http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/ en Copyright 2009 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:15:35 +0000 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss From Ram Srinivasan, United States

	Tillakaratne Dilshan shows off his innovative scoop shot © AFP

A lot of ink and bits have been spent discussing the evil that is Twenty20 and the IPL. However these primarily identify the effects of Twenty20 cricket, good or bad, on the players and the business of cricket. The focus here is different; understand the effect of Twenty20s on the game of cricket. Not the business of cricket. Batting The batting equation has changed considerably. Eleven wickets and twenty overs, instead of fifty overs. This has encouraged, or even forced, batsmen to dance on the thin line that separates recklessness and aggression. The most famous addition to the cricketing manual in recent years has been the Dilscoop. While it was pioneered by Tillakaratne Dilshan, it is fast catching on. I have had to sit through Lendl Simmons try, and miserably fail, to play the shot at least five times during the Champions League Twenty20. The reverse-sweep, which has been the pariah of cricketing shots, is now legit and has been endowed citizenship status. Even as late as 2007, a batsman getting out on the reverse-sweep was morally culpable for any subsequent defeat. Twenty20 cricket has simply increased the percentage in the shot. First, with a number of captains (foolishly, if I might add) deciding to do away with the third man in Twenty20, the reward has increased. This has motivated players to practice the shot in the nets, reducing the risk in the shot. ]]> http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/11/a_cricketing_renaissance.php http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/11/a_cricketing_renaissance.php Twenty20 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:15:35 +0000 From Mahendra Mapagunaratne, Canada

	Which of these legends is not in the ICC Hall of Fame? © Getty Images

I feel that ICC should commence an honorary title system for the greatest players in the game. One may coin a suitable title but for the sake of this article I suggest Grandmaster or Cricketmaster. No one except the most passionate cricket fans would know whether a certain player is in the ICC Hall of Fame by hearing his name, but certainly a Cricketmaster/Grandmaster title would make people note that he has been honoured and even later generations with little idea of history would realise a certain player with a Grandmaster Title besides his name would have been special in the past. Wouldn't it be marvellous for instance to address Sachin Tendulkar as Grandmaster Sachin Tendulkar? ICC could take a cue from chess. Here is the chess hierarchy in descending order: Super Grandmaster [SGM], Grandmaster [GM], International Master [IM]. I think if you poll the players they are bound to like the idea of having a title beside their names.]]> http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/11/grandmasters_of_cricket.php http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/11/grandmasters_of_cricket.php Rankings Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:50:39 +0000 From Mark Browning, Australia

	Limited-overs cricket has reduced the importance of the slip cordon © Getty Images

The popular saying goes, “Bowlers win matches.” In the longest form of the game they can’t without help. First-class and Test matches are also won by guys who are usually the least athletic members of the team. They are the fieldsmen who don’t run much and stand with their hands on their knees; sticking out their backsides at the spectators. For these are the “slippers”, the unsung heroes of Test cricket. And they have been the true litmus test as to what constitutes a great team. Without the support of “slippers” many bowling legends of the game might be forgotten. Fifty-over cricket diminished the importance of the “slipper” while Twenty20 makes the spot almost redundant. How many know that Cameron White is a fine snaffler of edges? Will a time come when it won’t matter if he’s any good in the cordon or not? One of the main reasons why the Indian team were able to push their hosts in the 2007-08 series Down Under was the reliability of Sachin Tendulkar, VVS Laxman and Rahul Dravid in the cordon in making the most of the opportunities provided. In his final summers Richie Benaud’s television commentary role has been reduced to intermittent observer, but he was spot-on when he lamented the absence of slip-catching specialists. Their type played a large part in Australia’s dominance in times gone by. Benaud himself was superb in the gully and in his era Neil Harvey took some beauties. ]]> http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/11/where_are_my_slippers.php http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/11/where_are_my_slippers.php Fielding Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:47:55 +0000 From Gopal Rangachary, India

	The late 70s was a good time in India to become a cricket fan © Getty Images

Are you born a cricket nut or do you become one? At least in my case, that is the one thing I can’t blame my genes for (I have successfully blamed them for a variety of character flaws from being disorganised to having ghastly handwriting). My father was apparently anti-cricket - thought it was a waste of time – and if he had lived long enough to see me through my teenage, the world of cricket nuttiness’ would have lost me. I have impeccable pedigree though for a cricket nut. I was born near the home of cricket (no, not in the Lord’s pavilion. It would have been impossible to have done so, as women weren’t allowed in at the time). Actually I was probably born closer to Edgbaston than to Lord’s, but at least in the country that invented cricket – and when I was seven moved to the new spiritual home of cricket, India. My primary school was at Bramall Lane in Sheffield, which is the only inactive Test venue in England today. I understand there was a turgid Test played out there about 100 years ago, where England lost to Australia. My early recollections of sport in England are patchy. I vaguely remember kicking (or given my motor skills, missing) a football a few times, and playing one game of cricket in the street. My duties were vaguely described to me as “fielding”, and I remember being positioned at what would be a very deep long-on at the Adelaide Oval, and probably at the back of the bar on most Test grounds nowadays. Needless to say, it didn’t capture the imagination too much. ]]> http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/10/the_genesis_of_a_cricket_nut.php http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/10/the_genesis_of_a_cricket_nut.php Fans Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:11:13 +0000 From S.Giridhar and V.J. Raghunath, India

	Australian bowler John Gleeson demonstrates his grip © Cricinfo Ltd

A prison cell during World War II: An Australian prisoner of war is spinning a ping-pong ball to pass time. Iverson is trying out different grips to flick and turn the ping-pong ball against the wall. He finds he can turn the ball both ways by flicking the bent middle finger on either side of the ball and keeps practicing. When the war is over, Iverson unleashes this in Sheffield Shield. Called to play against Freddie Brown’s English team in 50-51, he takes 6 for 27 in the second innings of the third Test in Sydney….. Iverson is the pioneer, the “first man ever” in this story about right-arm mystery spinners. If Bosanquet introduced the googly to add magic to leg spin and if Saqlain discovered the doosra to spice up offspin, then Iverson it was who first showed the world the magic of imparting spin either way with fingers in a manner difficult for batsmen to fathom. How rare is the mystery finger spinner? The title of our article itself contains the names of all the well-known exponents of this art form. There are over 150 spinners in Test history but Iverson, Ramadhin, Gleeson and Mendis occupy the table of mystique – the Harry Potters of cricket. ]]> http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/10/mystery_bowlers.php http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/10/mystery_bowlers.php Bowling Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:56:30 +0000 From R .Giridharan, India

	England has had plenty of quality finger spinners like Derek Underwood, but where are the wrist-spinners? © Getty Images

An arrogant cricketing official once dismissed a young Kapil Dev, “There are no fast bowlers in India”. One wonders whether aspiring wrist-spinners in England, New Zealand and South Africa were rebuffed in similar ways. This article is a humble attempt to identify the factors that conspired against the emergence of any worthwhile wrist spinner from these countries. Nature, of course, is the first stumbling block. The wickets in England and New Zealand are soft and green and the outfields moist, breaking the heart of any wrist spinner. Overcast skies encouraged captains to prefer gentle wobblers over the tweaker. In South Africa, wickets are harder, but loaded with juice that the quicks can exploit. Currie Cup, the premier domestic competition was played for long with two balls, thereby keeping the ball newer for longer periods. The quicks therefore remain in the hunt throughout. The three teams believe in keeping things tight, drying up easy runs and throttling the opposition, especially when spinners are bowling. Spinners are expected to play second fiddle and perform effective hold-ups while the quicks rest, refresh and recharge. Finger spinners fit the bill admirably. Indeed, Lohmann, Verity, Lock, Laker, Underwood, Giles, Panesar (Eng), Tayfield, Symcox, Boje (SA), Dipak Patel, Bracewell, Vettori (NZ) all made their way into the playing eleven as personifications of accuracy, before carving their own niche. The aggressive, predatory worldview of the wrist-spinner would probably be discarded in such a milieu. ]]> http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/10/mystery_of_the_missing_wristsp.php http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/10/mystery_of_the_missing_wristsp.php Bowling Sat, 24 Oct 2009 06:35:14 +0000 From Tim Parsons, United Kingdom

	How many Powerplay overs should West Indies have got in the rain-interrupted Twenty20 game against England? © Getty Images

I think the Duckworth-Lewis system for Twenty20 games needs reviewing. This occurred to me after England's World Twenty20 match against West Indies in June. To recap: England scored 161 in their 20 overs and, following a rain-delay, West Indies were set a revised target of 80 from nine overs. The number of Powerplay overs was reduced from six to three. This was all mathematically logical, but the revised target presented West Indies with an easier target. To understand why, think about it this way. It is as if West Indies were told: you have already batted for eleven overs, the score is 81 for 0, and you have a further 80 runs to make to win. Not only that, but three of the remaining nine overs are Powerplay overs. Which team wouldn't accept that with open arms? The reason why this target was too soft boils down to two things that make Twenty20 different from the 50-over game 1. Powerplay overs are much more valuable in most Twenty20 games than most 50-over games. 2. High scoring-rates can be more easily maintained for the lower number of overs you get in a reduced Twenty20 game. So, in the England-West Indies match, a fairer target would have been possibly nearer 85 or even 90 with no Powerplay overs left. ]]> http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/10/finetuning_dl_method_for_twent.php http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/10/finetuning_dl_method_for_twent.php Twenty20 Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:17:48 +0000 From S.Giridhar and V.J. Raghunath, India

	South Africa's Paul Adams is one of the most successful chinaman bowlers © Cricinfo Ltd

We set off to do a story on offspinners and left-arm spinners – similar to what we had done some months back on legspinners. We had hoped that our favourite mystery and left-arm chinaman bowlers will find adequate space. To our dismay we found that many of the names that rolled deliciously off our tongues just did not have enough wickets to qualify under stodgy criteria such as minimum number of wickets, etc. So we said, to hell with all that – let us just enjoy ourselves writing about our favourite chinaman and mystery bowlers – the non-conformists, conjurors and sleight-of-hand purveyors. The left-arm chinaman is a mirror image of the right-arm leg break – bowled by turning the wrist so that the ball turns the opposite way to left-arm finger spin. When bowled back of the hand, it becomes the googly, it turns the other way. We identified 10 chinaman bowlers as we trawled through the history of the game. Even if you were to add up all the wickets taken by the chinaman bowlers it would be less than a combined tally of Bedi and Underwood. There are 45 left-arm spinners who have more than 40 wickets each but just four chinaman bowlers who meet this criterion. The strike-rate of the chinaman bowler is superior (a wicket every 70 balls as compared to 79 for the orthodox left-arm); the bowling average is similar, 31.6 as compared to 31.2. The difference is that while the 45 left-arm spinners have taken over 4800 wickets in 1605 matches, the 10 chinaman bowlers have played only 184 matches to take 427 wickets. ]]> http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/10/the_chinaman_bowler_odd_man_in.php http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/10/the_chinaman_bowler_odd_man_in.php Bowling Mon, 12 Oct 2009 06:00:07 +0000 From Imran Coomaraswamy, United Kingdom

	A familiar sight for Chris Martin © Getty Images

They just don’t make them like they used to. The genuine rabbit, a creature prone to prodding meekly at balls outside off stump and liable to leap out of the way of anything close to the body, is now an endangered species in international cricket. Everywhere we look, tailenders are working hard at their batting and scoring more runs. The members of the Australian fast bowlers' union are the worst tailenders of the lot. Glenn McGrath, surprisingly but fittingly, led the way in 2004 by reaching a half-century at the 115th time of asking. Since then, we’ve seen courageous final stands in the 2005 Ashes, fifties aplenty, Mitchell Johnson’s heroic hundred and Dizzy’s frankly ridiculous double. Here in England, Duncan Fletcher orchestrated a ruthless rabbit cull. Dear old Monty managed to survive, but only because he is every bit as industrious as he is inept, in contrast to his undeniably indolent predecessors Phil Tufnell and Devon Malcolm. However, all is not lost for rabbit-lovers. In seamer Chris Martin, New Zealand, warren of some pedigree - Ewen Chatfield, Danny Morrison and Geoff Allott spring to mind - have produced a very fine specimen indeed. What's more, there is a strong case for anointing Martin as the worst batsman Test cricket has ever seen. Not many players have managed to chalk up fewer runs than wickets over their career. Martin, however, has in 50 tests scored only half as many runs (82) as he has taken wickets (165). He has an overall batting average of 2.34, but a closer look reveals that, like many others in recent times, he has feasted on minnows. If we exclude his innings against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh (in which he has ruthlessly plundered 16 runs without being dismissed), his average plummets to 1.88. Among all those who have batted ten or more times in Tests, no one has fared worse. Roughly speaking, a third of his visits to the middle have resulted in ducks (25 of them), another third have seen him stranded on zero, and the final third have produced single digit scores. (The one exception, his magnum opus of 12 not out, was achieved against Bangladesh; his best against a major nation is merely a magnificent 7). If he continues at this rate, Courtney Walsh’s world record for the most ducks (43) won’t be intact for much longer. These figures are astonishing, but what of the things statistics cannot convey - technique, style, image, impact? ]]> http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/10/chris_martin_a_rabbits_tale.php http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/10/chris_martin_a_rabbits_tale.php Batting Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:47:06 +0000

Wait until that thing grows older © Getty Images

  Reverse-swing has emerged as a key weapon in a fast bowler’s repertoire, and has grown in prominence with the advent of the limited-overs game. The likes of Brett Lee, Umar Gul and Lasith Malinga have used the art to be lethally effective in the death overs. But what is reverse-swing, how did it evolve and, more generally, what makes the ball move around in the air? SM Arsalan Arif Khan from Pakistan offers a guide to swing bowling. Many times in international matches we hear commentators use term “reverse swing” through the end of an innings. But most of the people don’t know what it is, except for grasping the fact that the ball somehow tends to reverse in a certain way when it gets old. Reverse swing is essentially an art. It is generally applied when the ball is old and rough with the help of extreme pace, even moderate sometimes (if executed properly), and get it to work lethally. But before a bowler can think of reverse-swing, he must first go through the basic procedure of tracing his steps toward the root of swing, as the ability to swing is an art in itself. What is Swing? When a ball is released from the wrist, it habitually moves in the air and bounces directly proportional, or sometimes vice versa, towards or away from a batsman when a pace bowler is in operation. Swing merely consists of aerodynamics, which I’ll come to later. It is a known fact that most fast bowlers strive for this sort of variation because it is a serious cause for concern for batsmen. Imagine yourself driving on a lane and encountering a vehicle moving to the left, but suddenly in full speed it decides to move in your direction. The judgment and reflexes then, of you as a batsmen or a natural human being, rely on your instinct; sometimes you survive the variation, sometimes you don’t. Batsmen gradually become accustomed to playing general swing, which is easier to judge and also gets predictable. Such swing is likely to occur in the first ten or 15 overs of a match when the ball is still hard. However, recently, with the game constantly evolving, new-ball bowlers have discovered a way of swinging the older ball, especially when it’s dusty and scruffy. The movement, in this case, makes it more difficult for the batsmen to judge. But to attain it, there are a number of factors to consider. ]]> http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/09/the_art_of_swing.php http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/09/the_art_of_swing.php Bowling Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:01:37 +0000 England's ODI debacle against Australia shows where they stand in the shorter version of the game. Here's a look at ten ways in which they could improve their chances. From Ben J. Tanner, United Kingdom
1. Wield the Axe: I'm not suggesting a return to the late-80s/early-90s revolving door selection policy, which saw Graeme Hick get dropped more often than a Monty Panesar catch. But, if someone has not proven themselves to be up to the job, bin them. 2. Shuffle the Pack: Try new talent out. Rather than repeatedly going back to Owais Shah and Tim Bresnan, see who else is out there. The only real way to find out if they sink or swim is to chuck them in the deep end. Rather than watching the same old has-beens fail time-and-again, why not watch a noob fail instead? You never know, he might not! 3. Get Them In Young: India do it; Pakistan do it all the time; the Windies are often forced to do it; Aussies have been known to do it; even the guys on our level, like New Zealand do it - just look at Dan Vettori. The most left-field and yet most successful one-day pick in the last decade for England was Jimmy Anderson, off the back of half-a-dozen Lancashire appearances and some U-19 cricket. And he was immediately a demon (and continued to be so). Of course, this is difficult when you’re waiting for your best players to actually qualify for England in the first place, but that’s another issue. For the time being, get Chris Woakes and Dawid Malan in the team - an after the Lord Mayor’s show one-day series against the Aussies is the ideal time. ]]> http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/09/ten_tips_for_improving_england_1.php http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/09/ten_tips_for_improving_england_1.php English cricket Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:15:53 +0000

From Akash Kaware, India
So, finally efforts are being made to make to ‘rejuvenate’ Test cricket. The ECB have proposed a day-night Test against Bangladesh next year, and the Bangladesh board has agreed. If the ICC approves, we might actually see pink balls and coloured clothing in this most traditional form of the game soon. The intentions of the authorities are certainly noble, but to borrow Greg Chappell’s expression, they’re trying to put a band-aid on cancer! Firstly, why conduct such experiments straightaway in Tests? Shouldn’t they be tried out in first-class cricket first? I remember the Ranji Trophy final played under lights some years ago. None of the players involved had kind words about the experiment and it was dumped soon. However that was nearly 10 years ago, so the time might be ripe to give it another go. The more important question however is, is it really going to help? The low attendances at Test matches around the world (except England and Australia) has more to do with the quality of cricket than anything else! And the quality of cricket is a direct result of the quality of pitches on which it is played. I understand that in a world where television revenue runs the game, it is inadvisable for pitches to be a minefield and have Test matches end in three days, but do they have to go to the other extreme and be so flat that planes can take off from them after the day’s play is over? (The fact that more matches are still producing results is attributable to the monumental ineptitude of some teams more than anything else!) ]]> http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/09/its_the_pitches_stupid.php http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/09/its_the_pitches_stupid.php Pitches Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:20:49 +0000 From Ashok Sridharan, India So much has been written about the quality of cricket- and I refer exclusively to Test cricket- in the 90s, that one would think it was a golden age - I remember reading the words 'the glorious 90s' in some article recently. Truth be told, it wasn't really quite as rosy as that. I started following cricket starting from the mid-90s and by then Australia were easily the best, with South Africa the only side posing a consistent threat and Pakistan oscillating between champions and wooden spoon holders depending on their mood. Take off those three teams and all you had left, was a bunch of mediocre to poor sides. Granted that the quality of the bowling was better and the quality of the pitches back then was vastly superior, yet Test cricket back then was hardly more exciting than it is today. ]]> http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/09/the_90s.php http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/09/the_90s.php Cricket through the decades Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:05:50 +0000

From Gopal Rangachary, India Now that the Ashes are over, the post-mortems have begun. Shots have been fired at Ricky Ponting, Andrew Hilditch, the Oval groundsman and not least the standard of umpiring in this series. By any measure, it was embarrassing. Rudi Koertzen and Asad Rauf were poor, Billy Doctrove average, and Billy Bowden had a good series at the business end of the pitch , after a first ball shocker at Leeds, but seems to have missed several wickets off no-balls. The umpiring incompetence has spurred a familiar debate- the use of technology. Sometimes that debate seems as polarized as a Michael Moore v Dick Cheney debate on healthcare. The supporters of technology fumed when Marcus North got a shocker at The Oval, while the opponents like Michael Holding made dark predictions of two-day tests if Hawkeye was adopted as the gold standard. Having watched the referral system on trial during the India v Sri Lanka and West Indies v England Test series, I was mighty relieved to hear that the Ashes wouldn’t be subject to that experiment. That's a curious response, isn’t it? I am a strong believer in getting the decisions right. Consider this - Jonathan Trott appeared to be caught-behind off the first ball of the third day. The ball actually clipped his pad - clear on the replay- and Asad Rauf made a good decision. He could have easily missed that - and instead of contacting travel agents to plan his South African homecoming, Trott could have joined Alan Wells as the answer to a cricket trivia contest for cricket tragics (as players who played their only Test at The Oval ). ]]> http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/09/rethinking_the_referral_system.php http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/09/rethinking_the_referral_system.php Umpiring Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:48:37 +0000 From Imran Coomaraswamy United Kingdom A response to Peter Roebuck’s “No time for back-slapping”.

	Andrew Strauss, Kevin Pietersen and Andy Flower - none born in England © Getty Images

I’m a regular follower of Peter Roebuck’s columns for Cricinfo and the Sydney Morning Herald. The former Somerset captain is certainly one of the most eloquent and thought-provoking cricket writers around today. His most recent opinion piece for Cricinfo, however, a warning to English cricket that it’s "no time for back-slapping," strikes me as faintly ridiculous, and some of the comments in it regarding English-born Asian cricketers I find really rather disconcerting. The Sydney-based Roebuck has long maintained that Aussie dominance in the Ashes is a fitting reflection of the contrast between (what he perceives to be) the vibrant and competitive "prevailing culture" in his adopted home and a chronic national malaise back in the old country. It seems the Australian team’s sudden fall from grace has upset his worldview. Convinced that "English culture" still lacks "vim and vigour," he looks elsewhere for an explanation for England’s recent success. ]]> http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/09/of_settlers_and_sons.php http://blogs.cricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2009/09/of_settlers_and_sons.php Ashes Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:38:39 +0000