Wanted for Indian cricket: Consistency of selection and a ban on tournaments played in islands

There are far too many reasons floating around for India's exit at the Super Eight stage of the T20 World Cup. No one even mentioned those (IPL, post-match parties, inability to play on bouncy tracks, poor squad selection, etc.) when India beat Afghanistan and South Africa.

By no stretch of imagination were the pitches at Barbados (where India lost to West Indies & Australia) bouncy pitches! They were good all-round wickets. India lost because its batsmen couldn't cope with anything above knee height, because its bowlers had zero ability to pick up wickets and because the fielding was a total joke.

It is a different matter though that the batsmen also struggle when the ball is 'slow and low'. So they can't play anything below ankle height and anything above knee height. Steve Waugh would call that a very huge comfort zone!

As in the 2009 edition, Mahendra Singh Dhoni, bizarrely chose to come in at #5 or #6 although he was in form and among the better batsmen around. Why he continued to persist with promoting an out-of-form and clearly unfit Yuvraj ahead of him was totally beyond comprehension.

The bigger issue though is the total lack of clarity and consistency around selection.

India's selectors keep picking squads for T20 that comprise of largely the same folks who play 50-over ODIs. Given the compressed nature of the T20 game, there is always a huge emphasis on cricketers with at least 2 skills - explosive batting, brilliant fielding and run-choking / wicket-taking bowling. Persisting with chaps like Nehra, Zaheer, Yuvraj (when he is unfit), Harbhajan and Praveen Kumar was really ridiculous.

India's successes in 1983, 1985 (ok, not exactly an ICC event!), 2002 and 2007, and the route to the finals in 2000 & 2003, had significant contributions from the fielding department.

The BCCI had over a year to identify specific players who needed help with playing "bouncy" stuff. When we say 'bouncy' stuff, do remember that it is not even getting close to "chin music"!

The BCCI had at least 4 years to figure out how the tracks in the Caribbean would have played. Was it not important enough? Did it assume that the tracks would be the same as those during the 2007 World Cup or the 4 ODIs in 2009?

Considering that India hadn't played a single game at Barbados over the last 4 years, was it really a surprise that the team was unprepared for the conditions?

Since Jan 2009, 29 players have been selected in India's ODI and T20 squads. That doesn't sound like a huge number, and it may seem like there actually is consistency of selection. But try explaining to the likes of Abhimanyu Mithun, Ashok Dinda, Amit Mishra, Badrinath, Abhishek Nayar, Pragyan Ojha, Ashwin, Virat Kohli, etc. that they have been treated fairly. Notice that with the exception of Kohli, Badri and Nayar, the rest are all bowlers.

This tells us that the 'senior' batsmen in the team are unlikely to get dislodged and any potential claimant to the spot must score a 250 in a 50-over innings or 150 in a 20-over innings to be considered.

Was there clarity around who plays what sort of role? Were Gambhir and Raina expected to bat through the innings? What was the expectation from Yuvraj and Rohit? What was Dhoni's role? If Vijay or Dinesh Karthik got picked, what were they supposed to do? Was Yusuf Pathan only supposed to try to hit every ball for 6 or 4?

Maybe its time for a thorough clean-up. Maybe the players who were picked for the T20 World Cup didn't have the hunger since they'd had it easy. Maybe its time to pick those who do have the hunger.

Forcing the games to be played during day-time hours in the West Indies just to cater to the Indian TV audience turned out to be so farcical after the team's pathetic showing.

The next time around, if the partners & sponsors tried to negotiate telecast timings, the ICC should ask them to take a look at India's recent record before assuming that India would even get to the semi-finals.

More importantly and more pertinently though, the BCCI must put its foot down and insist that ICC tournaments must no longer be held in islands, based on India's past record (Australia-New Zealand: 1992; England: 1975, 1979, 1983, 1998 & 2004; Sri Lanka: 2002 and West Indies: 2007). Of the 7 tournaments, India have been finalists on just 2 occasions and the rest were all major flop shows.

Labels: india, indian premier league, ipl 2010, selection, twenty20, twenty20 world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:47 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

A strong link between the IPL and the T20 World Cup

Based on statistical evidence^*, Mumbai or Bangalore will win the IPL and 11 out of the 16 teams playing in the T20 World Cup have no chance of winning the World Cup.

Here're the damning statistics:

• Mumbai or Bangalore will win the 2010 IPL tournament. The previous 2 editions have been won by Jaipur (league topper) and Hyderabad (4th on the league table).
  
• The only sides with a reasonable chance of success at the T20 World Cup are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ireland, Pakistan and Zimbabwe. The World Cup winning side has never included even a single player who played in the preceding IPL tournament.
  
• Based on current evidence from IPL tournaments preceding a T20 World Cup (sample size: 1), the top 2 run-getters are usually not good enough (or too old) to even feature in their national side's squad. So, the only consequence of Suresh Raina and Rohit Sharma hitting a real purple (orange?) patch is that they will eventually not play at the 2010 T20 World Cup. The only other real contenders are Herschelle Gibbs and Mahendra Singh Dhoni, but they'd need to score something like 300+ runs across 2 innings to race to the top of the 2010 IPL run-getters list.
  
• 3 out of the top 5 wicket-takers at an IPL event played in a T20 World Cup that immediately followed. Hence, at least one out of Pragyan Ojha, Amit Mishra and Irfan Pathan will definitely be called up to play at the World Cup. The first one to have a confirmed ticket booking on a trans-Pacific flight, or willing to travel by road, will get the nod.
  
• West Indies will continue a rich tradition of the hosts (1996 World Cup and 2002 Champions Trophy being examples) never winning a 'World Cup' like event. In much the same manner that the 'home' team has never won an IPL to date.

* - All data is valid as of before the first semi-final of the 2010 IPL event

Labels: indian premier league, ipl 2010, prediction, statistic, twenty20, twenty20 world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:39 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The 2009 T20 World Cup - quite eventful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Australia strategically lost, now they're laughing at England for progressing

It's funny how Shane Warne's brain works. I daresay quite a few other Aussie cricketers (current and former), cricket administrators and cricket commentators/writers would have also thought along similar lines after Australia were bundled out of the T20 World Cup.

Shane Warne in his column

Although Australia will still be hurting, this could be a blessing in disguise for the Ashes. They will be able to have a short break to get this out of their systems and then tick along with their practice out of the spotlight before the warm-ups. They have one focus now, no distractions before July 8 in Cardiff.

So let's see how the column would have read in a few other situations.

• Australia progress to stage 2, England don't: England will be hurting, this could have been a great opportunity to get in some more confidence and match-practice ahead of the Ashes. Their confidence would have taken a battering. England is where T20 began and they play so much of it. They have got two T20 tournaments a year lined up from 2010. They're the hosts and they just didn't up. It's no good playing only warm-ups before such an important series.


• Both teams progress to stage 2: Australia will take a lot of confidence going in to the Super Eight stage. They were among the pre-tournament favourites, but they went into this tournament pretty cold. England, on the other hand, had enough match-practice with the games against West Indies. As for the impact on the Ashes, will it impact the way England bat in the tests? It's no good scoring 180 in 20 overs in a test match if you're all out by then. Australia, on the other hand, have players who can adapt to all forms of the game.


• Both teams are knocked-out in the first round: England's confidence would have taken a battering. They're the hosts and they just didn't up. This will seriously impact their Ashes prospects. Australia never really take T20 seriously, but England is where T20 began and they play so much of it. They have got two T20 tournaments a year lined up from 2010.

Labels: australia, twenty20 world cup, warne

Thus spake Jagadish @ 9:00 am | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Priceless!

Even if VISA is one of the 'commercial partners' of the T20 World Cup, to heck with ambush marketing.

Tickets to the game: Not applicable
Food & drink: Not applicable
Watching (on TV) Ricky Ponting play a dumb shot off Mendis: Worth being awake at past 1 am
The look on Ricky Ponting's face as his dream fades: Priceless!

It is my firm belief that England should just withdraw from the competition so that the Ashes series can begin a week or so ahead of schedule.

This is only the 2nd 3rd time (thanks for pointing it out, Sanath!) that Australia have not won a single game at a "major ICC event"!

Labels: australia, statistic, twenty20 world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:09 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Rashid Latif's T20 World Cup semi-final lineup prediction

Rashid Latif, one of Pakistan's enfant-terribles and a much sought-after cricketer for the rent-a-quote agency he runs, last week expressed concern that India's cricketers would be jaded after having played the IPL and would hence not do well at the T20 World Cup which starts in England in a couple of days.

I don't think it was a brilliant idea to have the Indian Premier League before the Twenty20 World Cup. It was poor thinking on part of the Indian cricket officials.

Maybe he knows something about the international cricket calendar and global weather patterns that no-one else does.

The period from April to June is typically the leanest for international cricket because to a large extent, West Indies and England are the only places where cricket can be played. It is far too hot in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka & Bangladesh and cold in Australia, South Africa, Zimbabwe and New Zealand. Even in England, April and May are the rainy months.

Given contractual commitments, the IPL had to happen. There was a lot that the IPL organizers did wrong when it came to engaging the Indian government. There was no way that the tournament would be postponed (because there simply was no other free slot available) or cancelled (telecast rights, team owners having spent millions of $ in securing the services of players). So, the tournament went to South Africa, and was a rip-roaring success primarily because of the quality of cricket.

There's also no doubt that the Indian players have been on the road for the last 3-4 months after the tour of Pakistan was cancelled, playing ODIs in Sri Lanka, touring New Zealand and then the IPL. Yet, I don't quite think they're at a stage where they're jaded.

Given a choice between turning up for a T20 World Cup after playing 15 T20 games involving most of the best cricketers and ODIs & a single T20 game against Australia's third choice XI, I know which one I'd prefer if I was an international cricketer.

Going by Latif's logic, countries that didn't contribute significantly to the IPL player base should do very well at the T20 World Cup. So which country has the most number of players in their T20 World Cup squads who didn't show up at the IPL? Let's exclude the Associates teams for obvious reasons.

Country	# of players
Australia	11
Bangladesh	13
England	9
India	0
New Zealand	8
Pakistan	15
South Africa	3
Sri Lanka	5
West Indies	11

The semi-final lineup suddenly looks so bloody obvious: Pakistan, Bangladesh, West Indies and Australia.

Labels: india, indian premier league, rashid latif, twenty20, twenty20 world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:10 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Zimbabwe throw Twenty20 World Cup scheduling haywire

Reports suggest that Zimbabwe have voluntarily withdrawn from the 2009 edition of the Twenty20 World Cup in England.

Obviously this is a temporary compromise worked out to ensure that Zimbabwe's status as an international team isn't addressed for now. Are Zimbabwe good enough to play Twenty20 cricket? If the answer to that is yes, then they should play the tournament. If the answer to that is no, then they shouldn't. Are Zimbabwe good enough to play ODI cricket? No. Let's not even bother asking about Test cricket.

Now Zimbabwe's withdrawal from the tournament has a few ramifications. They're in the same group as India and Bangladesh. At this point in time, the format of the tournament has 4 groups of 3 teams each (10 full members of the ICC + 2 qualifiers from amongst the associates). The top 2 qualifiers from each group are then divided into 2 groups, where they play in a round-robin league. The top 2 from each group's league qualify for the semi-finals. There're a total of 27 games: 12 in round 1, 12 in round 2, 2 semis and 1 final.

Since Zimbabwe have withdrawn, does it mean that India & Bangladesh automatically go through to the next round? Although on the basis of cricketing ability it was likely to have been the outcome had Zimbabwe not withdrawn, it doesn't seem fair to other teams.

So maybe the ICC will rework the groupings into 2 groups of 6 and 5 each, or 3 groups of 4, 4 & 3 teams each. That could upset fixture locations, especially since tickets have already been sold out. A lot of fans could have bought tickets for certain games since their favourite team was playing that day at that ground. If the groupings are reworked, the fans get taken for a ride.

I reckon that the ICC will bring in a third qualifier and slot that side as a replacement for Zimbabwe.

It will be interesting to see how the ICC works this one out!

Labels: icc, scheduling, twenty20, twenty20 world cup, zimbabwe

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:58 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Time for a reality check and some common sense

For nearly a week now, India's 1983 World Cup winning team has been feted every day. Obviously they do deserve it all, for what they actually did still gives me goose-pimples.

But frequently, the gloating does get to me. It really is time for a reality check. The fact is that, like it or not, Malcolm Speed has been right (barring 1 or 2 exceptions) about India not translating its administrative and money power off the field into victories on it for nearly two decades now.

Significant test series wins, especially overseas (pedantic question: If the team goes to Pakistan from a flight originating from New Delhi, does it count as an overseas trip?!) have been rare. Since 2003, it is around one a year: Pakistan in 2004, West Indies in 2006 and England in 2007.

It is only in the last year or so that the Indian team has done reasonably consistently in limited overs cricket (fifty overs and Twenty20), with the Commonwealth Bank Series win in Australia and the Twenty20 World Cup. Before these wins, you've to go as far back as the 2002 NatWest Series for a win in a multi-nation tournament.

Hence, it is very important that the BCCI administrators, the selectors, the coaching staff and the leadership team amongst the players (Kumble, Dhoni, Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly, Yuvraj, Zaheer, to name a few) get together and come up with a strategy on what and how Indian cricket will achieve on the field over the next decade.

I've never really had too much respect for the ECB or the England cricket team. But having said that, the ECB came up with such a plan in 2005. Their aim was to become the best test team by 2009. Whether they reach that goal is not quite the point, at least they have a plan to get there and there's some motivation to execute on the plan. I haven't seen any such attempt from the BCCI.

So that's the reality check part of this post.

The common sense bit has two parts.

Part one is in the context of the controversy a couple of days ago in the England v New Zealand one-dayer where Sidebottom (bowler) collided with Elliott (batsman) when the batsman was going for a quick single. Watch the video and see some photos.

Elliott and Sidebottom were floored, Bell threw the ball to Pietersen who was at the non-striker's end stumps and ran out Elliott. There is absolutely no doubt that as per the law, Elliott was run out since Sidebottom's actions and his injury did not come under the purview of Law 23 (Dead ball).

Elliott received some treatment since he seemed injured. The umpires conferred among themselves, and then checked with Collingwood if he wanted to withdraw his appeal. Collingwood was perfectly justified in not recalling Elliott. There was far too much at stake: New Zealand needed 26 (39) with 3 wickets in hand and the series was level 1-1 with one more game to go.

Lots of commentators are passing judgement on how Collingwood was not right and he had violated the spirit of the game. Some say that the umpires should have stepped in and called a dead ball. But this was, in no way, a case of a wilful and deliberate collision by Sidebottom. In fact, no bowler (especially a fast bowler) would ever want to have such a forceful collision deliberately, because the resultant injury could force him out of the game forever!

There are two options:

1. Do nothing. The law stays as it is.
   
2. Change the law such that if any sort of collision occurs, regardless of the severity or whether it was deliberate, the ball should be called a dead ball.

I would vote for #1 so that references to the 'spirit of cricket' can be countered with the fact that the umpires only did what the law said.

We keep seeing these instances of people going by the law and getting castigated for it. Here're three samples.

• In 1981, Greg Chappell instructed Trevor Chappell to bowl under-arm when New Zealand needed 6 to tie the game, with one ball remaining.
  
• In 2005, Darrell Hair flicked off the bails and declared that Pakistan had forfeited the Oval test.
  
• In 2006 during a test against New Zealand, Murali was stupid enough to leave his crease and run up to congratulate Sangakkara on his century (video) while the ball was still in play. Fleming was asked a lot of questions about whether it was right to appeal for the run out.

In all these cases, the players and the umpires followed the law. More importantly, they followed the law as it existed then. Subsequently, laws were changed to ban under-arm bowling and to transfer the power of deciding on a game forfeit to the match referee.

The second part on common sense is about the real farce that is developing with respect to Zimbabwe's presence in international cricket. South Africa and England have snapped cricketing relations with Zimbabwe. Barely three months ago, the ICC's board let the ZCU off scot-free despite there being enough cause for concern over handling of finances and the state of cricket in the country. It is high time the ICC did something about Zimbabwe. More importantly, the BCCI needs to realize that it can't continue to be solely focussed on its self-interest to the extent that international cricket gets devalued. Zimbabwe is obviously important in the context of votes, but if the BCCI's administrators act sanely and keep the interests of the game in mind, they may not even need votes at ICC meetings!

Zimbabwe doesn't feature in the ICC test rankings since they haven't played a test for nearly three years now. The last time Zimbabwe won a ODI against major countries other than Bangladesh was in November 2007 (against West Indies). Before that, we go back to November 2003 (West Indies again!). They've been that pathetic.

Let's just give you some idea of how long ago they last played a test. That last test featured Sourav Ganguly as India's captain and Greg Chappell as India's coach. This was the test after the one where Ganguly revealed that Chappell had asked him to quit as captain. In 3 years, so much has changed: Ganguly was out of the side for over a year while Chappell resigned after the pathetic show at the 2007 World Cup.

Yet, Zimbabwe continues to receive assistance and funds from the ICC. This just doesn't make sense. Even if the BCCI does plan to object to Zimbabwe's status being demoted, they should come up with an alternate plan that improves the standard of cricket as well as making the ZCU more accountable for its actions.

Labels: 1983, bcci, common sense, icc, india, laws, rules, spirit of cricket, twenty20 world cup, umpires, world cup, zimbabwe

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:03 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

2007: The year of the minnows?

For the first time in over five seasons, 2001/02 being the last time this happened, Mumbai will not feature in the semi-final stage of the Ranji Trophy. Saurashtra will join Delhi, Baroda & Uttar Pradesh in the semi-final lineup.

I've always felt that the Ranji Trophy really needed to be fine-tuned to ensure that states didn't have multiple teams representing the region (Baroda, Saurashtra & Gujarat; Vidarbha, Maharashtra & Mumbai; Andhra & Hyderabad) as well as a revamp required to exclude the likes of Services, Tripura, Himachal Pradesh, Saurashtra, Jammu & Kashmir and Goa purely on the basis of their past performance over the 70+ year history of the Ranji Trophy. So, Saurashtra's success is a surprise to me, and makes me eat humble pie.

Perhaps 2007 is the year of the 'minnow': Saurashtra reaching the semi-final of the Ranji Trophy (who knows, what'd happen next!), Tasmania reached the Pura Cup final, Durham fell short of eventual County Championship winners Sussex by just 4.5 points, Zimbabwe beat Australia at Twenty20 while Ireland & Bangladesh created major upsets at the World Cup.

Labels: australia, bangladesh, baroda, durham, india, ireland, minnows, mumbai, ranji trophy, saurashtra, semi-final, sussex, tasmania, twenty20 world cup, uttar pradesh, zimbabwe

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:02 pm | Sledge/Read 0 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 ]

Seven year old Andrew Symonds

No. This is not a post about how the seven year old Andrew Symonds broke the local under-15 record for the longest six.

It is about him being blissfully unaware of Australia's celebrations after they won the 1999 World Cup. Sample these pictures: Mark Waugh & McGrath, #26 - TPFKASW & Shane Warne and being feted by the Mayor during the ticker-tape parade in Sydney.

The only reason I can ascribe to him being unaware of the celebrations is that he wasn't yet born in 1999 (which explains the post title!). Perhaps that explains why he reckons that Australia have been very humble.

It is easy to be humble when you are bloody expected to win every single tournament in sight, and when reaching only the semi-final is considered a failure. But I'm sure Australia weren't exactly humble in 1999. In 1987, the Australian public and administrators did not perhaps comprehend how important winning the World Cup was. After all, this was a tournament held in India, not in Australia, West Indies or England, was it?

This doesn't mean that the celebrations are apt. They are certainly over the top, especially given a tougher assignment awaits. But it's not a bad thing enjoying the moment, is it?

Labels: australia, india, symonds, twenty20 world cup, world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:08 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

To Malcolm, with love

Late last year, when Malcolm Speed rapped the BCCI on its knuckles over the board's attempts to question the ICC's handling of advertising and TV rights, he pointed out that India had not won any event of note since 1983. Forgetting for a moment the bout of amnesia which resulted in him not mentioning the 1985 World Championship of Cricket or the 2002 ICC Champions Trophy (joint-winners, admittedly), here's one for you, Malcolm.

True, it was only a Twenty20 tournament. The bigger goal should be to become world #1 in tests and one-dayers and have an administration that cares for its players and the spectators. But at this point in time, India has more ICC Twenty20 World Championship tournament wins than those of the other cricketing nations put together :)

Labels: icc, malcolm speed, twenty20 world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 8:54 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Deja vu for Adam Gilchrist, this time with foot in mouth

Adam Gilchrist walked in yet another World Cup semi-final, this time at the World Twenty20 championship. In a totally unexpected move on Saturday, he earned a few more brownie points and supporters when he decided to take a decision out of the umpire's hands by opting to walk after Sreesanth had demolished his stumps.

Sources close to Gilchrist confirmed that he did so to protect his reputation for walking and that he'd have done so even if Sreesanth had blown away the other two stumps as well. Gilchrist was quoted by the sources as having walked despite the distinct possibility that the Durban's windy weather had uprooted his middle-stump.

5.1 Sreesanth to Gilchrist, OUT, bowled em! Sreesanth pitches full on the stumps, Gilchrist doesnt move his feet an inch, instead choosing to fatefully play from deep in the crease, misses out on the attempted on-drive, and loses his middle stump! Big wicket for India!

After Australia had lost the game, Gilchrist stuck his foot in his mouth. When asked about Australia's performance, he said

We came from four months off. India have been playing some cricket recently.

The four month vacation didn't seem to have come into the picture when Australia demolished England or Sri Lanka. The Indian team (well most of those at this tournament) have been playing cricket continuously since June. That is not a good thing either!

Labels: deja vu, gilchrist, twenty20 world cup, walking

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:08 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Semi-final blues

It is a good thing India play Australia and not Sri Lanka in the second semi-final of the ChwentyChwenty World Cup.

Imagine the amount of confusion which would be created by the fact that both teams have very similar coloured clothing.Why on earth did Sri Lanka move away from their dark blue coloured uniforms?

Labels: blue, twenty20 world cup, uniforms

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:51 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Will Jacques Kallis sign up for the ICL?

Jacques Kallis quit as South Africa's vice-captain a couple of days ago after he was omitted from South Africa's squad for the Twenty20 World Cup.

Clearly miffed at his exclusion, he talked about having a re-think on his future.

Is there a possibility he will be joining the Indian Cricket League? There's news that Yousuf, Razzaq and Farhat have signed up for the ICL.

It could get pretty serious soon. The boards have thus far been happy with threatening to ban/deny benefits for those who join the ICL. But what happens if marquee names, especially ones who haven't retired, join the ICL? The boards will probably need to get into an agreement with the ICL. The ICL clearly indicates that it is willing to use money power to attract top players.

Labels: indian cricket league, kallis, south africa, twenty20, twenty20 world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:52 pm | Sledge/Read 1 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 ]