« June 2009 | | August 2009 »

July 28, 2009

Is Ian Bell a better fit at No. 5?

Posted by Cricinfo - on 07/28/2009 in Ashes

From Benjamin Matthews, United Kingdom

	Ian Bell is pragmatically the best replacement for Pietersen © Getty Images

This Test is possibly the fulcrum of the series and so momentum will no doubt be the buzz word around the England dressing-room at present. Come Thursday as two patched up teams move to Edgbaston, both sides will be looking to try to exploit weaknesses apparent within each camp.

For Australia, concerns about Phillip Hughes and Mitchell Johnson will need to be addressed, while the loss of Kevin Pietersen has posed the English team noticeable issues in the middle order. If Australia are to seize the initiative in this series, a win is pivotal at a ground where of the 43 Tests staged, England have won 22.

England have handed a Test lifeline to Ian Bell, brought in to replace Pietersen. Bell is a batsman of undisputed talent; a classical stroke-maker with a honed technique, solid enough to slot in at No. 3, possibly the most difficult of Test batting positions. Many expect Bell to be inserted at first-wicket down to allow a visibly less-than-comfortable Ravi Bopara to drop down a place or two to repair his fractured confidence by way of facing the older ball.

Bopara has looked unsettled in the first two Tests; batting at an irregular tempo without his usual verve and swagger at the crease. Bell, with his tighter technique and impressive county form, appears a sound choice to replace a player who is showing signs of mental and technical fatigue at first drop. While such an order change seems to be the consensus, England must resist the temptation to do so as this would be to the detriment of both men.

Bopara possesses the character to recover his form and succeed at No. 3 where an ability to exert one’s personality on an innings is crucial. Bopara has the potential to dictate the pace and rhythm of an innings, in a manner that no other English batsman currently does. The selectors strive for continuity and so must persevere with Bopara at three.

Bell is a batsman who tends to bat successfully in the slipstream of more dominant batsmen. Add to that, a moderate Test record at No. 3 (averaging 31) and a tendency to compound an innings in the middle order show why Bell will fit better at No. 5 (where he has unfinished business, averaging 54.4).

	Ravi Bopara possesses the character to recover his form and succeed at No. 3 © Getty Images

A steely Paul Collingwood, having scored a double-century against the Australians batting at No. 4 in 2006, should not have too many qualms about being asked to bat one position higher.

So is Bell the correct choice? He has responded to the request from the England hierarchy to show “more hunger” this season, scoring runs at an average of 64.70 across 13 innings, but have the selectors shown a lack of trust in the county game, or is there simply a dearth of talent to choose from?

Bell, with the experience of two Ashes series behind him is pragmatically perhaps the best option, but poor records in both of these series (502 runs at 25.10) have prompted a number of different names to be put forward for consideration, if only to provide batting cover for the Edgbaston Test.

Bell’s Warwickshire team-mate Jonathan Trott has lodged a firm case for selection, having scored 101 more runs than Bell over the same number of innings this season, and what with batting at No. 4, would have represented a straight swap for Pietersen.

The Kent pair Rob Key and Joe Denly are names often bandied about but both, alongside Worcestershire’s Stephen Moore, would be forced to bat out of position if selected. As with Trott and Moore, the selectors would be loathe to hand out a Test debut in the middle of an Ashes series, and Denly’s time should come. Key’s time may have passed in the longer format of the game, as may the oft-overlooked Owais Shah and the popular choice of Mark Ramprakash. If the selectors want to look towards the future, then James Hildreth and Eoin Morgan are two emerging names who could produce a big impact in the middle order and who would benefit from being part of an Ashes squad as spare batting options.

All of these opinions are heresy due to Bell’s inclusion, but Adil Rashid is a final name worth a mention. To include Rashid would require Andrew Flintoff to be shunted up the order to No. 6, and so would result in an even loftier weight of responsibility on the Lancastrian’s broad shoulders. England’s bowling attack would be strengthened, but the batting unit would suffer and the attack regained a ruthlessness at Lord’s that was absent in Cardiff.

Of the unit, Flintoff, Graeme Swann and James Anderson are certainties for the third Test but one of Graham Onions and Stuart Broad could yet make way for an apparently rejuvenated Steve Harmison. England may try to replicate the performance from Harmison and Onions when they bowled Durham to victory at Edgbaston earlier in the season. The plan to forge home the advantage may leave Broad on the sidelines as he is yet to find his true character as a bowler, sometimes appearing indecisive about how to bowl in certain situations.

Having said that, England are unlikely to tamper with an attack that produced 20 wickets at Lord’s, and with a traditionally partisan Edgbaston crowd acting as a 12th man, England remain in a strong position despite the loss of Pietersen.

Comments (7)

How important is Pietersen to England's chances?

Posted by Cricinfo - on 07/28/2009 in Ashes

From Nick Broad, United Kingdom

	Pietersen may have great flair, but he has failed to deliver when it really matters © Getty Images

Australia rejoices and England frets as Kevin Pietersen, statistically the best batsman in the England side, undergoes Achilles surgery and misses the rest of the Ashes. However, is he really that important to England's prospects? Perhaps not, especially if we use the criteria of Test hundreds and the circumstances they were made in.

To my mind, Pietersen has played only one truly great innings - his 158 versus Australia at the Oval in 2005. There, under extreme pressure, with England's grip on the Ashes marginal, he took the Australian's apart like no other Englishman since Ian Botham in 1986-87.

Since then, there have been two innings against Sri Lanka in 2006, which were big and full of exciting and innovative shots, but only his 142 at Birmingham could be justified as being 'special' to one degree or another. His runs against Pakistan, Australia, and the West Indies in subsequent series were made on either on flat pitches or against poor attacks.

His hundreds against India were good, but unrewarded. However, Pietersen did nothing against Sri Lanka. Twice he came to England's rescue home and away against New Zealand, but again while these were crucial innings given the state of the matches, both were made against woefully inadequate attacks.

Since then, there have been three centuries against very good attacks (South Africa and India) and one against an average attack while waiting for a declaration. The record in those three games where he hit a century - one England win. That makes 16 hundreds. The win/draw/loss ratio for those hundreds is seven wins, eight draws and one loss.

There are four nineties, but of those, only two are noteworthy - 97 versus West Indies at Jamaica earlier this year and a 94 against South Africa at Birmingham in August 2008. They are noteworthy because they both ended with his wicket being given away to mediocre spinners and England losing the Test. England have lost three of the games where he scored nineties.

Therefore I would argue, Pietersen is a wonderfully talented batsman who puts bums on seats, he can take any attack apart given favourable conditions and circumstances, he has a great average and an exceptional conversion ratio. However, what he has not done consistently is carry the England team on his back and win games. Sleep easy England.

Comments (4)

July 24, 2009

Ashes decider

Posted by Cricinfo - on 07/24/2009 in Ashes

By contrast, viewers of Australia's first (and only) innings at Cardiff could be forgiven for thinking they were watching the sixth test of 2007, rather than the first of 2009. After two years, it seemed that Australia had merely resumed its winning run against its old foe. Hundreds from Katich, Ponting, North and Haddin helped raise Australia's highest Ashes total since 1934. Sometimes, the roles were even reversed. Panesar and Anderson's unbroken last wicket stand was likened to Lee and McGrath's at Old Trafford four years ago. Collingwood's match-saving 74 was every bit as important as Ponting's 156.

Despite (or perhaps because of) their contrasting scorelines, the 2005 and 2006/07 series shared several important features. Reputations were tarnished. Ponting's captaincy - already questioned by some - lost further legitimacy. In Australia, Flintoff proved himself an unsatisfactory leader. Australia's narrow defeat was every bit as devastating as England's humiliating loss. Even now, the memories of both must cause the minds of many to darken. For Australians, 2005 upset the natural order. To restore that order, no simple retaliation would suffice. Nothing short of an annihilation would begin to sooth the wounds. And in being thumped five nil, England did not only lose the Ashes - it lost a little of 2005. As Gideon Haigh rightly pointed out, while England can forever claim the Edgbaston Test, Adelaide 2006 belongs to Australia.

English aspirations (to the status of an equal and the title of number one Test nation) were revealed as mere pretensions. After its 2007 triumph, another Australian win would further reduce 2005 to a vivid but regrettable stain on Australia's otherwise unblemished recent Ashes record. An English victory would not only silence Australian talk of an 'aberration', but elevate England into a frontier unconquered by Ponting's men.

For the time being at least, the current series has the air of a decider, of a final set following a first set tie break and a second set bagel. Its significance has been inflated by its remarkable predecessors. Perhaps it will help to settle the score of which of the two was the greater victory. And while some of the principle players have gone from the scene, both captains will fight bitterly for the last word.

Comments (2)

July 22, 2009

Fred's final fling

Posted by Cricinfo - on 07/22/2009 in Ashes

From Benjamin Matthews, United Kingdom

	Australia had no answer to Andrew Flintoff's fiery spell © Getty Images

The retirement of Andrew Flintoff (MBE) after the current Ashes series is sure to ignite varying forms of debate over the next few weeks. Matters of opinion from the media pack may criticise the allrounder for the timing of his announcement, while other voices will no doubt pen glowing tributes to the talismanic Lancastrian. Flintoff will continue to make himself available for England's future ODI and Twenty20 squads. The carrot of future IPL contracts looming large may cast doubts for some over the motives behind his decision to leave the longer format of the game, but none can debate the match-winning contributions he has made for the English team over the years.

Charismatic, inspiring, down-to-earth are all compliments that spring to mind for a man whose appeal transcends class and cricketing opinion. Minor antics off the pitch have at times marred an underlying focus and dedication to the game that some have occasionally overlooked. Relentless pace and a fiery all-or-nothing attitude have been drawn from honing high levels of fitness which were doubted at the beginning of his career; many focussing on his heavy set frame. Such a build, whilst undoubtedly a major asset to his stinging bowling and power hitting, has also unfortunately been to his detriment.

The reoccurring knee injury sustained while playing in the IPL flared up again after this series' first Test and after multiple ankle surgeries, Flintoff has decided to call it a day. The relentless rigours of the five-day game have proven to be too much for his body to cope with, Flintoff having missed 25 of England's previous 48 Tests. Flintoff took his bow into international Test match cricket in 1998 against a strong touring South African side. Unfortunately the prized wicket of Jacques Kallis was his only real reward of note in that series and subsequently, his county form suffered.

There were always glimpses of his destructive capabilities during this uncertain period, most notably an explosive 135 from 111 balls in the quarter-finals of the Natwest Trophy in 2000. "We have just watched one of the most awesome innings we are ever going to see on a cricket field" gushed David Gower. A Man-of-the-Match 42 not out in a ODI against Zimbabwe followed, causing Flintoff to enthuse: "not bad for a fat lad!" High praise and high jinx indeed, but it wasn't until the England management packed him off to Rod Marsh's ECB academy in 2001 that he began to realise his huge potential.

That short, sharp, shock culminated in a reformed, more dynamic Flintoff who toured India that winter; proving his startling revelation as a tight, aggressive seam bowler. The relief of his coming of age was plain to see when he ripped off his shirt in celebration after the final ball of that tour, Flintoff having bowled an exceptional over to level the one day series. His Test career really started to take shape on the 2002 tour to New Zealand, where in Christchurch on his 13th Test appearance, Flintoff scored his first international century. 137 from 163 deliveries signified a concentration and temperament well suited to Test cricket.

By 2003, he had become a consistent performer in the Test arena. A magnificent 142 from 146 balls against South Africa, followed three Tests later by a match-swinging 95 to help England save the series cemented his position as an integral part of the English Test batting unit. An ability to force such a momentum change was testament to the fact he had become a player who could not just change the face of a one-dayer, but a player who could change the face of the modern English game forever.

Despite having become England's most consistent Test bowler by this stage, 5 for 58 versus the West Indies in Barbados 2004 (including the wickets of Brian Lara, Ridley Jacobs and Shivnarine Chanderpaul) was Flintoff's first major haul. He was named the Man of the Series later that year for his performances in the home white-wash of the same touring opponents. Again, the indications of his leading influence with both the bat and ball - 603 runs and 24 wickets - were being displayed and were acting simply as precursors for yet even greater things still to come.

2005 was his annus mirabilis largely due to his performances in the triumphant Ashes series of that year. It was the series in which he left an indelible mark on Test cricket not only for his contribution towards the series win, but for his contribution to the playing of the game: hard, but always fair. The iconic portrait of Flintoff consoling Brett Lee after victory at Edgbaston is a gesture of sportsmanship synonymous with the all-rounder, as well as an image etched into the consciousness of all cricket fans forever more. Being named ICC Cricketer of the Year was his reward for averages of 40.20 with the bat and 27.29 with the ball. His 402 runs and 24 wickets won Flintoff the Compton-Miller medal and inspire some to call it 'Fred's Ashes'.

Memories of that series will linger forever in the mind of the man who inspired England to victory in that series, as they will in the minds of a cricketing nation whose love affair with the shorter modes of the game are somewhat supplanting their affections for the truest form of the game. So Freddie 2009 - one last hurrah? Reignite those final embers and bring that urn home.

Comments (11)

Goose on the Barbie

Posted by Cricinfo - on 07/22/2009 in Extras

The word 'innovation' has taken on connotations of a curse in cricket when it comes to the workings of the ICC. It is a get-out-of-jail-card used when faced with the detritus of bungled up decisions and take cover behind the facade of bleeding-edge decision making. Faced with the consequences of their own ineptitude and inaction, it is their norm to embark on a dangerous path of innovating their way out of the mess without thought given to the consequences. Every recent development stemming out of their offices has revealed an inability to act when it was prescient and meddle and tinker their way out of the aftermath. And now, we are being preached to about the length of Test matches being the reason why for diminishing crowds?

Every time Freddie Flintoff clangs a ball off Phil Hughes’ helmet in the 2009 Ashes, rivalry and history aside, consider why even neutrals will look forward to this bi-annual clash. It is easy to look past all the hype, hubris and hoopla that surround the series and relish a simple fact. It happens only once in two years. It allows for the loser to lick their wounds and wallow in the face of the smirking winner for two years. It also permits the cycle to build up steam again in the lead up to the next edition. All of this unfolds without the drama getting diluted by insignificant head-to-head meetings between the two teams in between.

Right now, to anyone who is getting hot under the collar and is on the verge of spewing indignantly about the Border-Gavaskar trophy being a more valued contest compared to the Ashes, I say: Sorry mate, not a chance. You know why? A big reason is the seven ODIs series against Australia that pans out this fall in India like it did in 2007 too, just before India headed off Down Under. Why on earth do we need this? And why did Australia have to visit India for a full fledged Test series in 2008 when the ball from the previous edition was still warm from January of the same year? These days, it feels like Ponting talks to Dhoni at the toss more often than he chats with his wife at the breakfast table. Can’t we be allowed to anticipate and relish the prospects of what has rapidly turned into one of the most compelling rivalries in cricket without enduring these larcenous attempts to bolster the boards’ bottom lines?

This June, it dawned on most of the cricketing world - as they watched Younis Khan and his men celebrate their T20 World Cup win at Lord’s - that the next T20 World Cup will be held in eight months time in the Caribbean! This impending Rosemary’s Baby of a T20 world championship will not permit Pakistanis to savour their team’s superb showing in England this summer before it gets underway again. Yes Shahid Afridi, you are entitled to rue this disastrous scheduling fiasco which won’t let you be the proud holder of the Man of the Match trophy from the final for even a calendar year before it is up for grabs again. And in between the two T20 World Cups is the ICC Champions trophy this fall? What kind of scheduling logic from hell produced this cricketing calendar for our consumption, one which ensures that in a period spanning eight months, we get to view the national teams of all the cricketing nations competing for a world crown three times? A year later, we get the World Cup in the subcontinent too?

Have the overlords heard of overkill? Have you ever woken up from a nightmare in which you saw yourself waking up from another nightmare?

Consider the ICC’s most recent “innovation” which gets set in stone starting this October and that is the team initiated review system. While I may have too many personal reservations about this move, it is prudent of the ICC to explore this avenue to ensure uniformity in the decisions of umpires. What is irksome in this case is not their dabbling with the use of advances in television technology to assist umpires, but their utter reluctance to address the root cause that necessitates it. Tinkering away with a toolbox of Hawkeye, Snicko, Hotspot etc. and endless deliberation about their use masks the fundamental question that needs to be asked of the ICC. Allow me to pose the question this way: How come, in spite of being the financial hub, command and fan central of the sport, India has failed to get an umpire into the “elite” panel since S. Venkataraghavan retired after the World Cup in 2003?

That is six years for a country that has eighty percent of the fan base and financial clout to not have a single person be considered qualified enough to be an international umpire on a long term basis! Does this even concern anyone on the ICC as much it gets their goat over the use of technology to resolve decisions? Do we really have a system in place to develop, monitor and evaluate the competence and quality of umpires? On one hand, given the manner in which the BCCI bulldozes anything and everything in its path to dominating the sport (like having an appointed umpire kicked out on the eve of a Test match), the absence of an Indian umpire in the elite panel can convince you that a perfect system exists. One that has prevented the BCCI from bullying the ICC into shoe-horning an Indian umpire into the panel. A more plausible view is that with their singularly laser focused attention to the bottom line regarding TV revenues and their hyper-ventilating exertions of milking it through a rabid frenzy of match scheduling, the ICC aren’t bothered enough to try and ensure that the quality of umpiring rises to a level at par with the interest in the game worldwide.

Are competence and quality being sacrificed at the altar of technology?

Mull it over, gentlemen of the ICC. We want you to succeed at the administration and management of the game we so care about. But first, convince us of a few things. Convince us that your periodic meetings about the Future Tours Program are not like the floor of a stock exchange with touts shouting themselves hoarse about buy and sell orders for upcoming tours. That we don’t feel like Ponting and his lads landed in Joburg for a Test series even before Smith and Co. flew back from their epochal win in Australia. That you will start to pull the plug on meaningless tournaments like the Champions Trophy. That your gaze will focus on “sexing up” pitches for Test cricket, the state of the game in the Caribbean and the quality of umpires in India before you fret over infiltrating the market in China or the 2020 Olympics.

And leave Test cricket alone.

We promise we will come back in droves to Test matches if you do this. And for heaven’s sake, forget the golden eggs. This goose is sizzling on the barbie right now. We can smell the burnt meat too. And it is not pleasant.

Comments (7)

July 20, 2009

How to save Test cricket

Posted by Cricinfo - on 07/20/2009 in Extras

Each team in the division needs to play every other team twice in the course of a season. This means every team plays 10 test matches in a season and the total number of test matches in a season are 30. Every team gets to play 3 matches at home and 7 matches on neutral or away grounds. Every country needs to host five test matches i.e. 3 involving the home team and 2 test matches involving neutral teams. Every touring country can play a maximum of 2 games and a minimum of 1 game in any other country.

All this might sound confusing so it is best to describe it using an example. The top 6 ranked teams are Australia, South Africa, India, England, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. The WTC will start in England which means England should play 3 home test matches and host 2 more matches not involving them, at the same time no other country should play more than 2 games and everyone should play at least once. I have generated a few fixtures to illustrate this.

1. England v Australia
2. India v South Africa
3. England v Pakistan
4. Australia v Sri Lanka
5. England v India

England have played thrice, Australia and India twice and South Africa, Sri Lanka and Pakistan only once.The WTC then will move on to the next host country. Let us assume the next host country is Pakistan. Again using the same rules, that Pakistan will play 3 games at home and host 2 neutral games.

6. Pakistan v Sri Lanka
7. England v Sri Lanka
8. Pakistan v South Africa
9. South Africa v Australia
10. Pakistan v India

From Pakistan the WTC moves on to India.

11. India v Australia
12. England v South Africa
13. India v Sri Lanka
14. Australia v Pakistan
15. India v England

After India the WTC moves to Sri Lanka.
16. Sri Lanka v South Africa
17. India v Pakistan
18. Sri Lanka v England
19. South Africa v Pakistan
20. Sri Lanka v Australia

From Sri Lanka the WTC heads to Australia
21. Australia v England
22. Sri Lanka v India
23. Australia v India
24. Pakistan v England
25. Australia v South Africa

And finally the WTC heads to South Africa
26. South Africa v India
27. Pakistan v Australia
28. South Africa v England
29. Pakistan v Sri Lanka
30. South Africa v Sri Lanka

At the end of this set of fixtures every team has played the other ones twice and all teams have played a total of 10 matches. A draw/tie will fetch you 1 point, a home win will fetch you 3 points and an away/neutral win will count for 4 points. The team with the most points wins the WTC and the bottom 2 are relegated to the second division. The second division will also follow the same principles regarding fixtures, tours and points.

There are still a lot of unanswered questions. How is this scheduled? The England leg from July to the middle of August, the subcontinental leg from October to the middle of December, the Australian one from the end of December till the beginning of February and South Africa during February and March. This will also leave the players free to participate in the lucrative IPL in April and May.

What happens when two of these are relegated and say the West Indies and New Zealand are part of the top 6? The scheduling is tweaked so that the main cricket playing season of these countries is included in the schedule. I know some of you might not be happy with my set of fixtures. Why do England and Australia get to play each other at home on both occasions while India and Pakistan don't get that privilege? The fixtures will change from season to season and this set of fixtures is not the definitive list. You can easily create many other variations but the rules need to be followed and obviously more rules can be added.

What then happens to ODI cricket? Ideally I would want that limited overs cricket be only played in tournaments like the World Cup or Champions Trophy but more short tri-series can be held for the teams that are playing only 1 test match on tour. Example - Pakistan, South Africa and Sri Lanka only played one game each on the tour of England so they can easily play an ODI tri-series during this time.These games could form the part of an ODI Championship but I'm getting ahead of myself.

It would be great if something like this is implemented. An India vs Pakistan Test match in England will be amazing at the same time an Ashes test match on a Mumbai dust bowl should be equally interesting. Existing trophies like the Border - Gavaskar or the Ashes can still be won or lost based on the head to head for a particular season.

I think the time has now come to seriously pay heed to MCC's warning to save the greatest game on the planet - Test Cricket.

Comments (7)

July 18, 2009

Oh, for one more Welshman in Cardiff...

Posted by Cricinfo - on 07/18/2009 in English cricket

That was Freddie’s Ashes, yes. And rightfully so. Flintoff’s towering, exuberant, aggressive, overpowering and ubiquitous presence for every second of that series was unquestionable. His numbers were there to prove it too – 24 wickets at 27.29, the most by a bowler and 402 runs, the second best on England’s batting list. But there is that small matter of the bowler below Freddie on England’s bowling list for the series. 18 wickets in only 4 matches and at a miserly 21 a piece were the numbers for Simon Jones. Prime statistics they are and tell the story of an integral contribution to the team cause. But when the books were being tallied, the champagne being popped, a Prime Minister being visited at home and MBEs being awarded to the entire crew, he had somehow faded into the background, nursing his errant ankle.

Freddie’s astonishing bowling - especially to left handers - harvested the bulk of the watching public’s psyche, but can we forget what Simon Jones did in 2005? Michael Vaughan, who garnered accolades for his innovative captaincy four years ago seemed to have an uncanny, if not spooky knack of bringing on Jones every time he needed to turn a trick to nab a wicket. And Simon’s penchant for grabbing one of the first ball of his spells must have left Vaughan wide-eyed and chuckling in glee. But it was his astonishing control of reverse swing, honed to an art and science for the team by his close friend Troy Cooley that mesmerized. Screaming corkers whizzed past outside edges and swinging yorkers thudded into disoriented batsmen’s pads time and again.

Cheeky grin in place and an almost mock seriousness on his mien the rest of the time, the Welshman was a revelation and joy to watch – especially to neutrals not versed in the details of his sojourns for Glamorgan or England. His smooth and relaxed runup disguised the guile that was waiting to reveal itself to unsuspecting Aussie batsmen. Overshadowed on pitch and in print by Freddie’s belligerent presence, he seemed to glide through the entire series, smiling. Harmison and the reticent Hoggard even, seemed more visible all through. Always fielding on the boundary somewhere, he seemed to be only in the peripheral vision of the national consciousness. Except when Vaughan threw him the ball and the smooth and upright runup proceeded to unleash those zingers at the batsmen. Or when he indulged in some clean hitting at innings end, clearing the boundary with surprising ease (“Sixaah!” exclaimed Mark Nicholas as one of his crisp swings cleared the ropes effortlessly). There was something relaxed about him with the bat or ball in his hand, and in the uproar over the conquered urn, he was the one poking his head between shoulders in all the group photographs it seemed.

In the years that followed, Vaughan and Flintoff’s injuries barreled all news of his travails under the surgeon’s knife to the periphery of cricket’s awareness. Harmison decapitating the slip fielder with the opening ball of the 2007 Ashes and Hoggard losing his place to Sidebottom are recalled with more alacrity by cricket flowers than the footnotes Jones was making in the papers with his unsuccessful attempts at getting back to playing with some semblance of regularity. Frustrating and dark times they were at a critical juncture in his life and career but he somehow was left to fend off his demons by himself.

“Before these funny familiar forgotten feelings
Stop walk' all over my mind”

crooned Tom Jones again in “Funny familiar Forgotten Feelings”. So, before things get too heavy in the upcoming weeks continuing at Lord’s, and minds get trampled over with the drama of events on the field, I just want to say this Simon: You were missed out there in Cardiff, bachgen. You were special the last time we saw you and while your career may have unfortunately swung in reverse, those screaming reverse swingers and those scorching yorkers in 2005 won’t be forgotten for some time. Fate and your body have conspired to keep you away from what you do best, but rest assured, you were a champion. And as you watch your mates from 2005 out there at Lord’s, and you nurse feelings like that your countryman Ryan Giggs has watching the football World Cup or the Euro, keep your chin up laddie...and keep smiling.

“Raise your arms in the air, now shake 'em”
-Tom Jones, “You can leave your hat on”

Comments (4)

July 16, 2009

The missing ingredient

Posted by Cricinfo - on 07/16/2009 in Extras

Cricketers from Karachi are street-fighters. The get in your face, and they don’t take nonsense from anyone. They are always up for a mid-pitch chat and are usually the mentally strongest of Pakistani cricketers. These characteristics are born of the environment which they grow up in – an unforgiving and grim city, the country’s capital of commerce and business and industry, a hodgepodge of ethnic and sectarian groups living side by side. In such surroundings, only the strong (and cunning) survive. You figure out unconventional ways to get ahead, take shortcuts, and work hard. There’s nothing pretty about Karachi – a concrete jungle with few sights of natural or constructed beauty – and there’s very little that’s pretty about Karachi’s cricketers. But similar to the relationship between the city and the country at large, Pakistani cricket teams have historically relied heavily on Karachiites, from Hanif Mohammad to Javed Miandad to Rashid Latif to MoinKhan, because these are the people who provide the backbone and fight.

Cricketers from Lahore too betray their origins. Lahore is a city of gardens and basant, of fun and frolicking, of grand mosques and red brick architecture. It is, in short, a classical and beautiful city. The cricketers it produces mirror these characteristics. They tend to be attractive in their play, technically correct, and easy on the eye. Think of Wasim Akram in full flow, or a Mohammad Yousuf cover drive, or Imran Khan’s wind-up just before he bowled (and please save the emails; Imran Khan may be a Pashtun, but his cricketing education took place in Lahore, at Aitchison). Cricketers from Lahore, as well as other big cities in Punjab similar in their DNA to Lahore such as Multan (think Inzamam) and Sialkot (think Zaheer Abbas), have generally provided the flair for the national team.

Finally, there’s Everywhere Else. Little can definitively be said about Everywhere Else, for the region stretches from the Hindu Kush to the Arabian Sea, from the Durand Line to Rajhastan. But because cricketers from Everywhere Else tend to come from more obscure backgrounds, they have to do more to be noticed. To that end, they tend to one thing well, and nothing else, because it is that one thing that will stand out at the various camps and trials from which Pakistani talent is plucked. Waqar Younis (Burewala) or Mohammad Asif (Sheikhupura) show this to be true: enormously talented with the ball with almost unnatural gifts (Waqar’s pace and direction, Asif’s control and seam movement), but like all other Everywhere Elsers, these two – at least at the beginning of their careers – were incapable of doing anything else. No matter, because Everywhere Elsers fulfill the all-important role of outrageously talented specialists.

Of course, these are gross generalizations, and there are always exceptions. Pakistan’s most successful opening partnership ever shows the flip side of these characterizations. There have been few more languid and beautiful players in Pakistan’s history than Saeed Anwar, who batted like a typical Lahori, especially when playing through the off-side. Saeed, as we well know, was born and bred in Karachi. By the same token, Aamir Sohail was an extremely strong and punchy individual, street smart to a fault, and combative in almost everything he did. He, of course, is a Lahori through and through. In general, however, the point stands: Karachiites provide the fight, big city Punjabis the flair, and the Everywhere Elsers fill in the gaps.

This gets us to a diagnosis. Pakistan’s second innings in the second test against Sri Lanka spoke volumes. The one player to provide the most fight was, quite naturally, Fawad Alam. And where is he from? Karachi, of course. Did Fawad and his ungainly shuffle make anyone forget about Lara or Kanhai or Gower? No. But, pardon the expression, he showed balls – Karachi balls. No one else did, except for perhaps Younis (who showed with his dismissal that, owing to his originating from a different planet, he defies such geographic characterizations).

Fawad’s role speaks to a larger problem: for quite a while, the hardnosed Karachiite role in the national side has been completely vacant. There is no one that opposition teams hate playing against, no one to rile them up, no one to get in their faces with constant chatter and a game to back it up. Asim Kamal had the mental fortitude and the talent but lacked the opportunities, Faisal Iqbal had the motor mouth and the opportunities but lacked the ability, and Shahid Afridi – well, aside from his superlative performances in the T20 World Cup, he has wasted his quite considerable talents; if anything, his performances against South Africa and Sri Lanka showed us what could have been for the last decade. To get back amongst the elite in international cricket’s small fraternity, Pakistan needs more Fawad Alams. Put differently, it needs more Karachiites.

Fortunately, the new chairman of selectors is Iqbal Qasim, himself from the port city. If ever there was a time for the chairman to play regional favorites, now is the time. For Pakistan’s test team, there really is nowhere else to go but up.

Comments (1)

A salute to wicket keepers

Posted by Cricinfo - on 07/16/2009 in Extras

Who were the keepers who were great at their craft? In the early years of test cricket before World War I there were Kelly, Lilley, Blackham and Carter. After the war came Strudwick, Duckworth and Ames for England and Oldfield for Australia. Because these two countries played the most, they produced keepers with the best skill and technique. Tallon, Evans and Langley continued the tradition of good wicket keeping from these two countries while Cameron and Waite of South Africa were worthy of being counted in the list. Moving on over the years we have Grout, Knott, Taylor, Kirmani, Deryck Murray, Wadsworth, Wasim Bari, Dujon, Marsh, Healy, Russell, Boucher, Gilchrist…. This is just a ‘top of the mind’ scan of keepers over the years who distinguished themselves in the game. Recently, Prasanna Jayewardene of Sri Lanka has emerged as probably the best among current keepers. His glove work is a throwback to the old days – dapper and very reliable keeping.

Pakistan can look back with pride at Wasim Bari (and Imtiaz Ahmed who was also a fine bat) while India can never forget Engineer and Kirmani. But for a horrendous series in West Indies in 1976 when he kept fluffing chances of Venkataraghavan, Kirmani sustained a very high quality of keeping. Engineer was flamboyant but spectacular catches and missed chances are strewn in his wicket keeping record. Kirmani kept brilliantly to the fast and unfathomable leg spin of Chandrasekhar, as litmus a test as ever can be. Some swear that Kirmani once effected a stumping of such brilliance, taking a wickedly rising ball from Chandra over his left shoulder and flicking the bails off, that it has never had its equal ever again.

Wally Grout was easily the best keeper from Australia in the long period between Tallon (1950s) and Healy (1980s). He was very special – unobtrusive, superbly efficient, he would stand up to Davidson the peerless left arm swing bowler. These days, we see keepers stand up to the medium pacers in limited overs cricket to prevent batsmen from jumping down to thrash them. But for Grout it was an aggressive wicket creating option. At Chennai in 1959, seeing Manmohan Sood the Indian batsman dragging his back foot out of the crease in the process of playing inswingers to leg off the toes - Grout signalled to Davidson and stood up. Davidson beat Sood with a big swinger and Grout completed the leg-side stumping. It was wicket keeping at its best. Keepers in the earlier era stood up a lot more to medium pacers. Examples that come to mind are Duckworth to Tate and Evans to Alec Bedser. In fact, because of the nature of wickets and because many of the keepers stood up to the fast bowlers perhaps the byes conceded may be higher for the keepers of those days.

The authors recall Jeffrey Dujon do some acrobatic wicket keeping to Roberts, Marshall and Holding when the Windies came to India in the eighties. But he never had an opportunity to keep to high class spinners. In fact except for Walcott (who had the opportunity to create dismissals with Ramadhin and Valentine) all the West Indian keepers have a very low percentage of dismissals off spinners. This is true of New Zealand keepers as well. This also holds true for the South African keepers especially after the departure of their great googly bowlers by 1930. South Africa of course would be very pleased that Boucher now holds the record for most dismissals having overtaken first Healy and then Gilchrist. Healy is probably the best modern day example of the neatness that is associated with high quality keeping to spin and pace.

The great keepers are not flashy, they are unobtrusive. The biggest praise that such keepers expect would simply be: “He doesn't miss anything”. That phrase brings us to talk of Alan Knott the Kent and England keeper about whom, his team mates say they cannot remember him missing anything significant. Knott kept brilliantly to Underwood even on bad wickets and unlike most others, never seemed to have had off days or a poor series. Knott’s contemporary Bob Taylor was considered by many to be a superb keeper but Knott was good enough to keep Taylor out through his career. In fact after Knott retired, Taylor who was almost as old as Knott kept wickets for many years – and was easily the best among keepers of his time.

There have been quite a few instances where superior keepers have been kept out of the team by a less proficient keeper because that person was the better batsman. Leslie Ames played for England between 1929 and 1939 and kept Duckworth out of the England team. In the 60s Jim Parks a non-descript keeper kept out more competent keepers. Keith Andrews of Northamptonshire was an outstanding wicket keeper who played just twice for England because ebullient Evans – etched in our memory is the photograph of an airborne Evans breaking the wicket - and his bustling batting kept him out. More recently in Pakistan, Kamran Akmal retains the job on the basis of his batting.

Which of the wicket keepers were wonderful batsmen? Gilchrist of course to begin with: The most destructive No. 7 in test cricket history, 17 tons, many of them helping Australia wrestle a win from difficult situations he also won two World Cup finals for Australia. Kumara Sangakara, a most cultured left hander is a pivotal batsman for Sri Lanka. Who can forget this lion heart’s mammoth double century as he almost shepherded his country to an improbable fourth innings target against Australia? Clyde Walcott of West Indies, one of the 3 Ws, had a batting average of 56 and 15 centuries. Walcott would have walked into any World XI of his time on his batting alone. In fact he kept wickets in 15 tests and was good enough to keep to spinners such as Ramadhin and Valentine, a task that must have surely called for some level of competence. Alec Stewart played with the certainty that he was worth his place in the England team as a pure batsman but in 82 of the 133 tests that he played he kept wickets – without inviting censure while never qualifying to be clubbed with the very good keepers. Andy Flower was Zimbabwe’s best ever batsman and gave them the bonus of a reasonably efficient keeper. There have also been examples of some who began as ordinary keepers but grew with the job. Rodney Marsh started his test career being derisively labeled “Mr. Iron Gloves” for his clumsy wicket keeping but improved so much over the years that “caught Marsh bowled Lillee” became a part of cricket folklore. Dhoni till the recent T20 championship has had a fairy tale career. Starting as an ordinary keeper who entered the team because of his destructive batting, he has taken to captaincy with panache. If his learning curve so far is any indication and if his back also holds up, he will improve.

An annoying feature in modern day cricket is the way keepers keep up a constant verbal exhortation after every delivery. Chirpiness from keepers such as Evans and Engineer was to keep their sides positive but this ability to disturb the batsman with chatter and sledging is unfortunately being seen as a part of modern day wicket keeping skills! However one skill that wicket keepers of the modern era have added is the ability to convert average or even poor throws from fielders into run outs – something vital in these days of third umpire camera verdicts.

There is perhaps something silently glorious about the wicket keeper. It is the nature of sport that it is the swashbuckler who is in the limelight – be it centre forward, swordsman, racehorse or batsman. It takes a certain deep immersion in test cricket to recognize that it is the keeper who is at once both the shepherd and the workhorse. The great glove men concentrate through every ball of the innings so that they do not miss the crucial snick or let that hated bye through. To do this over five days and then also chip in with the bat shows that the true warrior in cricket is the wicket keeper.

Comments (6)

July 8, 2009

Supporting an underdog

Posted by Cricinfo - on 07/08/2009 in Extras

My friend, who fancies himself as a judge of human character, went on to suggest that this (support for the underdog) was a sign of inner frailty, a flaw. He was driving at the common perception that losers beget a loser mentality.

Is rallying behind a champion really a way of emancipation, leaving no room for the baggage of irony and self-deprecation that comes with defeat in your corner? The nature of this debate is brilliantly captured in the comedy film A Fish Called Wanda, with its classic example of "Brits are from Mars, Americans are from Venus." In the scene where Kevin Kline's American character is about to finish off the Brit played by John Cleese, the former gives vent to his feelings about England: "You know your problem? You guys don't like winners!" To which Cleese replies "Winners...like North Vietnam?" This gets Kline all defensive; "We didn't lose to North Vietnam! It was a tie!"

My peers have tended to view my support for New Zealand with curious disdain. Now, rooting for the underdog is something that actually comes quite naturally to us Indian fans. The current decade has finally given us (I use 'us' and 'we' with some reservations, given that the Indian cricket has always been my second love, behind the kiwis) the sort of brash, assertive team we've been craving for decades, and we can confidently expect more victories than defeats. And yet, we continue to align ourselves with less fancied teams when watching neutral encounters.

Perhaps this is because, for the most part of the previous century, Indian cricket mirrored India's gradual development as a free nation; an impassioned struggle for respect and self-belief, so we could assert ourselves among the world's elite. We celebrate, in our history, many revolutionaries who fought (often in vain) to secure freedom from an alien ruler. This celebration extends to cricket, which is why most Indians would have cheered for Chris Gayle's lone vigil against the Lankans in today's semi final - a man trying to make a statement on behalf of his team, as well as his belief in the supremacy of this T20 format. The same fans - provided they weren't blinded by nationalism - would also have cheered Pakistan's improbable march to the finals, in the face of troubled times.

However, I doubt much sympathy would've been extended to the poor South Africans. The pathos in their defeat, that of a team trying to shake of the yoke of being labelled "chokers", has not been lost on us; yet we, or most of us anyway, would have had a good laugh at it. Maybe this brand of defeat is something we'd rather not identify with, because it somehow exudes hopelessness instead of that heroic-romantic aura.

Which brings me to the main point. In defeat, to garner the affection of onlookers, you must be a certain kind of loser. The England side of the 1990s, whose messy defeats often bordered on parody, makes for an interesting study in this regard. Mark Ramprakash, often unjustly treated by the selectors, was always battling insecurity and inner demons; you could see it at the crease, and the feeling persists his manner was too tedious and neurotic for him to be liked.

By way of contrast, Darren Gough, with his cheeky smile and his antic of lying flat on the ground after dropping a catch, was impossible not to love. His luckless streak actually worked for him, endearing him to us all the more. Which is why I feel New Zealand should give Shane Bond a contract and lure Chris Cairns out of retirement, even if it makes no difference to their results; if they must be losers, let them at least be lovable losers.

I initially got thinking about the underdog issue when I remembered my response to a blog post back in April. The article featured team previews and predictions for the upcoming edition of the IPL, and I stated that I would support the Deccan Chargers because "somebody has to" (they were completely written off in the comments section; even the writer, a Hyderabadi herself, had no hopes for them).

In hindsight, it was funny that most fans chose to overlook a team which had Symonds and Gilchrist in it. But, now that I think of it, was I supporting these underdogs for the right reasons? Nevermind, self doubt is a bastard of a thing.

Comments (5)