World Cup review - Part 1 - Australia, Bangladesh, England, India & Ireland

28 years ago, I was rudely woken up by relatives screaming "We have won the World Cup". It is quite likely that Saturday's final between India & Sri Lanka also ended around the same time as that game in 1983. I was well awake this time around!

I can't recall exactly when I started following cricket with a lot of interest, but I definitely recall watching games from the 1985 World Championship of Cricket in Australia keenly. I did watch at least 1 day's play of the India v Pakistan test at Chepauk in 1987 and definitely remember Azhar taking a blinder of a catch. I can't recollect if it was off a spinner (Maninder) or off a medium pacer (Raju Kulkarni), most likely the latter since I didn't bunk school, and the last day of the test was on a Sunday. The 1987 tied test at Chepauk enthralled me. A few months earlier, I had read an account of the final over of the Brisbane tied test. Around the same time that the India v Australia game was coming to an end, with India in a winning position (50-odd runs to get with 5 wickets in hand), I was at my music class, and wondered aloud if a tie was possible. Needless to say, I got thrashed when umpire Vikram Raju's finger went up.

Back to the present though. The final was an excellent exhibition of classy batting by Jayawardene, who I still believe to be over-rated in comparison to Sangakkara, nice partnerships (Sangakkara-Dilshan, Mahela-Samaraweera & Mahela-Kulasekara, Gambhir-Virat & Gambhir-Dhoni) and a fair amount of power-hitting at the end.

Now that the tournament has ended though, teams & individuals need to introspect into whether they have achieved what they set out to.

Australia needs to take a serious look at their approach to grooming spin bowlers. Under Ricky Ponting's captaincy (possibly because of his limitations when it came to playing spin bowling in tests), the only time he used "spin" with some degree of seriousness was when he was washing his clothes. They've never identified any sort of backup options for Shane Warne other than Stuart "watch-me-bowl-a-half-tracker" MacGill. They need to find at least 1 more young batsman to play alongside Watson, Clarke & Ponting. It is rare for Aussie ex-captains to play on for too long after they've quit as captain. While Ponting may play on until the 2013 & 2014 Ashes, it is quite likely that he'd have quit ODI cricket by then.

Bangladesh need to have a rethink about their domestic cricket structure, and ensure that the top 25-30 players get a lot more exposure to cricket against first-class teams from countries that are better than them. It's quite obviouso that the talent is there, but they're not progressing beyond an odd upset every World Cup and getting thrashed by the rest of the stronger sides. Given their proximity to India & the vote that they bring to India's table at the ICC, I can't understand why they don't engage in some quid pro quo for test & ODI tours to India, and for IPL sides to pick their players.

England performed extremely well against the stronger sides, but lost it against the weaker ones (and barely survived against West Indies). This seems to indicate that it isn't a skill problem, but an inability to understand how to play limited overs cricket. Constantly complaining about the schedule doesn't get them anywhere. The Ashes-World Cup schedule was known well in advance, and they had the better part of 3-4 years since the 2007 World Cup to have a squad of 20-odd quality players to pick from. They have the bowling. Anderson, Broad, Ajmal Shahzad, Tremlett & Swann are a pretty handy lineup. But the batting is far too unidimensional with Strauss, Trott, Bell and Collingwood providing at least 2 too many 'bat 30+ overs' batsmen & only Pietersen, Bopara and Morgan providing the flair.

India won despite a bowling attack that was under threat of being smacked around every game, and a fielding unit (barring 2 or 3 players) which was ever willing to help opponents convert 1s into 2s, 2s into 3s, routine saves into 4s, etc. There's absolutely no doubt that they were the best side of the tournament, and they defeated all the top sides barring South Africa (England, perhaps conveniently, don't count). Yet, players like Virat Kohli & Sreesanth need to think about their game, and what they want to achieve. It is bizarre that Kohli, at 22, is unable to adapt his game to a situation where he goes in at #6 with a couple of overs left to go. He has to realize that he may not go in at #4 with 30 overs to go every time! Similarly, Sreesanth needs to realize that this was his 'last chance saloon'. He only had 2 opportunities to prove that he can be an effective #2 or #3 bowler in ODIs, and he fluffed up both times. If his strength is around generating late outswing, why did he pitch it so short on a very flat batting track in the final? Ashwin has most likely become the 2nd choice spinner, and I'd expect that he gets a lot more games over the span of the next 6-10 months to show that he can do a good job.

Ireland had at least 2 opportunities other than the game against England (v Bangladesh & v West Indies) to show that they should be given many more opportunities to compete against good sides, and also that a World Cup was better off with them than without them.

Labels: 2011, 2011 world cup, australia, bangladesh, england, india, ireland, replica, world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:11 am | Sledge/Read 132 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

World Cup - Surprise picks and omissions

Similar to India's 1 surprise pick & Sri Lanka's 2 surprise omissions in their 2011 World Cup squads, most other teams had at least one selection that was odd.

Australia picked Brett Lee and David Hussey, who hadn't played any internationals for nearly 1.5 years. With the tournament being played in the sub-continent, Australia picked 1.6 specialist spinners (Steve Smith bowls 6 overs per game on an average). Now that's a bizarre pick. Australia's part-time spin options are David Hussey (2 overs per game before he was picked in the squad) and Cameron White (2-3 overs per game when he had the skipper's trust and had not even bowled a single ball since August 2009). With 5 quicks & an all-rounder, clearly Australia are relying on pace to win. Seems like a gamble to me.

Despite investing nearly a year in Craig Kieswetter and Steve Davies, England went back to Matt Prior. Other than that, the squad seems reasonably balanced, with a couple of bits-and-pieces players in Luke Wright & James Tredwell.

Luke Woodcock is the unknown player in New Zealand's squad. He hadn't even played an ODI before he was picked. The squad seems weak on the batting though, and the opening slot hasn't yet been sorted out.

Pakistan didn't have any major surprises in the squad, but they did come up with one bolter. They didn't name a captain! That said, the batting definitely looks shaky with only Younis Khan & Misbah having the skills to do a good job with the middle overs. Only 2 specialist spinners were picked, which seems odd for a Pakistani side playing a World Cup in the sub-continent.

South Africa, by contrast, picked 3 specialist spinners, 2 of who are newbies. South Africa's problem is with #6, #7 and #8. Having dropped Boucher, who used to come in at #6 & #7 and salvage a crisis, they don't have too many experienced players to fill up those slots. The batting essentially ends after Duminy (typically at #5).

West Indies have picked just 5 bowlers (3 quicks & 2 spinners) and are obviously hoping that Dwayne Bravo will bowl his full spell and pick up wickets regularly.

The other omission was that of Eden Gardens. The ground won't host the India v England game & the match will now be played at Bangalore. But there seems to be some ambiguity around it. Kyazoonga, the official ticketing partner, doesn't list the India v England game. Does this mean backroom negotiations are still going on, and Eden Gardens will get the game?

Actually, the Cricket Association of Bengal, which is really the main agency to be blamed for the fiasco, should just relinquish its hosting rights for the other games at the ground, each of which is guaranteed to bring in crowds of at least 90000.

Labels: 2011, 2011 world cup, australia, england, new zealand, pakistan, south africa, squad, west indies, world cup, world cup squads

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:54 am | Sledge/Read 97 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The end of an enthralling period of test cricket

From November, we've been witness to enthralling test cricket action, with the Ashes being followed by India's tour of South Africa.

I feel an enormous amount of schadenfreude for the position Australia, and especially Ricky Ponting, find themselves in. Australia have, over the last 3-4 years, failed to find replacements for Warne, McGrath, Hayden, Gilchrist, and to a lesser extent Martyn and Langer.

It was never ever going to be easy to replace players of that calibre, but it didn't even seem like those in charge were trying. That's why we now have Shane Watson opening with Simon Katich. The lack of planning is the reason why as many as 7 options have been tried out since Warne retired, and none of them have worked so far.

As for Ricky Ponting, I've believed for a very long time that he was a pathetic captain. Over the past 3-4 years, he's done his best to prove it. I've enjoyed watching him bat, but his captaincy is generally ridiculous. Add in the number of times he's had run-ins with umpires, and got away with it almost all the time, and I just get more ammunition to hate him in general.

England have thoroughly deserved to win. They seem to have planned better, and more importantly, executed so much better in all departments. Strangely, I don't feel any sort of disbelief or revulsion at England's win, in total contrast to 2005.

In 2006, I wrote that a series win for India in Australia would be be my #1 preference, followed by one in South Africa. India've done exceptionally well over the last few years. The scoreline in Australia read 2-1 to Australia, but it could (and should) have been 1-1. The last time India went to South Africa, the scoreline should have been 2-1!

The fact that the 1-1 draw in the just-concluded series can be considered a failure for India is an indication of how India fluffed their lines when it mattered most, on day 4 at Cape Town. 130/6! Heck, even 233/7 would have been ok, because it would have meant a chase of 250 in an entire day.

At the same time, South Africa seemed afraid of losing. Why would you not declare with 3-4 overs to go before stumps when India was quite vulnerable to a burst just before stumps with Sehwag & Dravid not in any sort of form and Gambhir injured?

Before the series, I'd predicted to a few folks that the scoreline would be 2-0 in favour of South Africa. I'll gladly take 1-1!

There are worries though - the batting form of Sehwag & Dravid, the over-reliance on Zaheer and the general inconsistency of the other bowlers. Dravid's knock yesterday was really pressure-soaking. But his inconsistency is worrying. The next test series is in the West Indies (June). I wouldn't be surprised if he quits soon.

As for the bowling, in Zaheer's absence, the bowling unit seems totally clueless. Harbhajan's inconsistency, and inability to spearhead the bowling attack, means that he is going to be effective only once in every 3-4 tests, with the ball. Sreesanth mixed brilliance with pathetic stuff. I don't care how often he gets fined or banned if he can keep producing the brilliance and become more consistent.

Labels: ashes, ashes 2010, australia, england, india, schadenfreude, south africa

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:09 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Aussies, be happy it was Justin and not John

The hottest Ashes news yesterday was not Australia levelling the series 1-1, but Justin Langer's leaked memo/dossier on specific England players & England cricket in general.

If the newspaper ('The Daily Telegraph') really paid to get access to that document, they really have a lot of spare money on their hands. There's nothing in that document that Australia's cricketers or team management would not have already been aware of. Indeed, replace references to England (cricketers or the domestic cricket system) with any other country, and the dossier would still be valid.

John Buchanan made a career out of such well-timed and well-placed leaks.

Australia must actually feel glad that it was Langer's dossier and not one from John Buchanan. At least they could understand what Justin was saying.

Labels: ashes, ashes 2009, australia, buchanan, dossier, england, langer, leak

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:30 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Where have we seen this one before?

Australia embark on high profile tour, with a squad light on bowling. Injuries impact the selection of the XI. Amidst much speculation about his inclusion, a former captain of the host country announces his retirement. While the series is on, one of the host country's main bowlers also announces his retirement.

Australia pretty much dominate the first test, but can't quite close things out. The cricket early on is gripping, but largely attritional with neither side apparently willing to risk defeat while pursuing victory. There are claims related to 'moral victory', 'momentum', etc. after the first test.

The Aussies are thrashed in the 2nd test, at a venue where until then, they'd lost only once in the ground's history.

Somewhere along the way, individual batting records were broken.

Australia's much-hyped & aggressive opener fails miserably.

This is so much 'deja-vu all over again'! Now all we need is an elbowing incident, a ban, some very defensive strategic bowling by the host team and bizarre captaincy by Australia's skipper.

Labels: ashes, ashes 2009, aus v ind 2008, australia, deja vu, england

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:42 am | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

BCCI & TEN Sports, ICC "Hall of fame" and Michael Vaughan retires

Sometime last week, the BCCI announced that India would play a tri-series in Sri Lanka, with New Zealand being the third team. The announcement came a few days after India were thrashed at the Super Eight stage of the Twenty20 World Cup leading a lot of folks, including the coach Gary Kirsten, to proclaim that fatigue was one of the main reasons for the pathetic showing.

Maybe the BCCI was making a point - "You chaps can keep bleating about burnout. Until you actually collectively start pulling out of series, we'll keep milking you for what it's worth". So doesn't this previously unscheduled 4-match ODI series present a wonderful opportunity for players like the skipper Dhoni, Ishant, Gambhir and Yuvraj to excuse themselves from this tour?

Maybe there's a commercial angle that doesn't seem so obvious here. This would be the 3rd consecutive unscheduled series (or hastily arranged series) that is being played in a country where TEN Sports has the telecast rights for the Indian TV audience. The first was the ODI series in Sri Lanka and the second is the on-going 4-match ODI series in West Indies.

It does seem too much of a coincidence. But perhaps not when you realize that TEN Sports was in fact launched in India by none other than Lalit Modi and his MEN distributed the channel for a few years.

TEN Sports is partly owned by Zee, and the BCCI has basically not been on talking terms with Zee (Subhash Chandra) ever since he took the BCCI to court over the BCCI's allotment of TV rights 4-5 years ago when Zee Sports first won the rights only for the BCCI to move the goalposts when ESPN-Star bleated.

Now, after the BCCI announced an amnesty scheme for those affiliated with the ICL, maybe the BCCI and Zee Sports are becoming friends again. Maybe, like I predicted a year ago, the ICL would be wound-up and the quid pro-quo would involve TV rights, IPL team ownership, etc.

So maybe the new-found bonhomie explains why the BCCI is scheduling matches in these countries/regions. After all, surely the BCCI would have earned more revenue (gate proceeds, in-stadia advertising, etc.) if the games had been played in India.

Now, moving on to the ICC. At the start of the year, the ICC announced that it was creating a "Hall of fame" and the first list would have 55 players.

That '55' number sounds so arbitrary. Why wasn't it 50, surely a more 'round' number? Or did the ICC think they'd create 5 teams of 11 players each from the first batch of inductees? Given that the only wicket-keepers they've picked are Knott, Marsh and Walcott (who only kept wickets in 15 out of the 44 tests he played in), there's no way they could have got 5 playing XIs.

Ok, so that 55 is just a number picked out of the someone's nose. What was the criteria for picking these players? Test records? ODI records? Contribution to the advancement of cricket [especially applicable for those who played in the first 2-3 decades of test cricket perhaps]? Domestic cricket records? Gut-feel? Only those who'd retired before a specific date? There're a few players who really make me wonder about the criteria.

Barry Richards is universally considered to be among the best batsmen who never got to showcase his wares long enough in test cricket (4 tests at a batting average of 72 against a bowling 'attack' of Garth McKenzie, Ashley Mallett and John Gleeson). Watching this video of him batting convinces me that the perception about him isn't wrong. Yet, the hard facts are that he only played 7 innings.

Was David Gower such a good player? Obviously he was a very attractive batsman to watch, and was good enough to make bowlers look ridiculous. But he didn't do it often enough, and most certainly not when the bowling was of decent quality (averaging 33 against West Indies, for example).

Javed Miandad retired from international cricket multiple times, the last occasion being after Pakistan were knocked out of the 1996 World Cup. Martin Crowe played his last international cricket game 3-4 months before Miandad retired. So clearly 1995 doesn't seem to be the cut-off year. Perhaps it is 1996. Why 1996?

Surely, if David Gower finds a place on the basis of him being lovely to watch, Crowe must be a shoo-in, especially considering he averaged 45 against West Indies, 50 against Pakistan and 48 against Australia!

As noted in multiple tweets, Michael Vaughan retired from all forms of professional cricket yesterday, 11 months after he quit as captain. Exactly 3 years ago, I wrote about how he was only 32 and nearly retired because of his wonky knee.

Vaughan was a very pleasing batsman to watch, especially in 2002 and early 2003 when he was consistently dismantling India's and Australia's bowlers. However, the runs pretty much dried up after that series, and the most he averaged in a year after 2002 was 47.6 in 2007. It certainly wasn't for lack of opportunity, since between 2003 and 2008, he played at least 9 tests every year, including against West Indies, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

The reality is that Vaughan under-achieved as a batsman. On that front, I'd rank him alongside Stephen Fleming, VVS Laxman, Sourav Ganguly and Damien Martyn (until 2-3 years ago, Mahela Jayawardene would have also been included in this list). TV commentary, newspaper columns, reality TV adjudication, etc. beckon and I hope he does well in his new roles.

Labels: ashes, ashes 2009, bcci, book cricket, england, hall of fame, icc, lalit modi, retire, ten sports, tv rights, vaughan

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:23 pm | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The 2009 T20 World Cup - quite eventful

Yesterday, England and Pakistan won the women's and men's T20 World Cup titles.

Both teams played excellently throughout the tournament, and really peaked when it mattered - in the semi and the final. The England women's team was unbeaten in the tournament (and in fact set a record for the highest successful chase in Women's T20 internationals) while Pakistan's men lost 2 games (against England [men] & Sri Lanka). While Sri Lanka seemed to have run short of motivation yesterday, Pakistan's short-pitched bowling ploy early on was wonderfully executed.

It is so ironic that players from the current World T20 championship winning team will not be part of the Champions Twenty20 League. Oh, have you ever seen a more 'broken' official site?

Aside from Australia's early journey to Leicester, the other stories that captured everyone's attention were (in no specific order):

• India's exit at the Super Eight stage following losses to England (!!!) and West Indies. As is usual, multiple theories started doing the rounds, such as player fatigue, infighting, lack of skills and overly focussed on ad-shoots, to name a few. The truth, as usual, probably lies in-between everything else.
  
  Fatigue is an ever-present reality in modern sport, especially when new forms of the game keep getting invented and commercialized. Players are supposed to know when their minds and bodies can't take it any longer. If India's players want a break, they always have the option of opting out, preferably an entire series/tournament so that there's some stability in the squad. If they believed that the IPL was far too lucrative to miss out on, then they could have opted out from the ODIs in Sri Lanka or the games in New Zealand. They could have also opted out of the upcoming [pointless] ODIs in West Indies.
  
  The fact that they chose to not do any of the above indicates one of three things:
  1. They are not fatigued
     
  2. They are fatigued but fear that they'll lose their place to someone who steps in while they're away
     
  3. They are fatigued but are in a 'will play for money' mode
  
  Last May, when Pieter$en revealed that he was almost certainly signing up for an IPL team a few months after complaining about burnout, I wrote

  My take on there being too much cricket is that players always have the option of opting out of series. Typically the only players you'll see complaining about too much cricket are those that play the most often, and hence are the 'star' players. Surely they've performed well enough to risk skipping a game or a series and not face a piquant situation where they won't be included next time around. Also, if a sufficiently large number of players keep opting out of tournaments, cricket administrators will realize that they may be doing a lot of damage to the golden geese.

  Gary Kirsten, India's coach, had already voiced his excuse warning prior to the tournament that fatigue would be India's biggest challenge.
  
  He was only partly right. I don't think India failed to make it to the semi-finals because of fatigue. They failed to make it to the semis because they couldn't cope with West Indies and England using the short ball to great effect. They had no plan-B. They failed to make it to the semis because the batting order bizarrely got revamped. In 'easy' games against Bangladesh and Ireland, Dhoni came in at #3. But when it was time to face the music, Raina was sent in. Where's the leadership?
  
  
• If its Pakistan in England, there must be some dark arts involved. Vettori's "informal approach" to the match officials (the umpires and the match referee, presumably) and his post-match interview comments after New Zealand got their arse whipped by Pakistan were totally unwarranted. Umpires, especially those standing in Pakistan games, will undoubtedly be examining the ball far more closely after the events at The Oval in August 2006.
  
  
• Messrs. Duckworth & Lewis made an entry during this tournament after West Indies were set a ridiculously easy target of 80 from 9 overs, with the luxury of all 11 batsmen available to have a hit, against England. Frank Duckworth, who along with Tony Lewis, devised the system, has revealed plans to rework the numbers by incorporating Twenty20's duration and far more frenetic pace.
  
  I'd really love the rules to be changed to allow only 6 players to bat and allow a maximum of 6 overs per bowler. I really don't see the possibility of this happening (because of the stupid sanctity around 11 players making up a cricket team). So I'll probably settle for the D/L method tweak restricting the [additional] number of wickets that can be lost by the chasing team. Just compare a team knowing at the start of the innings that it has 10 wickets in hand to chase down 80 in 9 overs with the team knowing it only has [say] 6 wickets to play with.

Labels: ball tampering, burnout, duckworth-lewis method, england, fatigue, india, pakistan, sri lanka, twenty20, twenty20 world cup, vettori, women

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:17 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

ICC chickens out on reviews system for Ashes

The ICC Cricket Committee, in its wisdom, yesterday decided that the reviews system would have a phased roll-out from October.

Now, you could debate about whether the reviews system is needed and if just empowering the third umpire more would solve most problems. You could also debate on whether 2 reviews per innings are sufficient.

If the ICC believes that the system is here to stay, surely it makes sense to start early rather than later. Given the high profile nature of the Ashes series, and the obvious importance associated with ensuring that wrong on-field umpiring bloopers don't have a significant impact on the result of a game, it is baffling that the reviews system won't be in place for the Ashes.

Could it be related to England having a torrid time with the referrals system in the West Indies? Why wasn't the referral system used for the India-New Zealand series where Sky actually had Hawk Eye, HotSpot and a whole lot of other gizmos?

Labels: ashes, australia, england, icc, reviews

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:39 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Sudden growth spurt in Andy Caddick ears detected as contributing to memory loss

In the context of Kevin Pietersen's recent comments on how the England tour of West Indies was far too long and that he'd missed his wife, Andy Caddick was quoted as saying

The simple fact is that you're there to play cricket, that's your bloody job. So forget your salaries, your cars, your watches and get on with it. Troops going to Afghanistan don't get a choice. They just do the job.

This is really rich, coming from someone who didn't quite do his job, forget his cars, watches or get on with it when opting out from the test cricket leg of the 2001/02 tour to India.

Labels: caddick, england

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:47 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Gunther glares at Andre Nel retirement press conference

In perhaps not too surprising a move, Andre Nel has announced his retirement from international cricket and will be joining Surrey from this English cricket season. He isn't actually joining them as an overseas player. Since he is South African, and since South Africa has a trade agreement with the European Union (see "Kolpak Ruling" text), he is eligible to ply his trade in the UK and not be treated as an immigrant/foreign worker.

Naturally, this suits Surrey, because now they can actually sign up some other player as an overseas player. The surprising bit though is that as per the ECB rules, players are eligible to be picked as 'Kolpak players' only if they have quit domestic cricket in their country and haven't played first-class cricket in the previous 12 months. In the case of Nel, the latter isn't true, since he's been playing the current domestic season in South Africa. As recently as 3 weeks ago, he was playing for Gauteng. I guess this means the ECB has agreed for an exception on that clause.

The reason I reckon the retirement news isn't too surprising is because he hasn't been picked for South Africa for over a year now, and the likes of the Morkels & Steyn have firmly established themselves as the next-generation quicks.

Andre Nel did a pretty decent job for South Africa, typically bowling first change or second change, and still picking up 123 wickets at an average of ~ 32 and strike rate of 62.

However, it isn't just his bowling that we'll recall. I'm fairly sure he's probably the only cricketer to claim that his alter ego plays cricket, by the name of Gunther. Sounds crazy isn't it?

He was first in the news when he bounced & hit Donald in a domestic game and burst into tears for felling his idol. He's not spent too much time away from the headlines since then.

I daresay he's made a lot of entertaining viewing over the years, with his odd bowling style, his glaring & eye-balling, his antics, constant chattering, etc. At times, he made Dennis Lillee look like Javagal Srinath when it came to body language. The risk with the antics though is that sometimes you're the pigeon, and sometimes you're the statue.

Labels: book cricket, england, kolpak, nel, retire, south africa, surrey

Thus spake Jagadish @ 10:13 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Woeful defensive England

West Indies have won their first series against half-decent opposition since beating India in 2002. They came pretty close to losing the final test, and were 8 down when the game ended. It'd have been very interesting if there was a situation where having exhausted the 2 reviews available to them, they couldn't appeal for (say) a plumb lbw that wasn't given in their favour. This was a situation I outlined in a post after the ICC announced that teams would now only get 2 reviews rather than the previous 3.

Imagine if the test match or series was up for grabs, with the last pair at the crease and an appeal for lbw was made, but the umpire ruled not out even though it was quite plumb. The bowling team finds to its agony that it has exhausted all its reviews. The batsmen go on to save/win the test. I'm guessing that it isn't an altogether unlikely scenario. So why should a team be penalized for using up its reviews even as an umpire getting it wrong totally costs them a test/series?

There's a lot of talk around West Indies being defensive by filling the side with batsmen & picking only 3 bowlers for the last test and preparing dead pitches. There's no doubt that the ICC needs to do something about the pitches. But if anything, England were defensive yesterday and showed no positive intent.

I actually expected England to declare before lunch, immediately after Pietersen had got his century. But bizarrely, they kept batting for around 10 more balls. Could those extra balls have made a difference? Entirely likely!

In fact, when Prior got out, Pietersen was on 80-odd and apparently had issues with the instructions that were relayed to him. Maybe the lure of a personal landmark clouded his judgement. I'm surprised he didn't rewind to just 3 months ago when he was England's skipper enjoying India bizarrely & defensively focussing on Gambhir and Yuvraj getting centuries at the cost of winning the Mohali test.

England made 3 scores of 500 or more in the series against West Indies. It's quite possible this is the first time this has resulted in a series loss.

Labels: england, positive intent, statistic, west indies

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:58 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Amjad Khan and Steve Harmison

Amjad Khan, born in Denmark, has made his test debut, representing England, in the extremely soporific test at Trinidad.

Watching him bowl, I got the feeling though that he generally makes Steve Harmison look like one of these accuracy-personified metronomes: (Sir) Alec Bedser, Brian Statham, Curtly Ambrose, Glenn McGrath, Joel Garner, Richard Hadlee, or Shaun Pollock!

Matt Prior must be wondering why he bothered to get back after his kid was born. In fact yesterday, Pietersen (I think) stood at leg slip. Given the lack of bounce in the wicket, I really felt he was there as additional cover for Prior, rather than as a catcher. England should have taken permission from the umpires so that Prior could hand over his left glove to Pietersen in the hope that that between them, they'd have stopped lots of few byes and wides. In fact, having Matt Prior as keeper when Amjad Khan is bowling is enough justification for England getting the long-stop fielder back in vogue. A couple of weeks ago, Martin Johnson, in "The Times", described Matt Prior's keeping ability awesomely

Matthew Prior has improved quite a bit since he came into Test cricket with a catching technique apparently honed by playing the cymbals in a brass band, so we can probably rule out the possibility that he was merely celebrating the fact that the ball had somehow managed to remain inside his gloves.

Labels: amjad khan, debut, england, harmison, prior

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:47 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

High farce in Antigua

The incompetence of the WICB and the ICC has been exposed as a result of the relocation of the 2nd test from the Viv Richards stadium to the Antigua Recreation Ground. The test, which will be the 3rd test in a series expanded from 4 to 5 tests, will restart on Sunday. For what it is worth, West Indies lead the series 1-0.

How on earth could the WICB have allowed a test match to commence on a ground where the bowlers' runups and the outfield were so sandy that all it took was a short spell of rain to make things so bad that the test had to be abandoned? Did the ECB put sufficient pressure on the WICB to get their act together? How on earth could the ICC, as the governing body of the game, have allowed the test to start with such playing conditions? The ICC had at least 4 representatives at the ground - the match referee, the 2 on-field umpires and the third umpire. How could all of them goof up bigtime?

What is it about a Caribbean ground and a bunch of ICC officials that causes them to totally lose it again and again?

Who is responsible for the 2nd test at the Viv Richards stadium (Antigua) being relocated?
	England & Wales Cricket Board
	Indian Premier League
	International Cricket Council
	West Indies Cricket Board

Labels: england, farce, icc, pitch, west indies

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:05 am | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Bretton-Woods system collapse blamed for England collapse at Sabina Park

When England lose, and especially badly, we're normally guaranteed some extremely creative excuses. At least as far as I remember, there've been excuses about prawns, pollution, alignment of stars, too much cricket, too little cricket, injuries, "what's the big deal?", etc.

After England collapsed horribly at Jamaica to lose the first test by an innings (Video on YouTube), two former England captains, coincidentally both from Essex, have now blamed the IPL for distracting England.

I have news for you, Nass & Goochie. The IPL didn't cause the collapse. The England batsmen's poor skills, application & response to pressure did.

Surely then the team shouldn't even bother turning up for games, because all players aren't paid alike. The dressing room should have already been a war-zone, because chaps like Flintoff, Pietersen, Collingwood, etc. obviously earn a lot more than Swann, Bell or Broad. Should all the players be paid the same?

Next thing, they'll blame the collapse of the Bretton-Woods system and the emergence of the US dollar as the reserve currency. Why? Because the IPL bids were in US dollars.

Labels: england, indian premier league, ipl 2009, twenty20, west indies

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:49 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Only 2 reviews in West Indies-England series

The ICC announced today that there will only be 2 reviews per innings per team during the upcoming West Indies v England tests.

In the ICC's own words

It has become clear during the trial so far that three unsuccessful reviews per innings is too many as there is potential there for frivolous or unnecessary reviews to be made by one side or the other.

I find this bizarre. So is there only 1 frivolous appeal every inning? Are teams appealing for the third review just to get it out of the way? I suspect not!

If anything, this increases the possibility that the umpire makes a howler which the players can't appeal against. Doesn't that contradict why this system was introduced in the first place?

Imagine if the test match or series was up for grabs, with the last pair at the crease and an appeal for lbw was made, but the umpire ruled not out even though it was quite plumb. The bowling team finds to its agony that it has exhausted all its reviews. The batsmen go on to save/win the test. I'm guessing that it isn't an altogether unlikely scenario. So why should a team be penalized for using up its reviews even as an umpire getting it wrong totally costs them a test/series?

Unfortunately, I don't see any indication of time restrictions being placed on players & umpires to prevent abuse of the system or pretty much bring play to a standstill. In addition, there is no mention of other technology being made available to the TV umpire.

I believe that there should be an unlimited number of reviews, with run penalties for failed attempts. What about you? Vote and tell us!

PS: Is the West Indies-England series still called the "Wisden Trophy" or is it now called the Bloomsbury Trophy?

Labels: england, icc, reviews, umpires, west indies

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:29 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Breaking news: Pietersen and Moores quit as England's captain & coach

According to Sky News, Kevin Pietersen has quit as England's captain. Cricinfo reports that Peter Moores, England's coach, has also resigned.

This follows the publicized clash of views between the two that required hurried intervention by senior folks at the ECB.

Pietersen had been named England captain 5 months ago.

I guess we'll have to await confirmation from the ECB, but this is about the worst thing that England cricket needs now with a tour of West Indies starting in a couple of weeks and a team that hasn't beaten significant opposition for 3 years now, the last one being the home win over Pakistan in 2006.

Now who'll be made captain? Strauss? But he isn't in the ODI team. Vaughan? Isn't that a retrograde move? Flintoff? He was cast aside after the 2006/07 Ashes thrashing. Collingwood? He gave up the job 5 months ago and I'm not sure how much of a certainty he is in tests because he seems to be in the team on a per-test basis. Cook? Far too early! My guess is that the ECB, if it does accept Pietersen's resignation, will opt for Strauss as test captain & persuade Flintoff or Collingwood to be the ODI captain.

As for the coach, that's a toughie because the main candidates that people have talked about are associated with either Pietersen or Moores. Andy Flower is a Moores pick while Graham Ford was being backed by Pietersen. I guess that also rules out Warne!

Do I love it when England cricket is in trouble? Of course!

Update: I just had a rather evil thought. Does it seem like Pietersen doesn't quite enjoy it when things don't work out the way he wants? He quit South Africa claiming that the system was unfair. Now he's quit as captain because he can't have his way with the coach.

Labels: breaking news, captaincy, coach, england, pietersen

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:19 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Morons running and ruining the game

The fourth day of the Mohali test between India & England got underway at 11 am IST today, after fog caused a delay of two hours.

India wrapped up England's lower order in quick time and at the time of writing, have a lead of 160 runs. There's no doubt that the aim would be to score at least 150-180 more runs by end of day today, and preferably bowl at least 3-4 overs at England.

That said, India may (unnecessarily) decide to play it a little safer. Remember that until a week ago, even 387, let alone 414 was considered nearly impossible to chase.

By the way, did anyone notice that West Indies' chase of 418 against Australia in 2003 had a debutant (Omari Banks) batting when the game was won, and yesterday, South Africa had Jean-Paul Duminy hitting the winning runs? It seems to me that South Africa's lower order batting is at its weakest since they came back to international cricket in 1992. They've always had chaps who could bat down the order. But they got blown away by Mitchell Johnson in the first innings. Since 1992, their #9, #10 & #11 have typically averaged 15-20 runs per wicket, but in the last 2 years its down to 12 & 9!

What was Ricky Ponting doing as captain? His main spinner was leaking 4.5 runs an over. Yet he didn't even bring on Symonds or Katich to try and do something different? I'm having evil thoughts now about why Ponting did nothing!

With Kevin Pietersen in such form in the test, there's a very high chance that India will end up batting all day and declaring only tomorrow morning after a couple of overs. Speaking of him, he has 15 test hundreds in just 3.5 years of test cricket. He has 4000 runs in that period, from just 45 tests. He's 28, and could really play for at least another 8 years. If England continue to play more tests than most other teams and he keeps going with his batting, he could end up with at least 12000 runs and 30+ centuries. In fact, I think he may go past Tendulkar and Ponting (if & when he gets there) in the centuries and runs tallies.

How amazing is that? I think he's a prick, but I have a lot more respect for him than someone like Hayden (I just love the scrutiny Hayden is facing having made 282 runs in his last 13 innings). Pietersen hits some amazing shots, and showed us the reverse hit yesterday. Until his innings yesterday, he only had 221 runs from 8 innings in India. I hope he doesn't get any more!

Coming back to the Mohali game and why I started this post, isn't it so f#@king stupid that when the light is good enough for play, the umpires decide to take lunch? This, when they've spent the last 2 hours trying to establish when play can start! Spectators and audiences (TV, radio, mobile phones, internet, etc.) get shortchanged due to such stupidity. Yet, the ICC ostrich continues to tell us that cricket is in good shape and its Chief Executives announce, after pointless meetings, that "There was also a general discussion on the issue of Test cricket with Members acknowledging the need to find ways in which this format of the game can be protected and promoted.". There's nonsense happening pretty much on a series-by-series basis, and yet the members keep acknowledging the need to find ways to protect & promote test cricket.

Speaking of the ICC, has it relaxed the rules on 'public criticism of, or inappropriate comment on a match related incident or match official' which is normally categorized as a level 1 offense? In the past week, there have been two players who've spoken out in the press conferences about the umpiring decision that ruled them out - Sehwag at Chennai and Pietersen at Mohali have both said that they reckoned the decisions should have gone their way.

Since there has been no action from the ICC against both players (especially considering Sehwag's statement was a week ago), can we assume that the ICC has decided to allow players a little more leeway in expressing their dissatisfaction with the umpiring? If so, why can't they just announce it officially so everyone can do the same without fear of being pulled up?

Labels: bad light, eng v ind 2008, england, icc, india, lunch, match referee, mohali, pietersen, playing conditions, rules

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:08 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Andrew Miller - master of spin

After a truly memorable chase by India at Chennai in the first test against England, Andrew Miller wrote on Cricinfo

Sachin Tendulkar and Yuvraj Singh may have put the seal on an historic run-chase - the fourth-highest in history, and more than 100 runs better than any previous effort in India - but without England's efforts earlier in the match, there would have been no opportunity for such a magnificent grandstanding finish.

I'm sorry, Andrew. That's a cart-load of bull excreta. By the same reckoning, without Zimbabwe's efforts, there's no way Hayden would have scored 380. So should Zimbabwe be proud of their part in making history? In fact, should we be proud of Zimbabwe's achievement during that test?

The fact is that England lost the game around half-way into day four. Making 70-odd runs in the first session was acceptable. Making 50-odd at 2 an over in the second was certainly not. Were they banking on Flintoff delivering, and thus had no plan B? It sounds nice writing about the good ol' English bulldog spirit, but this was a bulldog which did a good job barking for 3.5 days, but ran out of energy when it counted most. It wasn't too long ago that we saw a similar show from England. Remember Adelaide 2006?

That said, at the Wankhede in 2006, England had scored at 2 an over across nearly an entire day. Were England hoping that India would self-destruct, as they did spectacularly on the fifth day of that test? Perhaps, but that was a different team, and almost far too long ago to matter!

Test matches are won by winning sessions. But it is more important to string together winning sessions. India won the last 4.5 sessions of the test, and that's what counts in the end.

In my estimation, this chase would rank at #1 (or #2 at most) in the list of top run-chases in tests. Australia's chase in 1948 was against a weak England team, and England's bowling really had only one decent bowler in Bedser. India's chase in 1976 was against a bowling attack that had only Holding and he was a few tests away from terrorizing England. West Indies' chase came against the world champions, a much better bowling attack (despite the presence of the ever-crappy MacGill) and West Indies were poor then, but not as bad as they are now.

It is interesting that this win came just a day before the fifth anniversary of India's win at Adelaide. Rahul Dravid must be thinking that was way too long ago. In any case, given he's been included in the contracts list for the next year, a retirement at the end of this series is highly unlikely. I'm a huge Dravid fan, but nowadays I cringe when I see him bat. The timing has gone for a toss. He's reaching out to deliveries he'd normally just let go. He's even dropping catches! Is the end near? I hope not.

Labels: eng v ind 2008, england, india

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:08 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

"A very brave and courageous decision"

The ECB has now confirmed that England's first-choice test squad will play the two-test series in India. The announcement comes a couple of days after the ECB got its players to leave for Abu Dhabi.

If I were an England player, I'd be really scared. But scared not because of the potential of being a terror attack victim, but because of the language that Hugh Morris, the ECB Managing Director used.

The players have made a very brave and courageous decision and that will be hugely respected all around the world.

If you know your "Yes, Minister" & "Yes, Prime Minister" phrases, words like 'brave' and 'courageous' are typically used to refer to daft decisions taken without thinking through the consequences.

Sample this: "A controversial decision will merely lose you votes, a courageous decision will lose you the election"!

In a sense, the ECB has avoided a potential conflict with the BCCI. If the security advice given to the ECB been favourable to continuing the tour, and the ECB had cancelled the tour since its players were uncomfortable, the BCCI would have demanded compensation running into millions of {insert favourite non-Zimbabwe currency}.

Update: I just read Patrick Kidd's report for 'The Times' where he says the journalists saw that Steve Harmison looked positively pissed off at the turn of events and the eventual decision to go ahead to India. I don't understand why Harmison, or anyone else who was cagey about touring now, was forced to go along with the majority. If he had his own reasons for being worried, he was entitled to ask not to be picked for the tour.

In case of players complaining about burn-out, I believe they should just shut up and withdraw from tours. They're obviously taking a risk, especially in the event that the replacement does a good job. In a similar manner, players who withdraw from tours for security reasons should also be treated similarly.

Labels: ecb, eng v ind 2008, england, india, security, terrorism

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:14 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

ECB Chairman Giles Clarke wakes up from week-long slumber

Either the ECB Chairman Giles Clarke has been living under a rock for the past week, or has been blissfully asleep for that period. Nothing else explains him saying "Under no circumstances will we allow our cricket to be dictated to by terrorists".

Umm, then why is there so much ambiguity around England's players returning for the tests? Why did the ECB get the test venues shifted? Why did the BCCI and the ECB agree to cancel the last two one-dayers? Why is the BCCI waiting for the Indian government's decision on touring Pakistan, assuming that the main reason for denying permission is the allegation of Pakistani involvement in the attacks? Why was the T20 Champions League postponed? Why was the ICL World Series called off?

Lip-service! The ECB is right in demanding quality security, as a deterrent to terrorists potentially targetting England's cricketers. Why be apologetic about it?

Update: The test match series is on, but will England's players turn up in the right country please?

After spending the last 72 hours consulting security advisers and Government agencies at the highest level, the England and Wales Cricket Board has determined that England will leave for Abu Dhabi tomorrow (Thursday) to resume their two Test tour of India.

I normally don't make fun of people's names, but I do find the England team security adviser's second name really funny - Reg Dickason. It's a bit like someone (John Arlott? John Warr?) describing Bob Cunis' name as "neither one thing nor the other".

Labels: ecb, eng v ind 2008, england, india, security, terrorism

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:03 am | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]