Sachin Tendulkar skips West Indies tour

Sachin Tendulkar's decision to skip the West Indies tour altogether (he had already opted out of the limited overs leg) to spend time with his family is bizarre, and unprecedented.

He has so far skipped 3 test tours completely because of injury - Sri Lanka 2001 (fractured toe), Zimbabwe 2005 (not yet fit after elbow surgery) and West Indies 2006 (not yet fit after shoulder tear).

So this would pretty much mean that his last act in a test match in the West Indies was being bowled by Pedro Collins for a brilliant 86, triggering a collapse that ended with West Indies winning the series 2-1.

52.6 Collins to Tendulkar, OUT: Sabina Park erupts! super delivery on the off and cutting in, the ball stayed a touch low, Tendulkar tries to defend it but can't get down in time, the ball crashes into the off and middle stump, the Indian ship is sinking!

His last act in all internationals in the West Indies was being bowled by Dilhara Fernando in the 2007 World Cup, for a blob.

11.3 Fernando to Tendulkar, OUT, and Tendulkar goes! Could this be his last World Cup innings? The ball pitched outside off stump, nipped back, Tendulkar lunged forward, the ball hit the inside edge of the bat and crashed into leg stump, huge huge wicket for Sri Lanka and India are fading away.

My worry isn't about him missing the series, but more about the why. If he wanted to spend time with the family, wouldn't it have made sense to skip the ODIs in West Indies and England, and make himself available for the tests? After all, everyone, including him, bleats on about how test cricket is the ultimate form of the game.

I don't buy the argument that he should have rested from a few IPL games. His side hadn't yet qualified, and by screwing up a few games in a row at the end, they risked not making it to the top 4. As a captain, it was his responsibility to ensure that Mumbai Indians qualified. Remember that they didn't automatically qualify until Deccan Chargers went down last Saturday.

Labels: india, indian premier league, ipl 2011, rest, tendulkar, west indies

Thus spake Jagadish @ 10:34 pm | Sledge/Read 179 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Brett Lee retires, BCCI asks for a rule change

Yesterday, Brett Lee announced his retirement from test cricket, to focus on playing limited overs cricket (ODIs and T20 games). There's nothing novel about such an announcement. He's just following in the footsteps of others like Flintoff, Oram, Styris and Vaas. You could argue though that given Vaas hasn't been picked in any ODI or T20 game by Sri Lanka for over 6 months after he retired from tests, he is unlikely to make it to the 2011 World Cup as a Sri Lankan player.

I had pointed out when Flintoff, Oram, Styris and Vaas retired that cricket boards run a huge risk of many marquee names, especially quick bowlers and all-rounders, quitting test cricket. Will they wake up now and figure out how to optimally schedule tests, ODIs, T20 games, ICC events, bilateral & multi-lateral ODI series and T20 leagues like the IPL, Champions League, KFC Big Bash, Twenty20 Cup, etc.?

Lee's decision to retire was widely expected. He hasn't played a test since the series loss to South Africa at home. He didn't manage to last out the ODIs against India. He hasn't played a T20 game for Australia since August 2009.

Yesterday, Sachin Tendulkar became the first man to score a double-century in a ODI game, with Belinda Clark having been the first to reach the mark in a limited overs international. The logical question is if other cricketers will now start scoring 200s for fun.

It only took one effort of 400+ (Australia, at the Wanderers in 2006) and in the next 4 years, we've had 9 instances. It is quite likely that Sachin Tendulkar's achievement of scoring 200 will also fall in the next 1 year. After all, it wasn't too long ago that Herschelle Gibbs made 175 in 111 balls and Tillakaratne Dilshan made 160 in 124 balls.

In an unexpected development, it is learnt that the BCCI has approached the ICC with a proposal to limit the number of batsmen in an ODI innings to 7. While publicly, the BCCI claims to have done so to protect the ODI game and to reduce the imbalance between bat & ball, sources in the BCCI told this blogger that the main reason was the abject failure of India's bowlers after South Africa recovered from 180/7 (Jaipur) and 134/7 (Jaipur).

A few other occurences in the recent past have convinced the BCCI that getting the likes of Ashish Nehra, Sreesanth and Ishant Sharma to bowl well to tail-enders is really not worth the trouble. The better option is to ensure that they don't even bowl to #8-#11., thereby insuring against last-minute carnage by the batsmen.

Labels: 2006 champions trophy, bcci, icc, lee, retire, rules, tendulkar, test cricket

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:27 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Athers and Kapil are only partly right

On the occasion of Sachin Tendulkar completing 20 years in international cricket, Kapil Dev opined in 'The Asian Age' that Tendulkar had under-achieved.

It depends on how you look at it. For someone who started off playing so aggressively and making bowlers scared of bowling to him, Tendulkar most definitely doesn't strike fear in bowlers any more. But that's true for pretty much every player who has been around for any length of time. I'm sure that towards the late 80s and early 90s, bowlers were queueing up to bowl to Viv. Murali hasn't been too good over the past year or so and there are enough questions asked about his place in the side. Kapil himself was about as quick as Mohinder Amarnath (with Jimmy at his fastest) in the last 2-3 years of his career. Lara's magic only happened in spurts towards the end. Steve Waugh fared little better.

Besides, all players change their styles to suit the team's needs, their own physical & mental state of being, etc. Until around the mid-90s, Tendulkar played in a very aggressive manner a lot of the time. But he could do that because the likes of Azhar, Sidhu and Manjrekar were around. From after the mid-90s, Tendulkar became the mainstay, and the batting revolved around him. From around the start of this decade to around 2004/2005, Dravid took over the mantle as the 'go-to' guy. Over the last 3 years, it has been Sehwag. Even though these changes happened, Tendulkar's wicket would undoubtedly have been the #1 wicket as far as the opposition was concerned.

So he could never ever have gone back to thrashing the bowling around every game, like he used to. In just the same manner as Kapil himself transformed from being a quick (let's say 140 kph types) bowler to being a fast-medium (130-135 kph) swing bowler because he realized that he would never have a long career if he'd continued as a quick bowler. Did that mean batsmen feared him less? Perhaps yes. But given he had now added a dimension of swing to his ability, it made him even better and batsmen obviously respected his ability to "make the ball talk".

Mike Atherton, writing in 'The Times', felt that calling Tendulkar the best ever was not right, because he had the benefit of so much body armour (helmets, better pads, chest guards, etc.)

That's fair enough. Anyone who tries to compare across generations is obviously being stupid. At most, you can compare folks with peers and players who played within a 10 year time period, with sufficient overlap in careers. Only Dennis Lilee would be able to get away with claiming that Mitchell Johnson was a oiag player. Either Lillee's memory is poor, or Aussie define a generation as 5 years.

But the point Athers misses is that those who played in a different era did so when there were no (or very few) ODIs or T20 games, no IPL or Champions League, no talk of burnout, test series had at least 3 warm-up games, etc.

It's interesting to think of how Hobbs, Bradman, Hammond, Sobers, Hutton, Bill O'Reilly, Harvey, Hanif, Bedi, Miller, Sutcliffe, etc. would have coped with all the travel, playing with 'niggling' injuries, spending so much time away from home, playing back-to-back tests/ODIs, playing back-to-back series in the span of a couple of months, etc.

Labels: atherton, burnout, greats, kapil, tendulkar

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:21 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Twenty years of Tendulkar

When I think of Sachin Tendulkar having played international cricket for 2 decades, I feel really old. It's been that long? Why, just the other day he was caning that Pakistani leggie wizard all over the park! A few days ago, he almost scored a test hundred, aged 16. After that, he was outscoring the rest of the batsmen on his first tour of Australia, aged 18.

In fact, very early on, I used to feel a bit stupid. Here was a chap just about 2 years older than me, playing test cricket when I didn't even get a chance to bowl in an intra-school cricket tournament although I'd been picked as a bowler!

It is pertinent to point out though that when I knew he'd flunked his class 10 exams and the rumour doing the rounds was that it was because of Shilpa Shirodkar, I was quite pleased with the way my life was progressing.

I had first come across Brian Lara in a newspaper match report where he thrashed the Indian bowling attack (if a "pace" lineup of Sanjeev Sharma & Robin Singh can constitute an 'attack') in a tour game. In hindsight, it would have been so eerie had Tendulkar made it to that tour. We'd now be talking about two greats making their debut at the same time!

When he went past Lara and became the top run-getter in tests, I wrote about how I was in awe of his skills.

Take a look at the list of youngest test players, specifically the ones aged 17 or below. Aside from Sachin Tendulkar, Garry Sobers and Hanif Mohammed, no-one else really qualifies as an all-time great. Even tech start-ups probably have a higher success rate!

The main aspect of his career that has really stunned me is how he has managed to stay so level-headed over such a long period of time, without doing anything stupid (let's ignore the Ferrari fiasco for e.g.) or controversial. Contrast this to how rarely a day goes by without the likes of Yuvraj, Harbhajan or Sreesanth being in the news.

If I had to pick one knock from all his knocks that I've seen, I'd pick the century he made at Melbourne in 2000. It seemed as though he was batting on a totally different pitch and against a bowling attack that was markedly inferior to the one that had blown away the rest of the batsmen. The only other times I've seen an Indian batsman do that were Rahul Dravid at Jamaica in 2006 and Virender Sehwag at Galle in 2008.

So, is it time for Tendulkar to become a little more selective about the tests he plays in? At this point in time, assuming that Yuvraj is now almost a test certainty, Badrinath, Suresh Raina and Rohit Sharma are in the queue for a test middle-order batting slot, with someone like Cheteshwar Pujara being a 'dark horse'. How do the selectors find out if any of them (or even Yuvraj beginning to bat at #4) are good enough to even have a 5 year career, especially when the volume of tests that India plays is likely to reduce.

Does Tendulkar have anything left to prove now? In fact, has he actually had anything left to prove now for at least the last couple of years? Would we grudge him if he throttled back on his commitments, so that he's fit & firing to help achieve what he seems to indicate would be a great way to sign off - India winning the 2011 World Cup?

Could we make the same argument to have Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman also skip a few tests every now and then? Perhaps yes, but they don't play ODIs. So playing test cricket won't really stretch them physically or mentally. But that's not the case with Tendulkar, who plays tests and ODIs.

Labels: tendulkar

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:34 am | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

ICC's "best ever" rankings

Yesterday, the ICC announced that Matthew Hayden was ranked 10th in the all-time 'best ever rating' list. I thought the announcement was rather unwarranted, except perhaps as a retirement present, for there wasn't really any other reason to make this announcement. Maybe visits to the ICC's website were dwindling. Perhaps Google AdSense wasn't giving them enough revenue.

Anyone could have visited the player rankings site and found out which batsmen or bowlers had the highest ratings. Any "all-time" list that doesn't include Sachin Tendulkar is bound to be viewed as casus belli by India's news-hungry media & clueless 'fans'. Thankfully, the BCCI hasn't reacted so far. Following the 'outrage', the ICC put out a clarification.

The original media release said "Such outstanding ratings can only be achieved by players who display consistent excellence over a prolonged period of time". The clarification said "The rankings give an indication of how players peaked during their careers but do not give a full picture of those players' level of consistency or longevity in the game" I'm fairly sure the two statements are contradictory when they refer to the correlation between the ranking & longevity.

Let's set the record straight - the 'best ever' ranking is a value for the peak performance of a player. It doesn't imply that is his career mean or median. All it provides is a rating, a value at a point in time (say after a test series). Based on the ICC's all-time list, it seems like ratings of 900 and above are very difficult for people to achieve (Tests: 25 batsmen, 19 bowlers & ODIs: 8 batsmen, 5 bowlers). It's the sort of rating you get from having multiple brilliant performances in the time gap between the ratings getting updated.

Sample this: Don Bradman had test scores of 132, 127*, 201 & 57* to help him get the all-time high rating of 961. Joel Garner had ODI bowling performances of 3/29, 2/26, 0/6, 2/16 & 4/10 (3/29 in 10 overs being his costliest effort) to help him get to a #1 rating of 940. Syd Barnes had test bowling performances of 3/26, 5/102, 7/56 & 7/88 for a #1 rating of 932 (and never played test cricket again!). Viv Richards had ODI scores of 51(50), 80*(39), 53(57) & 66(39) to get a #1 rating of 935.

With a huge "We told you so" smirk on my face, let me point out that nearly 2.5 years ago, just after the ICC Player Rankings site was launched, we wrote

To determine the 'best ever' batsmen and bowlers, the site uses the highest rating at a given point in time. Wouldn't it have been better, and a fairer judgement of who the best really is/was, if the players' ratings had been averaged over their career? If Sunil Gavaskar is ahead of Lara, Miandad, Haynes & Tendulkar in the all-time one-day batting list, Peter May and Matthew Hayden are ahead of Richards, Gavaskar & Lara in the all-time test batting list and Tony Lock is ahead of Warne, Lindwall and Trueman in the test bowling list and Ewen Chatfield is ahead of Kumble, Vaas & Wasim in one-dayers, then David Lloyd's backside is indeed a fire engine.

Just sample these to get an idea of how moronic this 'best ever' ranking is: Botham is a "better" test bowler than Marshall, Hadlee, Warne, Donald, Lillee, Gibbs, Holding, Kumble, Akram, etc. Gary Kirsten is a "better" ODI batsman than de Silva, Mark Waugh, Ganguly, Jayasuriya, Gilchrist, Ponting, Azhar, Inzamam, Symonds, Sehwag, etc. Maninder is a "better" ODI bowler than Akram, Bond, Bracken, Saqlain, Kumble, Warne, Imran, etc. Botham is a "better" test batsman than Zaheer Abbas, de Silva, Thorpe, Mark Waugh, Langer, etc.

Just take the entire ranking with a large bucket-ful of salt. May the farce be with you!

Labels: hayden, icc, rankings, tendulkar

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:40 pm | Sledge/Read 5 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Outside off left alone, through to Gilchrist

Adam Gilchrist's autobiography, "True Colours: My Life", is to be released next week. As is to be expected, and as we've seen with cricketer autobiographies (Trescothick, Pietersen, Wright, Fletcher, Flintoff, Hussain or Lehmann), there is a tendency to selectively leak 'scandalous' portions of the book. The aim is to create a buzz around it, with the hope that it translates into more sales when the book is released.

Adam Gilchrist's revelations about Tendulkar are nothing but just that. He has his point of view, and others have theirs. Its his autobiography, and he has a right to choose what to say, and what not to say. If he reckons that the best way to sell his book, when there's an Australia v India series on, is to say things about India's cricketers that rile their fans, then that's his judgement.

I don't believe there's any value in rebutting the allegation that Tendulkar changed his story from "I didn't hear what Harbhajan said" to "He said something that sounded like 'monkey'" during the Judge Hansen hearing. Perhaps it needs pointing out that Gilchrist wasn't directly involved at all. What he's saying is based on what he heard (or appeared to hear) Symonds, Hayden, etc. say.

He also writes that India's cricketers, and Tendulkar in particular, are hard to find after India loses a game. Does that make Tendulkar, or the rest of the Indian players, sore losers?

I don't think so. It's a cultural thing. Just because Aussies do so doesn't mean everyone else should follow. It doesn't make the Aussie refrain of "We play hard on the field, and have a beer off it" right either. It could just be the fact that whoever plays hard to get is extremely competitive.

I can vouch for it. I hated losing, especially at cricket. I've sulked so often after the team I played in (or captained) has lost, whether it was in inter-university games or intra-office cricket or inter-office cricket or league cricket. Does that make me a sore loser? I don't particularly care if it does.

In any case, if Gilchrist is taking the one example of the Sydney test to point out Tendulkar not shaking hands, there's no need to point out how acrimonious that game was. Given all that was said (or allegedly said), the spirit in which the proceedings went and the umpiring howlers, it was but natural to feel pissed off and robbed. The problem perhaps is that Gilchrist hadn't encountered defeat enough times across his career to feel that pissed off, or it wasn't in his nature to. Australia won a staggering 71% of all internationals in which Gilchrist played!

Update: Read this fantabulously hilarious riposte to Gilchrist's quotes!

Labels: australia, autobiography, gilchrist, tendulkar

Thus spake Jagadish @ 8:59 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Tendulkar gets past Lara, and makes yet another debutant's day

In November 2005, the record for the most individual runs passed from Allan Border to Brian Lara. Today, Sachin Tendulkar became the holder of the record (and the first to get 12000 runs), as was probably ordained from the time he burst onto the Indian cricket scene 20+ years ago. The apocryphal story is that Sunil Gavaskar had told him soon after his debut that if he didn't get the most centuries and most runs, he would twist his arm. To that, Sachin replied that Sunny would be a very old and weak man by then. Well, at least we can now be spared of testing out Gavaskar's arm strength.

Tendulkar has been one of the all-time greats of Indian cricket, and indeed world cricket, for easily over a decade now. I've been a critic and a fan. I am in total awe of his shotmaking (the punch through cover, the straight drive, the paddle sweep, the upper cut through third man, the ferociously hit reverse 'sweep', the flick over midwicket, etc.). In fact, I am in awe of the enormous poise that he has by and large (the Multan outburst excepted perhaps) maintained over two decades, as well as the art of batsmanship that he portrays almost everytime he bats.

Sure, over the past 2-3 years his batting style has changed, but that doesn't bother me too much. In the past he had three roles to play - make a lot of runs, make them reasonably quickly, and ensure there's no collapse. Now, there is Sehwag to do the quick scoring, and in the past 6-7 years Laxman and Dravid have done the job of putting up a score through partnerships. So, Tendulkar can just be a run accumulator. So what if he doesn't evoke fear? Bowlers would much rather that Tendulkar attack them and get out for 24(30) than pile them up with a century made at a strike rate of 55. I know what I'd prefer.

My criticism isn't about how he doesn't make runs when it counts, or him averaging 35 against South Africa. The first thing that I don't really like is the way he decides when he's fit and when he isn't, resulting in far too many aborted returns from injury. The second is the way his batting slot is always #4 (unless a nightwatchman had gone in). Everyone else moves around. Tendulkar has played 81% of his innings from #4. The corresponding numbers for the rest of India's middle order galacticos are 73% @ #3 for Dravid, 54% @ #5 for Ganguly & 37% @ #6 for Laxman. There have been so many occasions when others have been in much better form, presenting a valid case for moving him down the order. But he always comes out at #4. The only occasion where he was shielded was when Ganguly came in ahead of him at Melbourne in 2003.

Oh, and there's one more thing about him that is downright irritating. It is the way he makes debutant bowlers so happy by becoming their first test wicket. The list is long, and some of the names are downright anonymous now. Ujesh Ranchod, Ruwan Kalpage, Mark Ealham, Adam Dale, Neil Johnson, Jacob Oram, Monty Panesar, Cameron White and now Peter Siddle.

Would there be any other batsman who has been so generous to debutant bowlers?

Labels: 12000, aus v ind 2008, debut, india, lara, record, tendulkar

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:45 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

India's one-man batting armies

The Indian team's batting performances in the last decade can be roughly divided into three phases.

Phase 1 would have been from 1998-2001 where Sachin Tendulkar was really the only one making runs. The entire batting revolved around him. Dravid, Laxman & Ganguly were yet to establish themselves while Azhar was on the downhill slope. This was the period where he had some unforgettable knocks against Australia (Chennai in 1997-98, Melbourne in 1999-2000, a double treat at Mumbai in 2000-2001 & Chennai in 2000-2001), Pakistan (Chennai in 1998-99) and South Africa (Bloemfontein in 2000-2001). Basically, it was a case of "Get Tendulkar, and the rest will follow". Almost all the knocks mentioned were of that variety, most painful of all being the one against Pakistan at Chennai.

Phase 2 would have been from 2002-2004 Rahul Dravid where was the one around whom the batting revolved. Although there were vital contributions from others, he towered over the rest with his knocks against Australia (Adelaide in 2003-2004 & indeed the rest of the series), England (Headingley in 2002), Pakistan (Rawalpindi in 2003-2004). In the last 2-3 years, he has had the odd great test/knock (e.g. see his twin gems at Jamaica), but the consistency is missing. When Dravid failed, at most you had a few instances where the likes of Laxman, Tendulkar, Sehwag or Ganguly did the job. But by and large, his was the most prized wicket.

I would say we are in phase 3 currently where Virender Sehwag is the chap around whom the batting revolves, despite him being in and out of the side recently. He scores so bloody rapidly, the bowling side is shocked at his audacity. His teammates are typically too shocked to continue the good work, and end up handing over the initiative to the opposition. Sample some of his thrillers: Pakistan (Mohali & Bangalore in 2004-2005, Lahore in 2005-2006), West Indies (nearly a century before lunch on day one). He also scored his first ever 2nd innings century (151) earlier this year at Adelaide when no-one else made more than 20!

Let's see for how much longer the Sehwag phase will continue. When it ends, whose turn will it be to pick up the baton? Raina? Rohit Sharma? Yuvraj? Dhoni? Gambhir? Or will it be someone totally out of the blue and unexpected?

Labels: batting, dravid, india, sehwag, tendulkar

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:29 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

IPL - Injury Prone League?

The news that Matthew Hayden will return home from Australia's on-going tour of the West Indies has Jon Pierik (Herald Sun) up in arms, since Hayden apparently aggravated his achilles tendon injury while playing in the Indian Premier League.

However, Hayden is not the only player to miss out on international assignments because of an injury sustained or aggravated while playing in the IPL.

Zaheer Khan's ankle injury, which ruled him out of the tour to Australia after just one test as well as the home series against South Africa, apparently resurfaced while playing in the IPL.

Sachin Tendulkar didn't heed the recommendation by John Gloster that he take rest. He played the first test against South Africa and ended up missing the rest of the series as well as nearly half of his side's games in the IPL. Perhaps he was still unfit when he returned, since he didn't exactly fare too well, as is fairly obvious from the numbers: 188 runs from 7 innings at a strike rate of 106.

Now, he will be missing two ODI series because of the injury.

All this makes me wonder if talk about international cricket being more important than the IPL is hogwash. If that indeed were the case, players wouldn't be risking aggravating injuries when they had international commitments immediately after the IPL ended.

Labels: australia, hayden, india, indian premier league, injury, ipl 2008, tendulkar, twenty20, zaheer khan

Thus spake Jagadish @ 5:08 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

If it's April 24 ...

Sachin Tendulkar must be injured, like he was in 2006 and 2003.

Labels: birthday, tendulkar

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:49 pm | Sledge/Read 2 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 ]

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 ]

Tendulkar opts out of captaincy

Former India captain Sachin Tendulkar has apparently opted to continue being referred that way by declining the captaincy of the test team caused by Dravid's resignation in September.

I am really elated and strongly hope that the news agencies and sources have got it right!

Labels: captaincy, india, tendulkar

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:22 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The Dravid imbroglio

The selection committee's decision to drop Rahul Dravid for the first two one-dayers against Pakistan was totally on expected lines. But what is bizarre is the fact that they still consider him to have been 'rested'. He had been 'rested' for the last one-dayer against Australia, despite having had a 3 week break after the England one-dayers since he opted out of the Twenty20 World Cup and despite batting a total of 89 minutes in the one-day series against Australia.

The honourable thing for him, and indeed the BCCI administrators (including selectors), was to have decided that he was no longer going to be part of the equation for ODIs. At the risk of flogging a dead horse, I repeat. I have always felt that it is high time Tendulkar and Dravid stopped playing one-day cricket. If this needs to be done in a phased manner, then at most only one or two of the troika should play each ODI.

Ganguly, despite his at-times bizarre batting methods, is far more likely to single-handedly win a ODI than a test match. Dravid is far more likely to single-handedly win a test than a ODI. Tendulkar is capable of both, but given he is pig-headed about opening the batting when there are at least 4 other batsmen (Ganguly, Uthappa, Gambhir, Sehwag who should be doing the job, it is high time he was presented with a fait accompli - drop down the order or exit ODIs. I hope he chooses the latter option.

I've seen a lot of articles arguing about how stupid it is for the BCCI to pick Sehwag despite him having played only a handful of Twenty20 games recently and not having done anything of note (barring a 60 against England in the Twenty20 World Cup). But at least the BCCI is being consistent. Dravid has been sent back to domestic cricket where he will get to play 2-3 4-day games for Karnataka to prove that he is good enough to find a spot in the Indian ODI XI. Go figure!

Rahul Bhattacharya's comment piece on Dravid's omission is lovely because it argues that Dravid is only human, warts and all. Adding on to his theme on Dravid's selflessness, let me point out that Dravid agreed to don the wicket-keeping gloves in 2002 when with the likes of Sehwag, Yuvraj and Kaif nearly having nearly established themselves in the team, he was faced with a situation where he would have been left out. So, along with helping the balance of the team, he ensured that he was a certain pick for ODIs.

It is a testament to his mental strength and cricketing ability that he batted at many positions, doing fairly well in most of the roles he played, and ending up with 10,000 ODI runs. That doesn't necessarily make him selfless, but it certainly makes him great, in my book!

Labels: dravid, ganguly, india, odi, retire, tendulkar, twenty20, twenty20 world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:08 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Meaningless stat for the day

This is only the second time India have been dismissed for 148 in a ODI.

The previous time it happened, the team was captained by the current chairman of selectors and Sachin Tendulkar was 400 ODIs away from the milestone he reached today - India v West Indies at Port-of-Spain on March 9, 1989.

Labels: australia, india, statistic, tendulkar, vengsarkar

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:31 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

India's best XI for the one-dayers

Especially after the Twenty20 tournament win and the abysmal quality of fielding in the one-dayers in England, it seems obvious to me that the Indian team cannot afford to have Tendulkar, Dravid and Ganguly in the same XI.

In fact, I really think only one of them should be in the XI. This would ensure that they don't get burnt out playing one-day cricket when they (especially Dravid and Tendulkar) really need to help the Indian team achieve more in test cricket. In addition, it would automagically improve the quality of the fielding.

So my 11 for Bangalore would be: Gambhir, Uthappa, Rohit, Yuvraj, Dhoni, Dravid, Pathan, Harbhajan, Powar, Zaheer and RP Singh. Dinesh Karthik/Sreesanth is the 12th man.

I'd get the likes of Rohit Sharma, Gambhir and Uthappa to have the maximum opportunities to bat up the order. Someone like Yuvraj should be given the opportunity to become India's #4. Dravid is a good enough batsman to adjust to any batting slot/situation.

The series must be used to give the fringe cricketers the opportunity to succeed (or fail). The question is not about whether Dravid, Tendulkar or Ganguly are still good enough to play for India. There is no doubt about it. They are still among India's best batsmen in one-day cricket.

Even now, we have no idea about who India's ODI openers for the future are, once Tendulkar and Ganguly stop playing ODIs. There're too many options: Gambhir & Uthappa, Gambhir & Sehwag, Sehwag & Uthappa, for starters. Throw in Dinesh Karthik, Yusuf Pathan and some others who did well in the previous few domestic seasons. While it seems like an abundance of riches, the truth is that the succession planning has never come to the selectors' minds.

The BCCI has a vested interest in continuing to see the trio play ODIs, for their presence guarantees revenue. A lay-spectator probably switches off from the game (either walks out of the ground or away from the TV set) if he/she realizes that Tendulkar is not playing that day. While it is a noble Gandhian thought to think of such a follower while picking the side, unfortunately, the same spectator is highly likely to spout venom when the team loses.

The only thing that should matter is the good of the Indian cricket team. If it means politely asking the trio to step aside, then the BCCI must be strong enough to do so!

Labels: australia, bcci, dravid, ganguly, india, odi, retire, tendulkar

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:29 am | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Wanted: Twenty20 specialists for India

I started writing this piece a couple of days ago, after reading reports of how the ECB selectors picked a non-specialist Twenty20 side against West Indies and instead decided that those who played the fifty-over game would also fit into the scheme of things in Twenty20.

This led me into thinking about how the BCCI should also not make the same mistake. There're a few one-day players among those who played against South Africa recently who would be misfits in Twenty20. The list starts with one of my most favourite cricketers of all-time, Rahul Dravid. He's a brilliant batsman, and has totally turned it around in one-day cricket over the past 6-7 years. But he's unsuited for Twenty20. Simply because of his strike-rate (71) is not good enough in a game where teams score at between 8 and 10 runs an over.

The second person who shouldn't figure in the list is Sourav Ganguly, for similar reasons (strike rate 74) and in addition, his average fielding. His bowling is never going to be threatening in a Twenty20 game anyway!

I'm ambivalent about Sachin Tendulkar. He can really score quickly in one-dayers, when the mood seizes him. He's a pretty decent fielder too, especially in the outfield and he's snapped up quite a few nice catches after his return to the slip cordon. I'd pick him for the tournament because of his batting and fielding and I hope he doesn't ask the captain to let him bowl :)

Ramesh Powar has been quite impressive with his bowling, but his batting and fielding have so far been very unconvincing. Hence, he too must not figure in the final squad.

Sreesanth still doesn't seem to have figured out how to bowl in one-day cricket. His bowling length, which is a great asset in test cricket, allows batsmen to belt him around in the limited overs game. Hence, he too must not feature in the final squad.

Update on 7 July

The BCCI announced a 30-member probables list for the Twenty20 World Cup in South Africa. Rahul Dravid, Sourav Ganguly and Sachin Tendulkar don't feature in the list, because they asked not to be considered. I'm hoping that the BCCI selectors weren't seriously considering them anyway! While you're at it, you might as well vote on if they should be picking and choosing when/where to play.

The list of probables has quite a few recent rejects: Varinder Virender Sehwag, Harbhajan Singh, Suresh Raina, Mohammad Kaif and Irfan Pathan. In addition, there're quite a few players from the under-19 and under-22 ranks: Manoj Tiwary (who'd have been cursing himself after injuring himself in Bangladesh), Cheteshwar Pujara, Abhishek Jhunjhunwala, Rohit Sharma, Joginder Sharma, etc.

The two interesting names in the list are Aniruddh Srikkanth and Niraj Patel. Aniruddh is the son of former India opener (and someone who'd have potentially felt extremely at home in Twenty20) Krishnamachari Srikkanth. As for Niraj Patel, I've seen him play quite a few extrely mature Bevanesque (or perhaps we can now call it Yuvrajesque?!) innings in a few domestic one-day games and I was wondering if he was lost to Indian cricket. Turns out that he's been very consistent for his state/zone over the past 2-3 years and scored lots of runs, fairly rapidly, in the Mushtaq Ali Trophy last season.

I wonder who the captain would be. My pick would be Yuvraj or Dhoni.

Labels: dravid, ganguly, india, squad, tendulkar, twenty20, twenty20 world cup, world cup, world cup squads

Thus spake Jagadish @ 5:28 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

There it is, for the first time

Sachin Tendulkar has just been dismissed run-out for 99 in the first one-dayer against South Africa being played in Ireland.

This is in fact the first time he has got out for 99 in international cricket (Never before in tests or one-dayers)

Labels: 99, tendulkar

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:40 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Sorry Greg, your mathematics is wrong

I was impressed on reading Greg Chappell's recent interview to Cricinfo and I can only hope that all his talk become a reality sooner than later. But, he also has to understand/agree that he might have done some mistakes in going through the development work as anyone would. He cannot blindly defend all that he has done over the last 15-20 months.

If you look at Suresh's record, now and compare it with Sachin Tendulkar's record at the same stage of his one-day international career, you'll find it's exactly the same.

I definitely wished he was right, as any Indian fan would, as I want Raina for the future. Till date, Raina has played 36 ODIs/28 innings and aggregates 612 runs at an average of 26.60 with 3 fifties and a highest score of 81*. Similar numbers for the Tendulkar were hugely different - 36 ODIs/34 innings and 1075 runs at an average of 35.83 with 10 fifties and a top score of 81. The similarity ends at 81. I went in further - after 28 innings - Tendulkar had 821 runs at 32.84 and 7 fifties with a highest of just 77.

Anyway, Raina's numbers don't match with the maestro's. Raina can still turn out to be a very good batsmen for the future. But, no one is entitled to mislead the public by giving false info to make him the next Tendulkar.

Labels: chappell, greg chappell, raina, tendulkar

Thus spake Ganesh @ 8:50 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

He's not a bad one-day batsman, is he?

Yes, he's played 300-odd games. But that's perhaps 200 more than a a whopping majority of Indian cricket followers would have predicted for him when his one-day career came to a near standstill shortly after his 1(21) against Bangladesh. The revival came during India's tour of New Zealand where he played a fair amount of shots over the infield without ever looking ugly. Then came the 1999 World Cup. After that, no real looking back.

Today, he went past 10000 ODI runs, against Sri Lanka at Goa.

The only others who've got more international runs than Rahul Dravid (19218) are Sachin Tendulkar (25450), Brian Lara (22089), Inzamam-ul-Haq (20478) and Ricky Ponting (19224). Point to be noted: Dravid and Ponting's numbers are identical, yet again!

Analyzing the numbers further, in terms of runs per innings in tests, the rankings are BC Lara (51.52), RT Ponting (51.19), R Dravid (50.41), SR Tendulkar (49.16) and Inzamam-ul-Haq (44.51). For ODIs, the rankings (runs per innings) are SR Tendulkar (39.95), RT Ponting (37.48), BC Lara (36.07), R Dravid (35.12) and Inzamam-ul-Haq (33.71). Inzamam's numbers are clearly inferior to the rest. So I'm going to drop him from the comparison.

The next analysis is a ratio of test runs to ODI runs. My personal preference is for test cricket. So a higher ratio is preferable. The rankings are BC Lara (1.18), RT Ponting (0.95), R Dravid (0.91) and SR Tendulkar (0.72). A similar analysis of test runs/innings to ODI runs/innings gives R Dravid (1.44), BC Lara (1.43), RT Ponting (1.37) and SR Tendulkar (1.23).

Then I assign a weightage for each player's test and ODI runs per innings numbers. This is how it turns out. If I rank ODI and test runs on par with each other, the rankings are SR Tendulkar (89.11), RT Ponting (88.67), BC Lara (87.59) and R Dravid (85.53). If I gave ODI runs a 75% weightage compared to test runs, the rankings are RT Ponting (79.30), SR Tendulkar (79.12), BC Lara (78.57) and R Dravid (76.75). If ODIs get 50% weightage compared to test runs, the rankings are RT Ponting (69.93), BC Lara (69.56), SR Tendulkar (69.14) and R Dravid (67.97). If ODIs get 25% weightage compared to test runs, the rankings are RT Ponting (60.56), BC Lara (60.54), R Dravid (59.19) and SR Tendulkar (59.15).

What this analysis tells me is that there's almost no real difference between the fearsome foursome. Ricky Ponting leads on just about every count, Brian Lara comes a very close second a lot of the time. But the margins are really wafer thin. When I normalize all the rankings for each weightage system, the highest gap is between Dravid (0.9597) and Tendulkar when ODI runs getting the same weightage as test runs. In the other three weightages, the gaps are Tendulkar (0.9767) v Ponting for the 25% weightage, Dravid (0.9719) v Ponting for the 50% weightage and Dravid (0.9678) v Ponting for the 75% weightage.

Lara is due to retire after the 2007 World Cup. Tendulkar could last for another 2 years at most. The two cricketing twins will keep making bowling attacks feel miserable for at least another half a decade! It'll be awesome to follow the race.

Previous stuff on Dravid: Highest batting avg, Ponting and Dravid's similar stats, comparing Ponting and Dravid in ODIs, comparing Kallis, Ponting and Dravid, second fastest to 8000 test runs, most consecutive test appearances from debut, second highest average among those with 7000 test runs, combining well with Kumble, century in each test playing nation and drawing level with Gavaskar's catches count.

Labels: 10000, batting, dravid, greats, inzamam, ponting, tendulkar

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:59 pm | Sledge/Read 10 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]