's and did a great job yesterday with the crucial wickets of Pietersen and Prior.

For that beamer act of his, despite his theatrics & otherwise shoddy show with the ball, three cheers to Sreesanth! Hip hip hurrah! Hip hip hurrah! Hip hip hurrah!s

Labels: beamer, england, india, pietersen, sreesanth, trent bridge

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:36 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Hughes wonders about beaming Lee into the test squad, Buchanan and Fletcher clash

The controversy over Brett Lee's beamer to Trescothick in the NatWest Series final is unlikely to die down soon. Lee has been trigger-happy with his beamers in the past but while he does seem apologetic, his excuse is really quite pathetic. He is quoted as saying "When you are bowling at such a high velocity and trying to get momentum through the crease and try to bowl a yorker you only look at a slight variation in your trajectory to the wicket".

Brett, let me do you a favour and explain the definition of velocity. You may have forgotten your physics, but I (we) haven't. There is a subtle difference between velocity and speed. Speed is a scalar quantity which measures the rate of motion. Velocity is a vector quantity and includes the direction of motion. Sadly enough, your beamers dont qualify as 'high velocity' because they lack direction.

Putting aside concerns on his beamers, Lee reckons that Andrew Strauss is due for a big score. Even though Strauss topped the runscorers list in the NatWest Series, most of his runs came against Bangladesh and he was found severely wanting against Australia.

After the tied final, with the jury still being out on who came off better, Fletcher and Buchanan have now declared war. Fletcher had claimed after the game that he was happy to see Australia rattled and indulging in lots of conferences even as England inched their way to the target. He also made a couple of comments on Australia's batsmen being uncomfortable against Harmison and the way McGrath was "protected" by Hussey. Buchanan has now responded commenting on how Strauss, Trescothick and Vaughan have fared against the Australian opening bowlers as well as how England could miss out on good fielders during the tests, given that among Pietersen, Solanki & Collingwood, only Pietersen looks to have a chance of making the Ashes squad. Michael Vaughan doesnt seem too worried about his batsmen's form even though the BBC's analysis shows that there is plenty of cause for concern.

Simon Jones seems genuinely relieved at not having to face those pesky Bangladeshis again.

Merv Hughes, who recently became an Australian selector, has dropped hints that he favours Brett Lee playing in the first Test. But he is unable to figure out which bowler to drop. Maybe he finds it tough to figure out which of Kasprowicz or Gillespie to drop? I think there's an easy way out: get the new one-day rules extended to tests as well to ensure that Lee continues to be 12th man.

In 1972, the English cricket following public got introduced to Lillian Massie, but with not quite the same long-term impact as their introduction to Lillian Thomson.

Labels: beamer, lee

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:08 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

A fascinating tie at Lord's but a shared final?

England and Australia completed the first leg of the warmup for the forthcoming Ashes with a tie at Lord's in the final of the NatWest Series. Australia made 196. So did England. Australia were all out. England were not. This was an eagerly awaited final of a one-day competition. So why on earth there was no attempt to get an outright winner is totally beyond me.

I'm fairly sure you'd have read a lot about the actual game, so I wont bore you with a complete match report. I think overall Australia will be the far more disappointed side with the result. When the summer started, they were expected to steamroll all opposition. That they have not won the final implies that they have performed below expectations. The problem with being super achievers is that people expect you to keep performing at a level above your efforts of yesterday. While I really do prefer to watch one-day games where bowlers have a say, I dont think this game was played on a pitch which levelled the playing field, and no, I dont have any intention of reading Friedman's offering where he confuses 'flat' with 'level'. There is no doubt that the game was a cracker, but the pitch also contributed its mite. Gilchrist and Hayden's blitz at the start was perhaps an attempt to take the pitch out of the equation, perhaps to try and put up 100 in the first 15 overs by playing outrageous cricket, although the four consecutive boundaries Gilchrist hit off Jones were great to watch.

England did very well to drag Australia back but Gilchrist was really frustrated by Flintoff's tight bowling from around the wicket. The pitch then took over for a while and England will be quite disappointed at not bowling Australia out for 150 or so after having them at 100/5. Hussey and Symonds ensured that Australia set a fairly competitive total for England to chase. While Harmison and Flintoff bowled superbly, England will be concerned about the lack of support. Giles and Collingwood were harmless. Gough huffed and puffed his way to the bowling crease but disappeared even faster, conceding five an over in a lowscoring game does indicate that he is possibly past it. I have absolutely no idea why Vaughan didnt let Flintoff complete his quota. Australia were all out in the 49th over. At that stage, Flintoff had two overs to go. Who knows what may have happened had Vaughan's captaincy not been so senseless. Vaughan had also earlier shelled out sixteen overs to Collingwood and Giles which let Australia consolidate. I know England do have bowling options, but when you have a side such as Australia on the mat, why would you ever want to have anyone other than your top four (or perhaps five) bowlers bowl to numbers 6-11?

England's top order was blasted out by Lee and McGrath, including yet another senseless beamer from Lee, this one to Trescothick. While a lot of writers seem to suggest that the beamer shook up Trescothick, resulting in his edge to second slip one over later, I really do differ. The guided edge to slip off an Australian quick is fast becoming a standard Trescothick offering. He'd have done the same even if Lee had not beamed him. Pietersen, promoted to #4, didnt last long either and Australia's quicks ended up scoring a lot of brownie points against England's top order batsmen. I dont quite think England's bowlers can claim that against Australia's batsmen.

England were 33/5 and Australia would have really sniffed a chance to go in for the kill. Lee was taken off with analysis of 2/20 in 6 overs while McGrath had 3/9 in 7 overs. Lee didnt make his next bowling appeareance until the 36th over and at that time, Collingwood and Jones had batted beautifully to take England to 113. Ponting took a leaf out of Vaughan's book and choosing to bring on the likes of Symonds and Hogg to ensure that Lee and McGrath had a few overs left at the end. I think Ponting should have gone through with either Lee or McGrath and retained only one of those two for the end. Hogg took a pasting, although he did manage to get Jones out lbw at a crucial juncture. Australia normally pride themselves on having quite a few bowling options but Ponting only had Hussey as a backup. Clarke wasnt even used, perhaps because Pietersen had already been dismissed! Hogg and Hussey bowled 10 overs between them for 55 runs, and took two Jones wickets, and that really did prove costly. Effectively, in the absence of Warne in the one-day game, Australia are a three bowler side. If batsmen can keep their wickets intact against the three quicks (whoever among McGrath, Lee, Gillespie and Kasprowicz plays), they should really not have problems against the other bowlers. Either Australia need to bring back Warne saying "All is forgotten" or find some other decent bowlers.

When Collingwood and Jones got out within a couple of overs of each other, Australia should won. England needed 36 off 31 and had three wickets in hand. One of them was Giles, and our contempt for him is well known, the others were Simon Jones, Gough and Harmison. Lee's 49th over was reasonably ok but he ended up making a huge mistake of trying to bounce Giles. At that stage, 18 were needed in 11 balls and the snorter at Giles' throat ended up being spooned over Gilchrist and the game had changed in the matter of one ball. McGrath's last over was terrible. He began with a no-ball when 10 were needed and conceded one run to Gough off that ball. Gough kept backing away to leg and smacked two extra-cover drives which brought him four runs and now with three required off 2 balls, England had to really bat senselessly to lose. The next ball was all McGrath magic. Gough tried to smash to long-off and didnt time it and started running. McGrath stretched out and fielded the ball, saw Gough running. He had three options - do nothing, attempt a direct hit or run up to the stumps and effect the runout since Gough was a fair distance behind. He showed his greatness and presence of mind when in the span of less than half a second, he decided to hit the stumps, took aim and succeeded! Three required off one ball now! At this stage, Australia really should have won, considering England had one wicket left and Ponting could have adjusted his field placing to ensure that the ball didn't squirt away through fineleg or third man. Giles added to the tension by pulling away as McGrath ran in to bowl (or was it the other way around?). An inswinging yorker attempted by McGrath hit Giles on the pad and the ball ran away to third man where Lee rushed in to prevent the second. One set of Aussie fielders, including McGrath and Ponting, were convinced Giles was out lbw. Lee made a mess of the fielding and allowed Giles to return for a second and the game was tied! Given that the umpire ruled leg-bye, I'm fairly sure Giles was out.

What a superb game to end the series. Yet, this is not the end of Australia-England one-day encounters for the summer. Three more games coming up as part of the NatWest Challenge where the new rules proposed by the ICC will be tested out. If anything, I think these games will be damp squibs compared to the final. Isn't there an overdose of Australia-England one-dayers? Bring on the tests please! In any case, it does seem ironic that after such a wonderful game of one-day cricket, a low-scoring thriller at that, we will be seeing new rules being tried out to spice up the game. Then again, after 2258 one-dayers, we've only had 22 last-ball wins, 43 games decided on a 1 run or 1 wicket margin and 23 tied games. Given that less than 5% of all one-dayers appear to have been close games, the ICC may perhaps be right in tweaking things.

I'm also sure that Vaughan can no longer take his place in a one-day side for granted. As pointed out here earlier, his average and strike-rate are quite pathetic. His failure in a big game such as Saturdays would see more ex-players, commentators etc. write about his failings and whether he deserves to be in the side.

England must be convinced that tied one-dayers are like London buses. In their 34 year old experience with one-day international cricket, England had only been involved in two tied games until February this year. After that, they have tied two more, against South Africa and Saturday's final!

Labels: beamer

Thus spake Jagadish @ 8:30 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Beaming Brett Lee gets support from fellow Aussie quicks

The Australian fast bowlers' union came to Lee's rescue as McGrath, Gillespie and Kasprowicz echoed a few other views on Lee's beamers by pointing out that the balls which were allegedly beamers were in fact at waist height and not even remotely near the head, the normal height at which a beamer comes to the batsman. Of course, McGrath doesnt waste an opportunity to point out that the Kiwis were forever whinging.

Labels: beamer, lee

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:11 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The jury is still out on Brett Lee's beamers

Steve Waugh feels that Lee's action and his lack of height result in him bowling beamers accidentally now and then.

A couple of old Aussie fogies have differing opinions. Rodney Hogg feels that Lee's actions were deliberate while Lenny Pascoe, that gentle giant is confident that the ball slipped.

Graeme Watson, who played a few tests for Australia, and was hit by a beamer during an Australia v/s Rest of the World XI "Test" at Melbourne by Tony Greig defended Brett Lee saying that he was not doing it deliberately and that the balls were actually only waist high rather than gunning for the batsman's head.

Clive Lloyd, whose merry men were not averse to the deploying this art, has also jumped into the fray, felt that it was unintentional and that the umpires also felt so and hence did not take any action.

The Bladder takes a sardonic view of these incidents/accidents.

Labels: beamer, lee

Thus spake Jagadish @ 9:50 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Kiwis allege Brett Lee deliberately chucks in his beamers

The "Black & Blue caps", formerly known as the Black Caps, have had enough of Brett Lee's apparently accidental beamers hurled at their batsmen. New Zealand's coach Bracewell and skipper Fleming have had a go at Australian tactics quite often in this series, so far. The last word is still not out yet, especially since the test series is yet to start!

During the 1974/75 Ashes when English ladies wondered why & how a fair damsel called Lillian Thompson would batter England's batsmen into submission, one of the English batsmen wrote home to his mom saying "They bowled a ball in my half of the pitch today". The Kiwis cant even say that!

For the record, Australia have now won the series with a 3-0 lead.

Peter Roebuck argues forcefully that Lee must be bounced out of the team from the rest of the tour on account of his trigger-happy beaming. Below, a picture of beaming Brett.

Labels: beamer

Thus spake Jagadish @ 9:36 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]