Harbhajan is shaping up as an extra batsman

I felt like laughing when the news channels were going ga-ga on the Indian lower order (actually, make that just Harbhajan & Praveen) nearly dragging India to an improbable win yesterday. The reality was that India were pathetic in batting, bowling, running and fielding for almost 90% of the game. Hauritz had 1/15 from 7 overs at one stage!

While Praveen Kumar has, in the last dozen times he has batted, given absolutely no reason to believe that he is ever capable of anything more than a fluke edge down to third-man while aiming to smack the ball over mid-wicket, Harbhajan has been reasonably consistent with bat against Australia, in tests and ODIs. So it wasn't too much of a surprise yesterday that he did well with bat. I still remember that stunning six he hit over point off Brett Lee during the 2003 World Cup league game against Australia, coming in at 6 down for less than 100.

Then again, his bowling analysis of 1/57 wasn't too surprising either, considering that before this game, he had conceded over 100 runs per wicket since Jan 2006 against Australia, at home.

So the solution must be to include Harbhajan as the extra batsman, who bowls some part-time off-spin, against Australia. That would lend a lot more balance, and India could then pick Amit Mishra as the spinner. So the batting line-up should be: Tendulkar, Sehwag, Gambhir, Kohli, Dhoni, Raina, Harbhajan, Praveen, Mishra, Nehra & Ishant.

I was hoping that Australia's quicks, and spinners, would bounce out India's middle-order, which would trigger frantic phone calls to Rahul Dravid's mobile phone. In any case, when he would have been recalled, sources in the BCCI would have told the media that they'd only rested him so he could spend an extra week with his family.

The scary bit about yesterday's batting order was that Ashish Nehra was actually at #10, which is frankly out of sync with his ability (batting & mental), and at least 2 places above what his normal batting position should be. Given Nehra averaged nearly 4 times more at #11 compared with #10 (7.6 v 2) before yesterday's game, you have to question the team management's faith in Ashish ahead of Ishant.

Then again, Ishant Sharma averaged 2 at #10 and 6.2 at #11 before the game. So really it was a no-brainer. 'Devil and deep sea' comes to mind!

PS: News for Indian TV channels who're marketing this as the revenge or honour series. India and Australia aren't even on the same field when it comes to 'clashes' in the last 3 years or so - Australia leads 9-5 overall from 18 games, and in the 4 games that were washed out, the match status was:

• Ind 35/5 in 8 ov (D/L target 170 from 29 ov revised from a target of 245)
  
• Ind 9/1 in 2.4 ov chasing 308
  
• Aus 51/3 in 7.2 ov chasing a D/L target of 141 in 26 ov (revised from 195 in a 45 over game)
  
• Aus 234/4 in 42.3 ov

So the actual scoreline could well have ready 12-6 from 18 games, confirming that it really isn't much of a rivalry!

Labels: aus v ind 2009, australia, harbhajan, india

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:54 pm | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

What level of the ICC code of conduct has Ponting breached?

When asked about Harbhajan slapping Sreesanth, Ricky Ponting, hardly the type to let one go outside offstump, was quoted in the Courier Mail as saying

The (slapping) incident was him dealing with a guy that he has probably played 20 Tests with. After this latest issue in India, I think people should be making their own judgments about Harbhajan. He has again done something wrong.

He then pointed out how Harbhajan had got away with a 50% fine despite being accused of a racist remark.

It certainly wasn't the outcome that we expected," he said. "He ended up being fined 50 per cent of his match fee. As it is I will cop a 20-30 per cent match fee fine most one-day games because I am behind in the over rates.

Ponting's comment on the outcome of Judge Hansen's hearing is public criticism of a match-related event and the outcome of a related hearing. The ICC Code of conduct deals with such comments, and there are two types of penalties prescribed for breaches of the code.

• Level 1 (Reprimand and/or upto 50% match fee fine): "Public criticism of, or inappropriate comment on a match related incident or match official"
  
• Level 2 (50-100% match fee fine and/or 1 test/2 ODI ban): "Serious public criticism of, or inappropriate comment on a match related incident or match official."

So, which one has Ponting breached and will he be hauled up?

Labels: harbhajan, icc, ponting, sreesanth

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:14 pm | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

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 ]

Harbhajan v/s Hayden & Ponting

Apparently during an India v Australia game at Adelaide ten days ago or so, there was a fair amount of banter between Ponting and Harbhajan, going by this PTI report.

Apparently, Ponting kept having a go at Harbhajan in Adelaide, asking him "to show what he had got" in the middle.

Harbhajan, on his part, had then cheekily remarked: "Mate, whatever I have shown in the middle has been better than yours' in the series so far."

It appeared to have stung the Australian captain who asked Harbhajan to "f... off" after the latter was dismissed.

If the dialogue reported did indeed happen, it is a superb response from Harbhajan! Remember that at that point in time, Ricky Ponting had scored 25 runs from 5 innings, which he duly rectified the moment he got a nice batting track at Sydney to score a century. Harbhajan, in contrast, had 3/74 from 22 overs.

I totally loved that retort. Does anyone else also think that Hayden's comments to the Brisbane radio station on Harbhajan being an 'obnoxious little weed' and about taking on Ishant in a boxing ring should land him in quite a lot of trouble?

As per the ICC's code of conduct, using language that is obscene, offensive or insulting is a level-1 offence (upto 50% of the match fee penalty). Using language that is obscene, offensive or of a seriously insulting nature (barring the verbals that happen during a game) is a level-2 offence (upto 100% of the match fee penalty and a 1 test/2 ODI ban). After the appeal hearing, Harbhajan was found guilty of a level-2 offence.

Obnoxious implies Harbhajan is annoying, offensive or disgustingly objectionable. Little refers to Harbhajan being smaller-built in comparison to Hayden (and the rest of his teammates). This is obviously a case of racial stereotyping, and hence vilification (just like Tony Greig's "Those little Shri Lonkans" chant). Weed again refers to Harbhajan being obnoxious and detrimental.

Clearly this is a case of offensive and seriously insulting language. If someone tells me I'm a weed, I'd be pretty offended and feel insulted about it, since it implies that I shouldn't be existing. Add in the 'little' part and this very clearly qualifies as a racist remark. Actually this also makes for a libel/defamation suit since Hayden said "That is why he's been charged more than anyone that has ever played in the history of cricket." while referring to Harbhajan. That is totally incorrect. As pointed out in an earlier post, Inzamam has been charged the most number of times.

Yet, I have this nagging feeling Hayden will be let off by Cricket Australia and the ICC, despite being charged with breaching the Code of Behaviour, with a minor slap on the wrists and receive a letter that reads something like

Dear Matthew,
I saw your remark on Harbhajan being an 'obnoxious little weed' the other day.

I'd be really grateful if you could tone down your language. We've got tons of problems with those BCCI buggers. We need the money!

We'll be putting out a media release soon charging you under some clause of our code of conduct. Let me know if that is ok with you.

Cheers

James (CEO, just in case you forgot)

PS: I loved your imitation of Ishant's Indian accent *ROFLMAO*

Update at 6.30 pm: Was I clairvoyant or what? Hayden has been 'reprimanded'. Basically, he's got away with it. Perhaps insulting opposition players is acceptable for Cricket Australia.

Labels: australia, Commonwealth Bank Series, harbhajan, hayden, india, ponting, racism, sledging

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:35 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Hayden is definitely lunatic

What else do I conclude for this comment from him on Ishant Sharma?

He is 19, why doesn't he just worry about his bowling for a while? I like the idea of actually getting into the ring. I like that, let's bring that one.

Labels: australia, Commonwealth Bank Series, harbhajan, hayden, india, ishant, racism, sledging

Thus spake Ganesh @ 3:04 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Can we shut up and move on?

The verdict is out and Harbhajan Singh is not a racist, but still a lot of people believe that the verdict wasn't right and keep harping on it. I happened to read this piece by Prem Panicker and I had a few issues.

• It seems that the Australians are shocked that even Tendulkar lied. I find it absolutely ridiculous to trust an unnamed source and not Tendulkar in a quasi-judicial hearing.
  
• BCCI using its might and getting the verdict shouldn't be a topic of discussion at all. If anything, the BCCI has used its might a little too late. All the time, players from the sub-continent have been at the receiving end and most of the Australian players have been getting away (Jagadish's point: One damning indicator of this is the fact that on the ICC website, under 'Penalties imposed on players for breaches of ICC Code of Conduct', the entries for 2003 do not say anything about the 'immortalized' snarling game between Glenn McGrath and Ramnaresh Sarwan in May 2003) with their on-field behaviour (sample Ponting & Clarke in the Sydney test) and no one even bothers to write about it.
  
• Some writers say that such issues and verdicts don't augur well for the game. Simple - if teams and umpires can cheat blatantly on the field, a financial powerhouse can definitely show its power to help one of its players.
  
• Forgetting my stand on Murali's action, I loved Ranatunga when he walked off the field, just because he was brave enough to protest the Anglo-Australian off-the-field might. I would have been even more delighted if Kumble decided to do it as soon as umpire Ricky Ponting took charge in Sydney - but after all, he is Anil Kumble.

One thing that is striking to me is that most of the writers are shocked that it is team India that has challenged Australia in the game. When everyone expected Australia to finish 3-0, if not 4-0, they just managed a 2-1 scoreline, which could have easily been 1-2, if competence, honesty and efficiency had taken the front seat.

Yes, Australians have been the undisputed champions for long, but the pedestal has been shaken and if you think about it, it actually augurs very well for the game. We have seen a lot of controversies over the years, but the game has carried on, just because it is brilliant.

I am definitely sure that it will go on forever even if more Pontings & Clarkes cheated, more Gilchrists 'walked', more Harbhajans abused, more Symonds provoked opponents, more Bucknors faulted, more boards like the BCCI showed off their might and if more Australian teams lost.

Labels: australia, bcci, harbhajan, icc, ind v aus 2008, india, racism, sydney 2008, symonds

Thus spake Ganesh @ 1:48 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Analyzing Judge Hansen's judgement

When I read the full text of Judge Hansen's decision that Harbhajan Singh did not racially abuse Andrew Symonds at Sydney, a few things were very interesting.

1. The inefficiency of the ICC: Justice Hansen was not informed about Harbhajan Singh having already been previously pulled up by match referees for various offenses. This information would have resulted in a far stricter penalty.
   
2. The statement of agreed facts signed by Harbhajan, Ponting, Symonds, Clarke, Gilchrist and Tedulkar (sic) and presented to Hansen clearly indicates that Symonds initiated the verbals, including using 'fuck'. As per #13 in the judgement, Symonds told Harbhajan that he had no friends amongst the Australians and used the 'fuck' word. Did he mean to tell Harbhajan "You have no fucking friends amongst the Australians" or was it meant to be "You have no friends amongst the fucking Australians"?
   
3. #7 in the judgement says 'It is apparent that while there was acceptance that the exchange between the appellant and Mr Symonds was initiated by Mr Symonds and was heated in that the word 'fuck' was used no other details of the language used was given. However it was accepted by all parties that it was and intended to be offensive to Mr Symonds.' Does this imply that Symonds using abusive language was not offensive to Harbhajan? It is obvious that Harbhajan was offended, for he wouldn't have reacted the way he did.
   
4. Like I wrote in a comment on my first post on the issue, Brett Lee's silence is baffling. Harbhajan patted/hit him. If he didn't have a problem, why on earth did Symonds have a problem? This is a clear indicator that he was itching for a fight. Were the Aussies ganging up on Harbhajan in a conspirational manner to provoke him, knowing fully well that he'd respond in kind, and then accuse him of a racist abuse (regardless of whether he actually said it or not)?
   
5. From #12 and #14 in the judgement, it is obvious that Symonds was the provocateur. I don't understand why he got away without any penalty. Again, if the BCCI is convinced that Symonds provoked Harbhajan, why shouldn't it file a defamation suit on Harbhajan's behalf since its contracted player suffered mental anguish on account of being accused of a racist comment?
   
6. If 'teri maa ki' is offensive to Symonds, 'bastard' was (meant to be) offensive to Dhoni and Kumble. It baffles me why the BCCI/Indian team withdrew charges against Hogg. The only explanation I have is that they didn't want a situation where he wouldn't bowl against them in the series.

Labels: australia, harbhajan, icc, ind v aus 2008, india, racism, sydney, sydney 2008, symonds

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:35 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Harbhajan is an abuser, not a racist

As was expected following the BCCI's belligerent threats to withdraw from the one-day series if Harbhajan was not cleared of racism charges, the racism charge was downgraded to a Level 2 offence ("Using language that is obscene, offensive or of a seriously insulting nature to another Player") during the appeal hearing by Justice John Hansen today.

A few questions are left unanswered at this point in time:

1. Why was Harbhajan fined 50% of his match fees from one test and two ODIs (as per Times Now TV)
   
2. Will the BCCI re-open the charges against Brad Hogg? After all, the original case was that he should also be charged for a racist abuse. Subsequently, the charges were dropped. Can the word 'bastard' be considered to be obscene, offensive or seriously insulting? Of course yes!
   
3. Since there is no evidence that Harbhajan did actually call Symonds a monkey (the transcripts from the stump microphones only had Symonds saying 'You just called me a monkey' or 'What monkey, big monkey, you don't know what you've said.'), is it fair to assume that Harbhajan can file a defamation suit against Symonds, Clarke, Ponting & Hayden? They insinuated that Harbhajan made a racist comment, and he was therefore seen as a racist by a lot of cricket followers, thereby resulting in extreme mental anguish for over three weeks?
   
4. Is the ICC going to do anything about Mike Procter now? He has botched up twice in the span of a little more than a year, the previous instance being at the Oval in August 2006 where he didn't do anything to prevent Pakistan from walking off.

Labels: australia, harbhajan, icc, india, racism, sydney, sydney 2008, symonds

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:24 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Time for the BCCI to ban Harbhajan?

Assuming that Mike Procter was right (and he has got it wrong earlier, miserably fluffing his lines at The Oval in 2006), in announcing a three-test ban on Harbhajan for calling Symonds a 'monkey' during the Sydney test, I think it is now the right time to read the riot act out to Harbhajan.

Even if he uttered the word as a response to provocation, it is unacceptable. There was an enormous amount of coverage in the Indian and Australian media about the behaviour of Indian spectators, in the form of racist chants & gestures, during Australia's seven one-dayers in India late last year.

Harbhajan's act is indefensible. He has to cop the punishment from the ICC, just as Darren Lehmann (5 ODIs) & Herschelle Gibbs (2 tests) did. In addition, the BCCI ought to advise the selectors that he should not picked for the next 5 tests and 10 one-day internationals.

There has to be a strong deterrent on this issue, otherwise players will continue to act like juveniles.

Labels: harbhajan, ind v aus 2008, racism, sydney 2008, symonds

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:36 am | Sledge/Read 7 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Four years wasted

On the verge of the start of one of India's most important test series, it is a good idea to take a trip down memory lane. Four years ago, India ended up competing rather well with Australia, and falling just four wickets short of a totally improbable and unprecedented series win in Australia.

The way the individuals involved in that series overall conveys a picture to me that the intervening four years have been wasted mostly.

It is probably a measure of how well India were playing, or the absence of sufficient backup, that only 13 players played the four tests. This is how the 13 have fared between Australia-2003/04 and Australia-2007/08
Chopra - Nearly out of the reckoning now. Played four tests after being identified as the fall-guy to accommodate Yuvraj at Rawalpindi. His confidence was shot, and he responded with 0, 5, 9 & 1 against Australia in 2004.

Sehwag - Promised so much for a couple of years, giving hope to Indian cricket followers that he would be India's next-generation batting hope along with Yuvraj & Kaif, as he piled up a triple ton, the second fastest double ton, nearly scoring two doubles in a series and almost 100 before lunch on day one of a test. After that, his form dipped alarmingly, and Australia is perhaps his last chance of getting a permanent batting slot.

Dravid - Consistent, as usual, except for the past few tests. But one expected him to make that giant leap and start getting mentioned in the same breath as Lara, Steve Waugh, Tendulkar, etc. (to list out some contemporaries) after his great run last time. But his inability to convert 50s into 100s even as Ricky Ponting scored hundreds for fun means that Ponting now gets categorized as 'great' while Dravid, in the eyes of many [not me], despite breathtaking stuff like the twin gems at Jamaica in 2006, is seen to fall just short.

Tendulkar - Injury and loss of form have contributed to a marked decline in his aura. He is no longer as authoritative as he used to be, or can be! Was the Sydney 2004 innings was perhaps an indicator of things to come? Instead of moving ahead, after his Multan near-double, the consistency has certainly been lacking. Shockingly, he is just about managing one century per year now!

Ganguly - Poor form leading upto the 2003 series in Australia was forgotten once he scored his Brisbane century. Questions about his form didn't quite result in anything, but once Greg Chappell took over, he read out the riot act, resulting in Ganguly being out of the team for a long duration. He's back now though, and in a new & improved avatar, hopefully! Yet, it is plain and obvious that his inability to sort out his batting mess resulted in him losing out on more than a few test matches!

Laxman - Like Dravid, he didn't kick on after the last tour. Every now and then he promised to make the leap from good to very good, and thereby become indispensable. But no, until a couple of months ago, if someone needed to be accommodated in the middle order, or an extra bowler needed to be played, there was every chance that his name would be scratched out. He was vice-captain for three tests. No-one knows why he was appointed, and why he was sacked from the job!

Parthiv - Perhaps his fall was inevitable, given that he was never a good wicket-keeper to start off with. The rise of Karthik and then Dhoni resulted in him being cast aside, despite some ability with the bat. Apparently Parthiv Mark II is a much improved keeper, but will he get the opportunities to succeed or fail?

Agarkar - He symbolizes what this post is all about. If he had done anything after his Adelaide 2003 showing, he'd be the leader of India's pace attack. It is so cruel that although he is just 30, he's never going to make it back to the test side. But he probably has himself to blame, as 7 wickets in 150 overs (6 tests), a strike rate of 128 and an average of 74 in the tests he played after the last Australian tour show.

Harbhajan - In the lead-up to the 2003/04 series, Harbhajan was the #1 spinner, with Kumble missing out on quite a few games (especially on tour). He got injured at Brisbane, but he only had 1/169 against his name. Aside from the odd-game now and then (two hauls in the West Indies, a 7fer against South Africa and a superb showing at Bangalore against Australia and a match-winning show against Sri Lanka), he has done precious little to suggest that India's spin bowling attack is in safe hands when Kumble retires. He has had sufficient opportunities to do so, despite sometimes being at the receiving end of Chappell's ire. It is likely that he may feature in a couple of tests this series. He needs to do something to show that the selectors must continue to have faith in him. There are a few young spinners around and they'd really benefit from learning under Kumble.

Zaheer - After Srinath's retirement, and since Agarkar was unable to show any sort of consistency, Zaheer had a great opportunity to cement himself as India's #1 quick bowler. Yet, far from it, he did poorly enough to get dropped, spending most of 2006 playing domestic cricket in India and England. After that, he hasn't quite looked back. With competition from Sreesanth, Munaf, RP Singh and a rejuvenated Irfan Pathan, he needs a good showing in Australia. But he most certainly is nowhere near where he ought to have been. He is nearing 30, and should aim to play test cricket for the next 3-4 years at least.

Nehra - He played one test after the last tour of Australia and hasn't played a ODI since September 2005! He either kept getting injured, or bowled pathetically. Even if you ignore the one test he played in 1999, he has played 16 tests in 6 years, and is now totally out of the reckoning as far as a place in the Indian team is concerned, and he's not yet 29. What a real waste!

Kumble - He's probably the only one who has made progress after the last series in Australia. He is now captain, the #1 spinner for the side, has 1000 first-class wickets, is at #3 on the all-time wicket-takers list and even scored a test century! He is definitely conceding more runs per wicket, but he's getting the wickets quicker than before, with some beautiful changes of pace [up and down!]. He probably has 2-3 more years of test cricket still left in him - sufficient time perhaps to get 50 wickets a year and end up behind Murali on the wicket-takers chart, and on the way help nurture the next generation of Indian spinners.

Pathan - A surprise package last time around, he was named the Emerging Player of the Year in 2004 and by 2005/06, was considered all-rounder material. Yet his bowling fell away shockingly, and he spent nearly 1.5 years without playing test cricket and wasn't picked too often for one-day cricket either due to his own bowling form, entrances by Sreesanth & RP Singh and Zaheer's comeback.

---

In summary, the Indian team has regressed majorly since India's last tour of Australia. The intervening four years have been wasted. India should have been challenging Australia for the top spot. But now, they've to contend with Sri Lanka, South Africa and England.

Labels: agarkar, akash chopra, australia, dravid, ganguly, harbhajan, ind v aus 2008, india, irfan pathan, kumble, laxman, nehra, parthiv patel, sehwag, tendulkar, wasted, zaheer khan

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:48 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Harbhajan Singh catches the Michael Vaughan virus

What is it about cricketers increasingly referring to themselves in the third person? Michael Vaughan, a month or so ago. Now Harbhajan Singh.

I constantly tell myself this could be the start of a new Harbhajan Singh. I have set a goal for myself and try to achieve it. I don't worry about things that are not in my control. All I can do is to bowl and bat well when I get the opportunity.

Labels: harbhajan, india, vaughan

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:28 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Massive cleanup

The BCCI selectors today announced the test and one-day international squads for the tour of England. The three major omissions are Sehwag, Harbhajan and Munaf. On the face of it, it is tough to argue with their exclusions. Munaf's body is probably as fragile as Nasser Hussain's fingers and Shane Bond's bones. Pathan misses out too - he's obviously shot on confidence.

Joe Bloggs/Ramdin/Ramakdin Sehwag has been pathetic in both forms of the game for a year now. After nearly making a century before lunch at St. Lucia, his test match innings scores were 31, 65, 0, 4, 4, 33, 0, 8, 40 and 4. Essentially, a walking wicket 60% of the time.

His one-day numbers are even worse and he should have been dropped a year ago or so. He, along with the likes of Slater and possibly Stuart Clark, will forever make cricket fans scratch their heads: Why on earth have they not adjusted to one-day cricket, given the way they play test cricket?! In the last year, his one-day scores are 9, 8, 1, 10, 9, 17, 65, 0, 18, 11, 19, 12, 46, 2, 114, 48, 30, 21, 45, 52 and 8. The one hundred in that list came against Bermuda.

He scored, on an average, 26 runs every inning. Is that acceptable from a top-order batsman in one-day cricket, when that's the slot everyone's queuing up to bat in? Look at the top run-makers in ODIs - seven out of the top 10 batted in the top four.

It really is high time he was dropped.

Harbhajan's exclusion from the one-day team was expected. In the last year, he's picked up 20 wickets from 13 games, but in 8 out of the 13 games, he picked up just one wicket. Given that he was the sole spinner most of the time, and except for the series in South Africa, the rest of the games were played on wickets which would definitely provide some sort of assistance to spinners, his performance was pathetic as well.

But it is strange that he was dropped from the test team. He played a key role in India's series win in West Indies, picking up 11 wickets in the 2 tests he played, including cleaning up the tail at St. Kitts and bowling beautifully in West Indies' first innings at Jamaica.

Surely if Dhoni is good enough to be a ODI vice-captain (presumably that implies he's being groomed for the captaincy), he can function as a test vice-captain too, ahead of Tendulkar. Exactly what did Laxman do wrong in South Africa?

Labels: england, harbhajan, india, irfan pathan, munaf, sehwag, squad

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

Asking Frindall and Steven

I've just posted the following question in Cricinfo's "Ask Steven" and BBC Cricket's "Stump the Bearded Wonder"

If a bowler is required (under Law 24) to notify the umpire and batsman before changing his bowling arm, is the batsman also required to notify the bowler if he's going to switch to batting right handed/left handed from his normal batting stance? How does this work during reverse sweeps?

This is based on a discussion that I'm currently having with Reenen Laurie about how umpires rule on wides and lbws when the batsman reverse sweeps. I remember the 2002 NatWest Series where there were a few India v England games where Nasser Hussain attempted to play so many reverse sweeps against Harbhajan (with a connect rate of around 1%). Quite a few balls which Hussain missed were adjudged wides and Harbhajan didn't have a good time with his lbw appeals too.

Labels: harbhajan, laws, lord's, mcc, nasser hussain, reverse sweep, umpires

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:39 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]