That was before the bowler bowled. If the ball was full and on leg, you went smartly forward and drove. On-drove. Once the stroke was completed, the important bit remained. You lifted your back leg and struck a pose. Graham Gooch, driving Malcolm Marshall.

If the ball was short, you leaned back and cut. After the cut, you leaned forward a bit, body arched, bat completing triumphant arc, behind your left shoulder. David Gower, cutting McDermott, in the mirror (I am right-handed).

A spinner came along, and gave it flight. You went down the pitch, and lofted straight, remaining perfectly side-on. Feet finishing a light scissoring motion down the pitch, bat pointed straight up. A king in full flight. Kim Hughes, dismissing Emburey from his presence. Minus the baggy green.

Similarly, when bowling. Arms pumping rhythmically, left arm steadying the sprint in, right arm all the while getting ready for that final burst at the bowling crease. Face set in firm agressive intent. McDermott running into bowl to Martin Crowe.

I never used to hook much when playing with a proper cricket ball. Tennis ball hooking seemed a much more natural affair. But, life has changed since I went to Montreal and Ottawa. Now, I hook. I almost wait for the short ball. There's nothing quite like the thrill when you pirouette at the top end of a hook. You have put the fast bowler in his place. His primary weapon neutralised. But, equally, it is the pose you hold through and after the hook that makes it feel special. The short ball, full of intent, you squaring up, the hook in front of your face, and then the pirouette to take it away through square.

A lot of the time, in cricket, it is the form that persists. The tableau-like aspect of the bowler in his final leap, the batsman, through and after completing the stroke. It is this that excites the player. And, this special thrill returns every time you play a stroke or take a wicket. Nearly always anyway.

Most of this form is linked to the natural way a cricketer's basic athleticism causes him to move. A Laxman for instance, has wonderful wrists and his tall, arching posture aligns himself to the cover drive, the flick off his toes and the fine pirouette of the hook. A Sehwag has stiffer hips but possesses stunning batspeed and a kind of natural opening up of his shoulders in the arc from third man to mid off. And yes, I have finally worked myself around to the topic at hand.

Ganguly's problem with the short ball is not his mind, or anything to do with the basic batsman's instinct of running away from the short ball directed at his throat. He has been the unfortunate recipient of a very stiff set of hips. They just won't square up, nor will they snap to full attention at the sight of a short ball. He struggles to get them around to the hooking posture. It is like asking Nehra to run in without wiggling everything in sight. It is simply not possible. So, at this point, we must pause and think of all he did for Indian cricket, despite possessing a remarkably stubborn set of hips. Or perhaps, because of them. For, I suspect, those are the very same set, that made him such a superb lofter of the cricket ball. From that very strong base, he could afford to get under the ball and loft in all glory, unlike a certain VVS ... .

Too bad you and Saurav did not play tape ball....
it's too late for you, but not too late for Ganguly.
It's easy to put a fast bowler in his place when you are wearing a helmet, batting on a joke of an artificial strip. Forgive me, I used to open the bowling, and to hear you talk really reminds me of all that I used to hate in Batsmen, proudly talking about how they faced balls with no Seam, merely stitches
and how they would plant their front foot with no fear that their chins would be taken off. Give me a break!

Feroz has bared his bowling fangs; I would just say that all the above-mentioned postures are compensation to a batsman for his absolute lack of scope to celebrate in a captivatingly unique primitive warrior style as the bowler.

The reason is simple - the greatest damage that a bowler can do with a single delivery (a wicket) is much greater than the corresponding for batsman (six runs).
I think bowlers can allow the batsmen that much - before scalping them.

I guess this should rekindle the greatest and oldest rivalry of all in cricket, putting the Ashes and the Indo-Pak matches to the backburners - the bowlers versus the batsmen!!
[It is obvious which side I am with.]

It would have been all right if Feroz bared his bowling fangs :) But, in his haste, he has forgotten/or is a bit ignorant about a few things:

1. Tape ball cricket is played on most campuses in N. America.
2. It doesn't produce good players of short bowling, or good batsmen period.
3. Canada and the US for that matter have very good cricket pitches, not jokes of artificial strips :)
4. Anyone who's played on matting, knows a thing or two about facing short-pitched bowling
5. Taped ball bowling doesn't result in you becoming a faster bowler, as Aquib Javed wrongly observed in Pundits from Pakistan. If anything, bowling with a regular tennis ball is harder and hence requires more muscle.
6. The best players of the hook never played taped ball cricket (the West Indians and the Australians).
7. The article is about emotion, nothing to do with boasting (empty or not:), but perhaps I am wasting my breath actually having to spell that out :)
8. And, not least of all, taped ball jingoism is an interesting phenomenon :)

The one good thing about taped ball cricket is you tend to keep the ball up, because depending on the state of the tape, you can get swing. Sometimes, prodigious swing :)

On the topic of swing, you get a ball called Swinger or something to that effect (you can order it off the Greg Chappell cricket centre web-site), it's half regular tennis ball (with the fluff) and the other half totally smooth like a plain rubber ball, a seam separating it. Now, you suddenly feel like Waqar, that ball SWINGS :) Not necessarily late, but it does swing a LOT.

Thanks, Khrishna, for clearing up one or two things. I did not know that pitches in North America were that good, I think what I was trying to get at was tape ball encourages fast bowling, and makes batsmen have to deal with more swing bowling, and it is not so easy to hook and pull when the ball is swinging and bouncing. The pitches in Australia are bone hard, I could bowl a bouncer off 4 paces, so that doesn't count. Pitches in Pakistan are low and slow too, so tape ball helps keep fast bowling alive, which is important and necessary.
Point no. 5 which you make about Tennis Balls is hilarious and shows to what lengths you will go to justify your ( one-eyed ) point of view. But that's OK, I am just as one-eyed as you, enjoy hooking your tennis balls, friend.

Dear Krishna,
Your comment on "taped ball Jingoism" really got me thinking, perhaps you are right, maybe I was trying to start something that I shouldn't have, and your article certainly did not deserve to be dragged into the mire of "jingoism" and prejudice. I apologize for my previous comments, I believe there is more than a semblance of truth in your point no. 8.

So let's agree on this;
Point 1. India have the best Batsmen and Spinners in the world at the present moment.
And soon they might have the best Allrounder in Pathan.
Point 2. Pakistan have NO Batsmen, no spinners and no fast bowlers of "Quality", and the only reason they beat England 2-0 in the Tests was because half their team were taken ill after consuming Mutton Kheema and Palak Paneer prepared by Abdul Razzaq's mother in-law. If you approve this message my admiration for you will only increase and by the way, when I was a student at Penn State my mind used to occupy a higher plane rather frequently, too.
No Hard Feelings and all the best,
Feroz.