Rahul Dravid's selection just doesn't make sense

I'm a huge fan of Rahul Dravid. Anyone who has talked cricket with me, and anyone who has followed this blog over the past 5.5 years, would have realized it.

Yet, I really believe it was totally stupid to get Dravid to dust off his blue gear. The very fact that he was named in the list of 30 probables for the ICC Champions Trophy obviously meant that he was always going to be in the final 15. On Sunday, he was picked for the tri-series in Sri Lanka and the Champions Trophy.

There are various reasons bandied around for his selection, including the inability of India's young batsmen to cope with short-pitched bowling at the T20 World Cup, Sehwag's absence, the need to get Dhoni to play his natural swashbuckling style, Dravid's ability to play the short ball, the fact that the Champions Trophy will be in South Africa (where bowlers get significantly more help), and that Dravid proved he still had his limited-over skills & exhibited them in the 2009 edition of the Indian Premier League.

There are many reasons why Dravid's selection makes no sense.

• If Dravid has been selected because the likes of Suresh Raina, Rohit Sharma, Gautam Gambhir, etc. got found out against the short ball, what happens if he succeeds in Sri Lanka and flops in South Africa? Do the selectors recall Rohit Sharma? Even if Rohit hasn't shown any improvement in skills against short-pitched bowling?
  
• What happens if Rohit Sharma, Suresh Raina, Gautam Gambhir, etc. show a marked improvement in handling quick bowling? Do the selectors give Rahul a vote of thanks for his guest appearance?
  
• What happens if Dravid fails in Sri Lanka and South Africa?
  
• What happens if Dravid succeeds in Sri Lanka and South Africa? Do the selectors keep picking him until he announces his retirement?
  
• What happens if Dravid fails in Sri Lanka but succeeds in South Africa? Given that the next World Cup is in the sub-continent, how would that do the Indian team any good?
  
• For all the talk about his performance in the 2009 IPL, he averaged 22.6 with a quite pathetic strike rate of 116.
  
• He hasn't played a single domestic one-day game since March 2008.
  
• He doesn't seem to have played in the Buchi Babu or the KSCA tournaments. So he's basically going into the two series without any sort of match practice.
  
• Even England, and let me re-emphasize that, ENGLAND, after so much talk around recalling Ramprakash, Trescothick, etc., didn't do something stupid!

Interestingly though, in 2006, Ganguly was picked in the squad of 30 probables but left out of the final 15.

An related rant, written nearly a decade ago - "Azhar's recall a retrograde step".

Labels: 2009 champions trophy, champions trophy, dravid, gambhir, raina, rohit sharma, selection, squad

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:57 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Evil Indian ploy to win series 1-0

Name the banned Gautam Gambhir in the playing XI for Nagpur. Would Chris Broad, the match referee, rule that the game was conceded to Australia? He could do this under Law 21.3 of the test match playing conditions, since India were not supposed to pick Gambhir, and the BCCI insisted on picking him. If he did that, the BCCI could say that it objected to him being a match referee, in which case, the status of the game would not be a test match. Recall what happened in November 2001 when the BCCI and the UCBSA rejected Mike Denness' role as match referee.

Under such circumstances, India would win the series 1-0. If Broad himself decided that since the BCCI was hell-bent on picking Gambhir, and he ruled that the game was not a test match, India would still be the winner.

In the ICC Code of conduct for players & officials, I find only one reference (K-5, page 22) to the player's home board needing to ensure that the player is not selected. But that is in the context of a player not paying the financial penalty imposed.

If any Player or Team Official fails to pay any fine imposed upon him within the prescribed period that Player’s or Team Official’s Home Board shall ensure that the relevant Player shall not be selected for any Test Match, ODI Match or Tour Matches until the fine is paid and that any Team Official shall not be entitled to undertake any of their duties in so far as the same relates to any Test Match, ODI Match or Tour Matches.

Remember that Justice Sachs' decision is final and binding as per the appeals procedure (Clause H-11-k). What recourse does the ICC, or indeed the opposing team, have if the BCCI decided that since it didn't agree with the decision, Gambhir was going to play?

If someone can go through the document and point out an section of the code specifying that it is the home board's responsibility to not pick a player who has been banned (although you could question that it is such an obvious thing to assume!), and that the game would be considered as a forfeit, that'd be great!

Labels: aus v ind 2008, ban, bcci, gambhir, icc, india, match referee

Thus spake Jagadish @ 8:36 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Gautam Gambhir will miss the Nagpur test

Gautam Gambhir, who was banned for a test after he elbowed Shane Watson at Mohali, will sit out of the Nagpur test. This is because his appeal for a review of the ban has been rejected.

It is the right decision for several reasons.

• Gambhir was guilty of a physical offence, which carries a greater punishment than verbal abuse
  
• This was Gambhir's second physical offense in less than a year
  
• Gambhir had pleaded guilty to the charge

In the light of these facts, I have no idea what prompted the BCCI to go in for a review of the original decision in the first place! In fact now, the BCCI is threatening to up the ante by refusing to accept the decision. I have no idea why this is happening. In any case, Justice Albie Sachs, who was appointed by the ICC to hear the appeal, has presented a fact-based ruling about why the 1 test match ban should stand.

Malcolm Conn can keep writing about how the ruling would confirm India's standing as the worst-behaved team in the last decade. But the facts of this hearing and the Justice Hansen hearing of the Harbhajan v Symonds episode confirms Australia's standing as consistently displaying equally pathetic (if not worse) behaviour, considering the number of times opponents have complained about provocative and abusive language having been used by Australian players. The only difference is that, for whatever reasons, Australia's players are rarely pulled up before the match referee, and when they are, they get off lightly.

In a sense, it is good that Australia being the provocateurs most of the time is being exposed so that the players' double standards are brought out in the open. When Australia's players abuse and sledge, since it is the way they have always played their cricket, it is par for the course and opponents must cop it. But when opponents sledge or abuse, they go complaining to the umpires.

Mind you, this doesn't justify Gambhir's actions. But the fact is that the incessant abuse obviously got to him and that is what Justice Sachs hints at in his decision.

[16] In considering the proportionality of the penalty, I am prepared to accept that he had been the victim of prolonged and persistent verbal abuse by members of the Australian team, culminating in a moment of anger that led to his unfortunate lapse. I would add in his favour that the manner in which Shane Watson had raised an arm as he ran past for the first run, could have been taken by him as a mocking gesture, and thereby could have served as the last provocative straw.

[22] At the same time, it is not only physical argy-bargy that must be minimised. Constant verbal assaults are also unbecoming, and also bring the game into disrepute, the more so if their intention is to break the player’s concentration and provoke a loss of temper. To my mind, these 'verbals' as they are euphemistically called, whether they involve swearing or not, provide a kind of tension and aggression inconsistent with the spirit of cricket. Yet even if a case can be made out that the time has come to consider whether sledging has any place in cricket at all, one form of unbecoming conduct cannot justify another. However severe the verbal assaults on them may be, players are obliged not to give vent to their anger through physical retaliation. They must respond with their prowess as cricketers, and not with the furious muscle of out-of-control anger. Even a hint of physical retaliation must be strongly dealt with. And captains and umpires should be astute not to allow any badgering which raises the temperature and encourages undue ire.

This is a great opportunity for the ICC to step in and do something about abuse and sledging.

Update: Michael Jeh, on the Cricinfo 'Different Strokes' blog, has a good post on why the ICC needs to step in now. He also questions why the umpires did nothing about the constant abuse that Gambhir was copping. He asks an interesting question - Are these chaps at a workplace or playing a sport? If it is a workplace, clearly this abuse is unacceptable. If its a sport, then why not pay them commensurately, and besides, why abuse if it isn't something to be taken too seriously?

Labels: aus v ind 2008, ban, gambhir, icc, match referee, sledging, spirit of cricket

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:54 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Stop getting provoked, India

If it hasn't been obvious for a while now, it must be now. Australia will continue to get away with abusing and provoking opponents. It is really upto the opposition, and India in particular since these two sides are always having a go at each other, to stop reacting and getting provoked.

Perhaps it needs reiterating that despite Andrew Symonds admitting, during the hearings, that he had abused and provoked Harbhajan at Sydney, Judge Hansen's judgement didn't result in any sort of action against him.

Yesterday, when India were on 155/2, Gambhir was attempting to take a couple of runs. When he was about to complete the first run, he found Watson with a raised arm right in front of his face, on his way to the non-striker's crease. He evaded Watson, but then on the return, disgracefully & wrongly chose to stick an elbow out 'accidentally'. Was Watson trying to block Gambhir's path with the raised arm? We won't know. Was Gambhir getting one back for all the abusive words that he'd been copping all day? We won't know.

Gambhir also had a run-in with Katich yesterday, when he found his path blocked by Katich, in the unfamiliar role of a bowler. Verbals ensued, and Billy Bowden stepped in.

I didn't notice the umpires step in on the earlier occasion. When you read Michael Clarke's divergent takes on both incidents, it seems to me that Australia wanted Gambhir in the dock for the elbowing, but when it came to Katich blocking Gambhir's way (perhaps deliberately), it was all fair go.

I did see that on replay and I'm pretty sure the match referee, or whoever, will have a look at that. Like the incident with Kato, it's important we all get on with the game. As vice-captain, I grabbed Watto and just said 'continue to bowl well'. I said 'Say what you have to say and let's get on with it. Let it go, Kato, just get on and bowl, it's fine, let it go'.

The other thing that gets my attention is the list of 'targets' for Australia. Two conditions need to be satisfied for Australia to pick on them.

• They need to be fairly hot-headed folks, who give as good as they get, and especially do so in an explicit in-your-face manner that match referees can't ignore.
  
• They need to have performed against Australia, either in the past or in that game/series.

Harbhajan, Zaheer and Gambhir (so far) do satisfy both conditions.

Why the match referee chose to only take that incident to fine Watson 10% of his match fee is strange, considering that Watson was consistently hurling abuses at Gambhir, including after dismissing him. After Watson got Gambhir out, his reaction was certainly not "Fcuk, got him at last!". Did Broad ignore the provocation and focus on Gambhir's reaction?

I think Gambhir is actually in a lot of trouble. Last November, he had been fined 65% of his match fee after an India v Pakistan ODI at Kanpur for running into Shahid Afridi, and was very fortunate that the charge had been downgraded to a level 1 offence. Any repeat of a level 1 offence within 12 months automatically gets upgraded to a level 2 offence, which is what he has been charged with. The penalty is a 50-100% match fee fine and/or 1 test or 2 ODI ban, but decisions can be appealed.

What Gambhir, the rest of the Indian team, and especially the hot-headed folks, need to realize is that India have Australia by the cojones now. That is why Australia are provoking India's players. The best way to react is to stop being provoked & politely inquire about whether their WAGs will also be sitting on Allen Stanford's lap, smile, ignore the verbals and get on with the game by batting, bowling & fielding well. When you've got a double hundred or taken loads of wickets and Australia are losing, the verbals don't really matter any more!

Now for the stats. Only 25 players have scored double centuries against Australia. VVS Laxman has now scored the most runs against Australia in the 'Aussie dominance' decade.

Update: Gautam Gambhir has been banned for a test. The BCCI can lodge an appeal by tomorrow morning. Within 48 hours after the appeal is filed, the ICC has to appoint someone to handle the appeal. That person needs to complete hearing the appeal and arrive at a decision within 7 days. The Nagpur test starts on Nov 6. If the BCCI does appeal, Gambhir will certainly play that test. But I don't think the BCCI will, because Gambhir had pleaded guilty.

Labels: aus v ind 2008, australia, gambhir, india, match referee, sledging, statistic

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:07 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

What Ravi Chaturvedi would say

India's two-day tour game against a KwaZulu-Natal Invitation XI began today. The scoreboard currently reads 231/5 in 64 overs. Opener Wasim Jaffer had a wonderful chance to ensure that he would be picked for the Durban test. He only made 2. In contrast, Gautam Gambhir made 79.

Ravi Chaturvedi, that noted Hindi commentator, would have said "Ab Wasim Jaffer bade gambhir paristhithi mein hain" (Translated as "Now Wasim Jaffer is in deep sh!t")

Labels: gambhir, india, south africa

Thus spake Jagadish @ 8:18 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

India's opening pair of Virender Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir put up a superb show in response to South Africa's first innings declaration. This is India's highest opening partnership since Multan earlier this year when Sehwag scored a triple century.

Putting India's opening woes in perspective, prior to today's stand, there've only been eight century opening partnerships for India in the last 50 tests. Tells a story, doesnt it? Aside from the Multan effort, in chronological order, they are:

• Ramesh and Das at Madras setting up India's huge first innings score
  
• Ramesh and Das at Colombo [nearly 100 partnership in each inngs]
  
• Das and Dasgupta at Ahmedabad in a 200 run chase
  
• Bangar and Sehwag in a 200 partnership at Bombay
  
• Chopra and Sehwag 164 at Mohali
  Chopra and Sehwag 141 at Melbourne
  
• Chopra and Sehwag 120 at Sydney
  

Chopra and Sehwag feature in four of those eight efforts and Chopra is now dropped. Ramesh and Das figure in two of those while Das figures in a third along with Dasgupta and none of them are in the picture either. Its not as if there're too many openers knocking at the doors, is it? So why have we spoilt so many careers?

Labels: gambhir

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:37 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]