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 ]

World Cup - Surprise picks and omissions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What were the umpires doing at Perth?

During the first over after lunch on day two of the Perth test in the Frank Worrell Trophy featuring Australia v West Indies, Sulieman Benn, Brad Haddin and Mitchell Johnson got into a fracas. The sequence of events, which you can see in the video on YouTube, was approximately this:

• Haddin plays a ball towards mid wicket and sees the possibility of a quick single
  
• Benn, bowling from around the wicket, runs across to his right to cut off the single
  
• Johnson put his head down and ran, reviving memories of Forrest Gump
  
• Benn tries to get to the ball, and ends up looking like he was dragging Johnson back with his hand
  
• When the ball is 'dead', Haddin points his bat at Benn possibly asking him to stop coming in the way
  
• Benn is now really mad and keeps chattering & abusing away
  
• Gayle is standing still, first listening to Haddin's point of view and then to Benn
  
• Umpire Billy Bowden then steps in and asks Gayle & Benn to get on with it
  
• Benn, still very angry, asks Haddin some questions, throwing in a couple of obscenities rhyming with 'chuck'
  
• Benn then bowls an absolute ripper of a delivery that Johnson has no clue about. The batsmen cross over for a bye
  
• Benn is still unhappy and chattering away. He even appears to ask Johnson something, while Johnson practices his straight drive at the non-striker's end
  
• Benn bowls to Haddin, who drives the ball straight back. Benn threatens to throw the ball back (unsure if he was threatening to hit Haddin or the stumps) and Haddin provides a view of his stumps, requesting him to take a shot
  
• That was the last ball of the over. Haddin walks down the pitch grinning and saying something to Benn
  
• Benn tries to point out something to Haddin with his hand and accidentally brushes against Johnson
  
• Johnson pushes Benn away
  
• Bowden finally realizes things could be going from bad to worse and steps in

Purely going by what was seen on TV, there were multiple people at fault here:

• Benn - He had no business tugging at Johnson's shirt and trying to drag him back
  
• Haddin - He had no business pointing his bat and interfering with something that Benn & Johnson should have (and could have) sorted out between themselves
  
• Johnson - He can't be blamed too much because it is unlikely he would have realized that Benn brushing him was accidental. But given the heated situation at that time, pushing Benn away was a bad choice
  
• Bowden & Gould - The umpires are the biggest culprits here. The moment it seemed like Benn & Haddin were in a war of words, they should have stepped in and called a halt to the verbal warfare. They didn't, couldn't, or chose not to. Then, when Johnson pushed Benn away, Bowden was almost apologetically pleading with the players to move on. All this while, Gould, the square-leg umpire, was conspicuously absent, probably day-dreaming about the sumptuous lunch he had just finished

A couple of aspects of today's incident are interesting, and give me a huge sense of deja vu.

Symonds v/s Harbhajan at Sydney in early 2008: Harbhajan patted Lee on the back and Symonds, standing quite far away from the scene of action, stepped in quite unwarrantedly to save his mate's arse from Harbhajan.

Today, Benn ran into Johnson and Haddin batted on Johnson's behalf.

A couple of years ago, during the 2nd final of the triangular ODI series in Australia, Michael Clarke, the bowler, nearly pulled down Sachin Tendulkar's pants in order to prevent Tendulkar, at the non-striker's end, from taking a single.

There was no sign of any apology from Clarke, because he was only doing it hoping that Tendulkar's greatness would have 'rubbed off' on him. Tendulkar also seems to have rather enjoyed the fondling. Gautam Gambhir, who played the shot, did nothing. Of course, it is quite likely that this unwarranted & deliberate physical contact, and the absence of any action around it, 'inspired' him to try a similar stunt a year later.

Today, Haddin couldn't keep quiet, and had to intervene. An issue that could have been sorted out in a few seconds dragged on and on. It's quite likely that there will be follow-ups over the next 3 days of the test.

Benn has now been charged with a Level 2 offence while Haddin & Johnson have been charged with Level 1 offences under the ICC's code of conduct for players.

Clause 2.2.4 refers to "Inappropriate and deliberate physical contact between Players in the course of play during an International Match".

If Benn's physical contact (the act of tugging at Johnson, for I am unaware of any other deliberate/inappropriate physical contact) was wrong, Johnson is also guilty of pushing Benn away.

Haddin would be guilty under 2.1.4 (Using language or a gesture that is obscene, offensive or insulting) or 2.1.8 (conduct that is contrary to the spirit of the game or brings the game into disrepute). I don't think he should be charged with a Level 2 offence because he only brandished his bat (admittedly, that did sort of make the whole incident a lot worse than it could have been) and almost definitely needled Benn.

Am I surprised that Haddin & Johnson are likely to get away with a lesser charge laid against them? Of course, not! We know by now who gets away with it.

Benn should actually feel proud that the Australians seem to be targetting him now. That usually happens to combustible folks who're doing well against the Aussies.

On a related note, Malcolm Conn's ghost-writer has once again forgotten to use the magic phrase "India have been the worst-behaved team in cricket over the last decade" in his latest piece.

Labels: australia, ban, benn, frank worrell trophy, haddin, icc, johnson, match referee, perth, spirit of cricket, umpires, west indies

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:56 am | Sledge/Read 5 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

WICB and WIPA combine to help West Indies set unwanted record

Directly as a result of the farcical WIPA v WICB impasse, West Indies provided Bangladesh its 2nd ever test win a couple of days ago.

Players are totally entitled to receive contracts, but in the absence of these contracts, is industrial action in a sporting scenario the right option? It is not as though the West Indies players were blameless. They didn't have contracts because they refused to sign the contracts that the WICB offered. Did the WICB offer favourable terms? Perhaps not. As it is, West Indies cricket has suffered majorly in the past couple of years with sponsors pulling out.

Would Digicel, the current sponsor, have had the right to demand that the WICB field a XI that would enhance the Digicel brand? Wouldn't Digicel's contract with the WICB have referred to WICB attempting to/ensure that the best players turned out for the West Indies? It's quite obvious that Digicel wouldn't like to have been associated with a side led by Floyd Reifer, who got a birthday present in the form of the captaincy a couple of weeks before his 37th birthday. It's like England naming Ian Ward or Aftab Habib captain and India naming Vijay Bharadwaj skipper. Of course, one thing is for sure - captaincy has a positive impact on Reifer's batting. His batting average went up by a whopping 36% (7.87 to 10.7).

The reality is that regardless of the result of the game, no side would have "won" or proved anything. Had West Indies' B side beaten Bangladesh, it would have told us that Bangladesh aren't even good enough to beat a second string WI XI. Now that Bangladesh have won, as a corollary, it implies that West Indies cricket is so much lacking in depth that a 2nd XI loses to Bangladesh. I suspect with the exception of perhaps New Zealand, every other country's 2nd XI should be able to beat Bangladesh.

As a result of the feud between the cricket board and the players, the test had 9 debutants (7 for West Indies, 2 for Bangladesh) and this is the first time since 1961 that 9 or more players have debuted in a test that wasn't the first test played by a country (or the first one played after a prolonged break).

Bangladesh v India in 2000 had 14 debuts, Zimbabwe v India in 1992 had 10 debuts (all the Zimbabwe players except Traicos), West Indies v South Africa in 1992 had 13 debuts (South Africa's first test after re-admission) and Sri Lanka v England in 1982 had 12 debuts. Most of the other games that had a lot of debuts were those played shortly after World War II.

Labels: bangladesh, contracts, debut, industrial action, statistic, strike, west indies, wicb, wipa

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:34 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Woeful defensive England

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: england, positive intent, statistic, west indies

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

Steve Bucknor to retire from international umpiring

Steve Bucknor, who has umpired the most internationals (305) and as on date, the only one to have umpired 100+ tests, will be retiring from international umpiring in March.

In an interview to the Jamaica Gleaner, he said that his last test would be the 3rd test between Australia & South Africa while his last ODI would involve England & West Indies.

Now it's a lot more easier to make sense of Ricky Ponting excusing himself from the IPL. Notice that he wrote in his column "I have made the decision I will not play in the Indian Premier League Twenty20 competition this year." He didn't write "I will not feature in the Indian Premier League". Hence, it is perhaps not too outlandish to believe that as part of his training to move into a parallel career in umpiring, as we exclusively revealed here last month, Ricky will be doing umpiring duties during this season's IPL.

Steve Bucknor had been a reasonably ok umpire for a few years (ignoring his reluctance to seek the help of the TV umpire on India's tour of South Africa in 1992/3), despite his tendency to play havoc with TV broadcasters & producers by ensuring there was a minute's delay between the appeal and his decision. Nowadays though, so much money has been invested that we don't even get to hear the appeal, because we've got switched to an ad break!

But in the last 4-5 years, Bucknor's umpiring had deteriorated significantly. I never thought he was biased. But I was convinced he was incompetent. Instances posted on this blog - 2004 Aus v Ind, 2005 Eng v RSA, 2005 Pak v Ind, 2007 World Cup final & (very obviously!) 2008 Ind v Aus at Sydney.

The ICC has a real problem on its hands - a paucity of good umpires, cramped scheduling and a reluctance to use technology appropriately. Oddly enough, Bucknor hasn't ever umpired a T20 international!

Labels: bucknor, retire, umpires, west indies

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:46 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

High farce in Antigua

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only 2 reviews in West Indies-England series

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

In the ICC's own words

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

West Indies v Australia first test

The first test between West Indies and Australia at Jamaica has been wonderful to watch/follow/catch the highlights package. A tantalizing final day's play is hopefully in store.

Australia started poorly, but recovered as Ponting made 150 while Hodge, Hussey and Symonds chipped in to help Australia get to 431. In reply, West Indies were rescued only because of Chanderpaul's super century, with some help from Morton and Bravo. Don't forget the immense contribution from Stuart MacGill (2nd best leggie in the world, and all that): 2/100 in 22 overs.

Then Edwards, Powell and Bravo ripped through Australia's top order, only to come up against Symonds again. In the company of Hodge and Haddin, Symonds probably turned the game decisively Australia's way, from 18/5 & 70/6 to 167. To use a favourite slogan: "When you've got Australia by the balls, you hold on. You don't let go".

Imagine if Australia had been bowled out for something like 100! That'd have made West Indies' task so much easier. They'd have been chasing 230-odd, not the 287 that they need to make to beat Australia in a 'live' test for the first time in nine years. Remember the way that Trinidadian bugger enthralled everyone during THAT series? Statistical oddity: West Indies made 431 in their first innings in that game, the same total that Australia managed this time around.

That said, I think Australia will win this one with around 50 runs to spare. Despite winning away, against South Africa & at home, against Sri Lanka in the last 5 months, I don't think this West Indies team knows how to nail down the advantage, especially against Australia.

In the unlikely event that West Indies win the game, they will join India (Calcutta & Chennai in 2001, Adelaide 2003 and Perth 2008) and England (Edgbaston & Trent Bridge in 2005) as the only teams to have defeated Australia in a 'live' test match this decade.

Labels: australia, australia by the balls cliche, macgill, statistic, west indies

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:36 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

ICC gets a few things right at least

The ICC's board met yesterday and there were quite a few significant announcements.

• It emphasized that bilateral series commitments would take precedence over IPL. Now will the WICB do something about Gayle, Chanderpaul and Sarwan who say they will play in the IPL rather than against Australia? I suppose player contracts would have clauses that prevent players from plying their trade elsewhere when they are required to turn out for the national side. That aspect can and should be enforced against Gayle, Chanderpaul and Sarwan. Unlike the bans imposed on ICL players, I don't think this is a restraint of trade situation.
  
• The Zimbabwe Cricket Union gets away scot-free despite the continued scrutiny over the handling of ICC-released funds for over three years now.
  
• The format for the 2011 World Cup is finalized. My post a year ago or so proposed only the top 8 teams having an automatic qualification while the remaining teams play against the ICC trophy finalists in a round-robin manner with the top 2 making it to the main draw. The main draw would have 2 groups of 5 teams each, played in round-robin. The top 3 from each group qualify for a Super Six round with the top 4 being the semi-finalists. There'd be a total of 42 games played, 32 of them being in the main tournament. Subsequent comments argued (rightly) for the second stage being a quarter-final knockout. This'd reduce the number of main draw games to 27. The ICC's thinking is on the lines of all 10 full ODI playing countries being joined by the top 4 finishers from a qualified (presumably the ICC trophy). The 14 teams are split into 2 groups of 7 each. The top 4 from each group go on to play quarter-finals and the winners of the quarter finals play the semis. This means there'd be 28 47 (2 x 7C2 + 4 + 2 + 1) games. Perhaps, in the interest of 'inclusivity' in cricket, the ICC's format is acceptable. That's far too many games!
  
• Player referrals will be trialled from South Africa's tour of England this summer. I eagerly look forward to player revolts, especially by lower order batsmen and part-time bowlers, against captains and team management, who discourage them from appealing against on-field umpire decisions so that the better batsmen or bowlers can benefit, just in case the appeal isn't worth it.
  
• Darrell Hair, who was hung out to dry in around November 2006, has been reinstated and will be eligible to umpire games between full member teams until March 2009, when his contract expires. This was always the right thing to do. Darrell Hair is a good umpire. He isn't incompetent, when you compare him with Bucknor or Benson. He took a harsh decision on 20 Aug 2006, but it was the right decision.
  
• Imtiaz Patel has been 'selected' as the CEO, but the negotiations are not yet done. Last year, we saw a similar situation with the farce around Graham Ford's appointment, and subsequent withdrawal, as India's coach. Why did the ICC put its foot firmly in its mouth by prematurely announcing Imtiaz Patel's name when he hadn't even agreed?!

Labels: 2011, 2011 world cup, ball tampering, forfeit, hair, icc, indian premier league, ipl 2008, oval 2006, pakistan, reviews, scheduling, twenty20, west indies, world cup, zimbabwe

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:19 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

A sobering thought

Rawl Lewis, who has played four tests in a decade (a career bowling average of nearly 400 may be a good pointer to why this'd be the case), is currently in action in the 2nd test between West Indies & South Africa.

South Africa are 152/5, in response to West Indies' 243. It is a sobering thought that even if Rawl Lewis (currently 0/12 from 4 overs) took the remaining South African wickets cheaply and ended up with something like 5/40 from 15 overs, his test bowling average would be 71.3 while his strike rate (balls per wicket) would be 141.5. In fact he'd have a 400% improvement on his career wickets tally!

This is surely one of those instances where the only way possible is up, for his average before the test was 388 while his strike rate was 759!

Labels: rawl lewis, south africa, statistic, west indies

Thus spake Jagadish @ 8:05 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Grovel!

David Tossell, who wrote the book Grovel!, a book on West Indies' tour of England in 1976, recalls the closing minutes of day three of the Old Trafford test.

The passages make for enthralling reading. I can't seem to find the book on Indian e-commerce sites. Maybe I'll just need to go to a real shop to see if it is available.

When Close and Edrich returned to the pavilion, teammates gawped at them as they might war colleagues showing up back at base after being presumed dead. It was Edrich who broke the silence by looking at the scoreboard and breaking into manic giggling. "Do you know what your score is, Closey?" he said. "One. We’ve been out there for 80 minutes and gone through all that for one."

Holding said: "Clive said, 'Gentlemen, those two batsmen will be there again on Monday morning. Bowl up to a length and get them out. There is no point hitting them all over the body if they are still there.'"

I'd love to see a similar session of play in test cricket now. Actually, West Indies would probably give anything right now to be in any sort of position to make an impact.

Labels: 1976, england, grovel, west indies

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:32 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Today's homework assignment

Predict the number of columns/articles in various newspapers (especially English ones) over the next few days which bemoan the current state of affairs of West Indies cricket. Bonus marks for those who predict the number of columns/articles which will emphatically declare something similar to "World cricket needs a better West Indies cricket side".

Bullcrap. I've not found any literature between the late-1970s and the early-1990s where writers from the Caribbean were saying "World cricket needed a better {insert team name} cricket side". West Indies are pathetic because they took their success for granted and the players (barring Ambrose, Walsh and to some extent Lara & Chanderpaul) haven't worked hard for over a decade now.

There're still a lot of talented youngsters. There're several other test/one-day sides who'd want an all-rounder like Bravo, batsmen like Gayle/Sarwan/Chanderpaul, fast bowlers like Taylor/Powell. From what I have seen, the problem is a lack of on-field discipline. I'm not qualified to comment on what happens off the field, but to me, the best indicator of indisciplined cricket is the fielding. West Indies have always boasted some great, athletic fielders, even until 5-6 years ago - Lara, Hooper, Chanderpaul were great/very fine fielders. But if you look at the current West Indies team's fielding, it is a joke.

The absence of emphasis on fielding is the surest indicator of a system that lacks discipline. Until West Indies sort that out, no amount of individual talents/achievements will help the side.

Labels: west indies

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:24 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Samuels left out of West Indies squad

The West Indies Cricket Board's decision to leave Marlon Samuels out of the squad which tours England soon seems baffling to many.

To me, it is a potential indicator that there is trouble brewing for him. Remember that he is currently under investigation by the ACU for allegedly leaking match related information to a bookie. The ICC had confirmed that he could play at the World Cup. The fact that he has been dropped like a hot potato after a tournament where he made 216 runs, and averaged more than Gayle, seems to indicate that his batting was not the key consideration in him being dropped.

There's obviously more to this than meets the eye!

Labels: match fixing, samuels, west indies

Thus spake Jagadish @ 10:45 am | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

KP Spoils Lara's Day

Or better put, Marlon Samuels spoiled Lara's day.

In front of the largest crowd of the World Cup so far, Chris Gayle and Devon Smith, gave the West Indies a solid platform. They put on 131 for the first wicket, with Gayle, who seemed out of sorts at the start of his innings, finding his form to make a brisk 79 off 58 balls. Smith played fairly well for his 61, but too often failed to give the strike back to the dashing Gayle and consumed all of 106 deliveries.

At the fall of Gayle's wicket, caught at third man, the crowd called out for Lara, and he came out to thunderous applause. The England players saluted Lara by forming a guard of honour as he walked out to the middle for the final time in his international career. Lara played well for his 18 runs, tantalising his spellbound audience with three fours. After Smith fell to a brilliant Paul Collingwood catch, Samuels joined Lara at the crease. And then the unthinkable. Samuels hit a delivery down to mid on and called Lara for a run that was never on. When Samuels stopped and finally realised that the run was not on, it was too late for Lara as Kevin Pietersen swooped in and hit the wicket as Lara desperately tried in vain to make it back. Samuels went on to make a superb 51 off 39 deliveries, but gave it away when he hit a Michael Vaughan delivery straight to mid on's lap.

The West Indies eventually made 300 all out in 49.5 overs, but they should have had at least about 20 - 30 more. Especially when the Windies were well placed at 250/4 after 40 overs. The Windies' futility in the last 10 overs is highlighted by the fact that of the 50 runs they scored in this period, 10 came by Jerome Taylor off one Flintoff over. In fact, they lost 6 wickets for 42 runs within the last 8 overs.

On the true Kensington pitch, 300 was very gettable and England made the Windies pay for their ineptitude at the end of their innings. England started positively as Vaughan (79) and Ravi Bopara (26) batting at number 3, took England to 101 in the 16th over. Dwayne Bravo then took over in the field as after several missed attempts, he finally hit the stumps to run out Bopara. He repeated the trick and ran out Vaughan at 154/3. When Jamie Dalrymple suicidally ran himself out at 189/6 in the 36th over it looked like the Windies would send Lara off with a win.

But that was not to be as a splendid 90 ball 100 by Pietersen and a dogged 38 by keeper Paul Nixon carried England to 269 in the 47th over. Pietersen brought up his ton with a massive six off Taylor's first delivery in the 47th over. But Taylor soon had his revenge as he uprooted KP's leg stump with his very next delivery. Pietersen tried to repeat the shot but missed the ball completely. It again seemed for Windies fans that the game had been won when three balls later, Liam Plunkett picked out a fielder in the deep.

England's task of getting 30 from the final three overs with only 2 wickets left, seemed steep. However Collymore failed to bowl full and straight in the 48th over and paid the price as Nixon plundered 3 fours. England were gifted a fourth boundary in the over when keeper Randin could only parry a Collymore bouncer over his head and down to the boundary rope. England only needed 4 from the final over, but a Bravo slower ball gave the Windies some hope as he comprehensively bowled Nixon, leaving bowlers Stuart Broad and James Anderson to get 3 off 4 balls. Broad was up to the challenge and hit the winning runs over Lara's head. It was ironic that on Lara's day, he had to run after the ball as the batsmen scored the winning runs. England had won by 1 wicket with only 1 ball left. Full credit to England as both sides fought valiantly for whatever pride was at stake. Lara probably missed a trick though, as with Samuels off the field for much of the England innings, he only bowled Gayle and Sarwan (1/21 off 5 overs) for a combined 10 overs. Pacers on both sides struggled throughout the match and Vaughan's offspin (3/39 from 10) earlier in the day demonstrated that taking the pace off the ball was the way to go on this Kensington pitch.

Did I entertain?

In the on-field interview, when asked what would be his final words to his fans, Lara asked the crowd "Did I entertain?" and was greeted with rapturous approval. Lara then jogged around the outfield and hopped the advertising boards to get closer to his fans. We will miss you, Brian Charles Lara. We will miss those thunderous cover drives and those deft late cuts. We will miss the high back lift and the one-legged pulls that you made famous. We will miss your genius and yes, you did entertain.

(Cross-posted from Rain, No Play)

Labels: 2007 world cup, england, lara, pietersen, west indies, world cup

Thus spake Sean @ 8:22 am | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Farewell, 'Prince' Lara

Today’s victory by the West Indies over Bangladesh was overshadowed by the post match press conference when Windies captain Brian Lara stunningly announced that he would be retiring from international cricket after the Windies’ final World Cup match on Saturday. That Lara would retire from ODIs after the World Cup was well known, and he reiterated that a few days ago. However, Lara had previously indicated that he wanted to tour England during the summer, citing his desire to make a Test century at Lords, so his retirement from Tests is a surprise as well. Some will read between the lines and surmise that Lara learnt that the selectors intended not to pick him for the tour to England, so he decided to go out on his own. Whatever the reason for his decision to retire from international cricket, Lara deserves to retire on his own terms.There has been two sides to Lara’s career – his brilliance with the willow and his failures as captain. There have been occasions in the past, and will be in the future, to question Lara’s tactics on the field and his behaviour off it, but now is the time to reflect on the career of a man who made a habit of breaking records.

In the debate surrounding who the best batsman in the world is, many names would be frequently mentioned, but to any West Indian, there would be only one name. Especially in the Test arena, none of Lara’s contemporaries can match his appetite for runs. The only blemish on his record as a batsman was the rut that he found himself in between November 1996 and April 2001 when he saw his Test average drop by over 12 runs from just over 60 to just below 48. If Lara had the consistency of Tendulkar or Ponting, then there would be no question as to who the finest batsman of his time was.

Lara is the only man to have broken the record for the highest Test score, lost it and then regained it. At his retirement he will simultaneously hold the records for the highest Test score (400 n.o.), the highest First Class score (501n.o.) and the highest career run total in Tests (11,953). His career would have spanned 17 years and produced some of the finest moments in the history of cricket.


The fact that his record breaking Test innings of 375 and 400n.o. are not even considered by most to be his finest, speaks to the quality of career that the Prince of Port of Spain enjoyed. His splendid debut century 277 against Australia at Sydney in 1993 was a sign of things to come. That innings certainly ranks up there among his best ever, and Lara's own fondness of that innings and of that ground led him to name his daughter Sydney. Unlike many who made their debut ton a big one, Lara continued to press for runs and his seemingly insatiable appetite for runs resulted in him breaking Sir Garry Sobers' long standing world record the following year with his 375 in Antigua against England. He followed that up a mere 2 months later with his 501 n.o. for Warwickshire to set the mark for highest First Class score ever. That innings came off only 427 balls and included over 300 runs in boundaries with 62 fours and 10 sixes.

His finest Test innings, however, probably came during the extended dry spell mentioned above. In March of 1999, after being beaten by Australia by over 300 runs in the first test in Trinidad, including being bowled out for a humiliating 51 in the second innings, Lara led the fight back and almost single handedly won the series from the Aussies. His match winning 213 at Sabina Park was followed by arguably the greatest innings played by a batsman other than Don Bradman. In Barbados, with the West Indies needing 308 to win in the second innings, Lara made a magnificent 153n.o. as wickets tumbled at the other end. His 9th wicket partnership of 54 with Curtly Ambrose (12) made the difference after the Windies had been 248/8 against the likes of Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne.

Perhaps Lara's most remarkable Test series was in Sri Lanka in 2001, when he scored 688 runs mastering a rampant Muralitharan. Lara scored 3 centuries in the series including 221 and 130 in a losing effort in third and final test. It was only the sixth time in Test history that a batsman sored a ton and a double in the same match. So dominant was Lara when compared to the rest of his teammates, that he amassed a whopping 42% of the Windies' three match total.

In the ODI arena, his most memorable innings is probably his match-winning 111 off 97 balls against South Africa in the 1996 World Cup quarter finals. The highlight of his ODI career, according to Lara himself was the Windies improbable triumph in the 2004 Champions Trophy. In ODI cricket, he is one of 7 men to have scored more than 10,000 runs.

Lara is retiring when he still is near the top of his game. At the current World Cup, he is averaging just over 41, while in his last Test series in Pakistan, he topped the West Indies batting with 448 runs at an average of 89.60, including a glorious 216. At one stretch in that innings Lara scored 60 runs from 29 Danish Kaneria deliveries. Only Don Bradman (12) has scored more Test double centuries than Lara's 9. In fact, Lara retires either first or second on the list of most scores of 100 or more (34, 2nd to Tendulkar's 35), over 150 (19, 1st all time), over 200 (9, 2nd to Bradman's 12), over 300 (2, joint first with Bradman), and 400+ (1st, his 400n.o. is Test cricket's sole quadruple century). Among the records that Lara holds is the one for most Test runs in an over. He made 28 off one Robin Peterson over in South Africa in 2003. He also has the third highest - 26 off one Kaneria over in that final double century of his in Pakistan. With that final double century in Pakistan, Lara joined the exclusive club of 6 men who have scored a century before lunch in a Test match.

Lara was the face of West Indies cricket for the last decade and a half. He is the West Indies' most capped player in ODIs (299 after his final match) and second in Tests (131, Courtney Walsh played in 132). He holds virtually all the important West Indies batting records. While Lara is a symbolic link to the golden era of West Indies cricket, having played on the last dominant West Indies teams in the early nineties, the majority of his playing years were spent with the West Indies in decline. The fact that he has lost more Tests than any other player (63 Test losses) is a testament to the decline in talent around him.

Lara's legacy will be debated for years to come. Whether or not his at times seemingly surly and aloof attitude has hurt West Indies' cricket more than his genius on the field has helped it will also be debated by cricket pundits. What is clear, however, is that Lara is one of most talented men to have ever played this game, and that the West Indies would have lost the last of their all-time great players from an era so fondly remembered.

(Cross-posted from Rain, No Play)

Labels: 2007 world cup, lara, retire, west indies, world cup

Thus spake Sean @ 10:35 am | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

R.I.P. West Indies World Cup Hopes

The party is over for West Indian fans. Yes there's still a slim chance of qualifying for the Semi-finals, but does anyone really believe that the team that played South Africa is capable of beating anyone other than maybe Bangladesh, which at this point is looking like a big maybe?

In what has become a recurring theme, against South Africa, the West Indies were out-classed in every aspect of the game. From batting to bowling to fielding to the captaincy, South Africa were vastly superior to the West Indies. The selection of the West Indies team smacked of panic. Devon Smith, Kieron Pollard, and Corey Collymore in for Dwayne Smith, Marlon Samuels and Jerome Taylor. In the most important game of the tournament, you bring in a teenage debutant and leave out one of the few bowlers who looked capable of taking a wicket. To explain the decision, Lara said that Collymore (1 wicket in the World Cup at that point) was brought in over Taylor for his experience. Does that also explain how Pollard, who simply is not ready for this level, got in the side?

As puzzling as the selection issues were, they pale in comparison to Lara's decision to take the second power play in the 45th over. The 45th over! Has this ever been done in international cricket? Needless to say, the South Africans enjoyed themselves to the tune of 77 runs in those 5 overs.

Now Lara did not lose this match for the West Indies. The bowlers and fielders took care of that, as there could have been 9 men on the boundary and they wouldn't have been able to stop all those sixes that flew out of the park at the end of the match. The fielders also had 4 or 5 decent run out chances, but failed to hit the stumps on every occasion. 356 was always going to be too much for the West Indies to chase. In fact 356 was the highest score conceded by a West Indian team ever. We should have seen the writing on the wall in India of this year, when the Indian team first tied the previous record with 338 and then shattered it with 341.

Lara has announced that he will retire from ODIs after the World Cup. Isn't it time that he stepped aside as captain as well? Chetram Singh, a director of the WICB, seems to think not. On Jamaican radio today, he said that if the selectors select Lara for a match (Test), then they should have him as captain as well. The implication in his statements being that Lara would be a disruptive element to the team captained by another player. Now Lara is still the best batsman in the West Indian team, but a good leader of men he is not. As long as he remains a top batsman and makes himself eligible for Test match cricket, he should have a place in the side. But will the future of the team be held captive by Lara's leadership? Or by the selectors' or (board president's) desire to have him as captain?

(Cross posted from Rain, No Play)

Labels: 2007 world cup, lara, south africa, west indies, world cup

Thus spake Sean @ 6:29 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

SA knocks out WI

This game was spectacular.

Sixes and fours, and that on a pretty big field. Gibbs's one six knocked out a reinforced window. One of Powell's (I stand to be corrected) knocked through the ICC world cup advertising. It may be made from paper though, I wouldn't know.

SA batted them out of the game (aided by the powerplay that was not taken until very late). Smith said afterwards that the game was won quite early, and I have to agree. With Chanderpaul's departure, things were looking dire. But after Gayle's run-out you kinda knew there had to be a miracle for WI to win.

I liked the selection, though Langeveldt can feel very unlucky not to have played. But who do you leave out? Bosman? You have to drop a batsman if you want to have Langeveldt and Nel. SA's batting is what wins them games at the moment.

I would've liked SA taking 10 wickets though. Smith bowled himself, and although he picked up 2 wickets, I think Pollock should have finished his spell, and maybe he should've given Kallis his full 10 as well. The commentators claimed it was because of time pressures... But if you take 10, time is a non-issue, and the Nett Run Rate is much better.

Labels: 2007 world cup, lara, south africa, west indies, world cup

Thus spake Reenen @ 1:00 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Answers on a post-card please!

A high pressure game against a class opponent and Brian Lara chooses to

• Drop Jerome Taylor
  
• Give a debut to Kieron Pollard
  
• Opt for the final power play in the 45th over

I know there've been quite a few articles written about captains using power plays at different stages, and innovatively at that, in this World Cup. But this is taking it to a different level. If you take the power play that late, you leave yourself with absolutely no chance of a recovery.

Was this just another way of Lara continuing to fight his battles against the selectors? For the record, I loved it when Bravo was being tonked around. I know he's talented, but there's something about him that irritates me. Other cricketers that irritate me are Gayle, Pietersen, Hayden, Graeme Smith, Giles, Younis Khan, Nehra, Craig McMillan, Shane Watson, Langer and Maharoof. Seems like I hate someone from every major cricket playing team!

Labels: 2007 world cup, lara, south africa, west indies, world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:29 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]