Long Stop tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2009:/longstop//146 2009-03-31T15:56:05Z Movable Type 3.34 Enjoying a draw and a win in almost equal measure tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2009:/longstop//146.10229 2009-03-31T15:03:59Z 2009-03-31T15:56:05Z Suresh Menon



Gautam Gambhir is emerging as the leading batsman of the new generation © AFP
India’s magnificent performance that helped draw the second Test was nearly as satisfying as the comprehensive victory in the first, and for a very different reason. While the greatest batting line-up in the world has won Tests in style, once memorably after following on, it has sometimes disappointed by its inability to bat through six or seven sessions in the second innings. When the last century has been scored, and the final figures are tallied, greatness will be decided as much by the ability to win as the skill to bat on for a draw. It has been a decade since India batted 180 overs as they did in Napier, to draw a Test match. That was in Mohali, when centuries from Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid saw them bat through 183 overs to save a match where they had been dismissed for 83 in the first innings. By batting for over ten and a half hours, one of the side’s most attacking batsmen, Gautam Gambhir, indicated that at 27, he is emerging as a leading batsman of the new generation. He is also the allrounder of the new generation, a certainty in all three forms of the game. Among batsmen, only Virender Sehwag and MS Dhoni can make that claim.]]> Still, India’s batting should not take the focus away from their atrocious catching in the New Zealand innings. It is a long time since they have dropped so many catches close to the wicket. When you consider that the team has three players with 100-plus catches in Tests, it might be tempting, in the modern spirit, to call this their best catching side. But the habit of not catching can be catching. Much is being made of the fact that the New Zealand authorities have been excessively kind to India by preparing wickets that have drawn the teeth of their own seam bowling. Wasim Akram has called it cowardice. It is not that, but professional respect for opponents who have the better seam bowlers. The hosts will have to take a chance, however, for the final Test in Wellington and go with a track that could just as easily backfire on them. But at 0-1 down you have to take the risk. With that casual insouciance that comes easily to columnists who write on the game, I had predicted a 3-0 win for India after the first Test, and spent much of the first half of the Napier Test wondering how to make more palatable the words I was about to eat. Some years ago, one writer published a photograph of himself literally eating his words (and washing it down with wine). It is more difficult to do now, since swallowing a computer is not easily done. So, I have a little more reason than the rest of India to thank Messrs Gambhir, VVS Laxman, Tendulkar and Dravid. IPL's move is inevitable tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2009:/longstop//146.10117 2009-03-24T04:59:57Z 2009-03-31T15:11:54Z It will be a little difficult to swallow at first. The players themselves have spoken about the confusion over ‘home and away’ matches. There is concern that crowds may not be as supportive of the city-teams when they move... Suresh Menon

It will be a little difficult to swallow at first. The players themselves have spoken about the confusion over ‘home and away’ matches. There is concern that crowds may not be as supportive of the city-teams when they move to play abroad. Experts on television have drawn derisive laughter over the question: ‘How do you expect a supporter in Yorkshire to get excited over a team from Chennai?’ But the fact is, Twenty20 and IPL are rewriting not just the rules of cricket, but carrying it forward into the new century. Many years ago in an essay on the future of sport, I had written that international sport would break away from the narrow confines of nationalism, time and place. The example I gave then were the Olympic Games, which was an exercise in jingoism (the examples are too well known to bear repetition here), and thanks to the arrival of sponsors and professional athletes might soon become a set of competitions among corporate houses rather than countries. Coke and Pepsi and Adidas, and many such would be in the happy position of being able to call upon their players from across the world to participate in their colours. This is already happening with Formula One. It is Ferrari versus McLaren versus Renault and so on. Drivers are professionals hired for their sporting prowess and not dependant on country of origin. It is Ferrari which wins, not Italy. The only concession to tradition is the playing of the national anthem, which, considering everything, is incongruous. ]]> Now IPL is set to take cricket in the direction of Formula One. This is sport in the post-modern world, not restricted by boundaries, geographical or otherwise. The IPL’s claim that city-teams and city-loyalties were being encouraged always sounded hollow anyway. Now, with the caravan moving to England or South Africa, the spin doctors will try to top their original spin doctoring. Cricket has long ceased to be a game over 22 yards, and become one that is played over 22 inches (or whatever is the size of your television set). This has already seen competitive matches in countries like Canada, UAE, Singapore, and Morocco which are hardly the bastions of the game. ‘Have television, will play’ is the motto, and it is in keeping with this that the IPL move - despite the tears being shed over it - appears to be inevitable. The security concerns have merely hastened the process of an international league conceived in India being taken around the world. That is why the franchisees are not particularly fussed. Firstly, there are enough Indians in most cricket playing countries who can fill a stadium. Then the Shah Rukh Khans and Preity Zintas can strut and wave for the cameras just as effectively from the Wanderers or the Oval. And audiences are just as likely to take to the mixed goodies that come with having players from different countries in the same team. Much as Bangalore loves Rahul Dravid, the crowd this year would be more keen on watching Kevin Pietersen. Kolkata worship Sourav Ganguly, but it is Brendon McCullum who sets EdenGardens alight. The IPL loyalties are more individual than team loyalties, more about continuous action regardless of who is providing it. The spin doctors got it wrong the first time. They should have focused on the boundaries (geographical) being erased rather than new ones being drawn. Cricket, by its nature, is conservative. But Twenty20 is only incidentally about cricket, and therefore is under no obligation to respect hoary traditions. This is not such a bad thing if the more things change (in Twenty20), the more they remain the same (in Test cricket). No First Test Blues for aggressive India tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2009:/longstop//146.10080 2009-03-21T16:22:36Z 2009-03-31T15:11:54Z Hamilton is important both for itself, and for what it says about the recent Indian teams. Perhaps in the past, apart from the problems of acclimatization, there was also the mind set which was happy to settle for a draw at best Suresh Menon

Briefly, in the last two away series, in Sri Lanka and Australia, India seemed to revert to type as poor travellers, losing the opening Tests in Colombo and Melbourne respectively. By winning in Hamilton they have arrested that brief trend, and got back on track with their record in the five years before that where they won first Tests in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and South Africa and drew the opener in Pakistan, West Indies, Bangladesh and England. For decades, India suffered from the First Test Blues where, after losing the first Test they found it impossible to get back into the series. In this decade, they have reversed that record to a large extent, and shaken off their reputation as poor starters. Hamilton, therefore, is important both for itself, and for what it says about the recent Indian teams. Perhaps in the past, apart from the problems of acclimatisation, there was also the mindset which was happy to settle for a draw at best. Captains were reluctant to take risks, and in cricket, as in life, fortune tends to favour the brave. ]]> MS Dhoni is an attacking captain, New Zealand have one of the weakest bowling attacks in international cricket while India have one of the strongest batting line-ups. If Hamilton is any indication, anything less than a 3-0 win for India would count as unsatisfactory. New Zealand's best bet is to prepare seaming tracks that suit their bowlers, and hope their batsmen fare better against India's medium-pacers. In 1967, India lost 4-0 to Australia, and skipper Tiger Pataudi said at the end of that series that "just as we were beginning to find our feet, the series was over." A 2-2 finish might have been a fairer result, but by the time the team arrived in New Zealand, India had found their bearings. They won 3-1, the last time they won a series in New Zealand. Statistically, it is still India's best performance abroad; it was also the first time India had won the first Test of an away series. One bad afternoon's cricket has spelt the end of India's dreams in the first Test of many series. Even in the 1990s, a decade by when professionalism in attitude and physical fitness is supposed to have finally arrived in India, they continued to lose the first Test with alarming regularity. Only twice in the decade, in Bangladesh and Zimbabwe did they win the first Test. In 22 series abroad, they lost the first Test 12 times. Before that, first-Test wins in Auckland in 1976 and Lord's in 1986, merely served to show up the overall poor record. Sourav Ganguly first began to reverse the trend, and now Dhoni has carried it forward. If one decade's positive cricket has served to erase more than half a century's uncertainty before that, then that might be the real significance of the Hamilton win. Twenty20 driving ODIs closer to extinction tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2009:/longstop//146.9921 2009-03-13T06:13:24Z 2009-03-31T15:11:54Z The one-day series in New Zealand is testimony to the amazing pace at which this form has shed its complexity, rid itself of formula and arrived at a simplicity that might, in the end, bring about its own ruin.... Suresh Menon

The one-day series in New Zealand is testimony to the amazing pace at which this form has shed its complexity, rid itself of formula and arrived at a simplicity that might, in the end, bring about its own ruin. A couple of years ago, the complaint against the 50-over game was that it had become too predictable, with a beginning, middle and end that, like Greek drama, followed a pattern. The technical committee of the ICC then went about introducing some complexity - the revolving substitute, the Powerplay - which it hoped would shake the game up and make it more interesting. However it is not legislation that is pushing one-day cricket now, but the influence of Twenty20 that is making it advance to the past. Rather abruptly, the game has been reduced to its simplest terms - hit into the stands. And the ease with which batsmen do this is making a mockery of tactics, field placings and bowling plans. There might be a shakeout soon enough, with bowlers righting the balance with something new - but history is against them. Bowlers haven’t had as much of an influence in the shorter game as they’ve had over Test cricket. In a sense, this is going back to the future, at least where Indian cricket is concerned. In the 1970s, when India were reluctant players of the then new one-day format, batsmen played as if hitting sixes and boundaries was all that the game was about. Other countries had already worked out that singles were important, and by the 1980s, Bob Simpson, the Australian coach had demonstrated that reducing the number of dot balls was crucial. Slog overs were designated thus. ]]> Bowlers, especially medium pacers in the early days, focused on not giving away runs rather than taking wickets. Then came the pinch hitter. But all these changes took time. Generally, it was the World Cup that showcased new tactics, which meant that the game evolved gradually over four years, and then got it all together on its biggest stage. But now Twenty20 has accelerated change, and appropriately enough, it is India, the world champions who are spearheading the new revolution. They have used the essence of the new format - with its frenetic hitting - and adapted it to the one-day international. It has worked so well that the threat of the extinction of the ODI has become very real. For, if the 50-over game is identical to Twenty20, then one of the two formats will become redundant, and the one most likely to be scrapped is the longer version. Survival for the three formats depends to a large extent on keeping themselves distinct, separate from one another. Can we really say all this after just a handful of matches? Yes, sometimes you see a world in a grain of sand. Bat and ball make a porno tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2009:/longstop//146.9847 2009-03-09T08:32:07Z 2009-03-31T15:11:54Z The philosopher Umberto Eco has written thus about pornographic movies, "whose true and sole aim is to stimulate the spectator's desire, from beginning to end, and in such a way that, while his desire is stimulated by scenes of... Suresh Menon

The philosopher Umberto Eco has written thus about pornographic movies, "whose true and sole aim is to stimulate the spectator's desire, from beginning to end, and in such a way that, while his desire is stimulated by scenes of various and varied copulations, the rest of the story counts for nothing. Substitute 'six-hitting' for 'copulations' and you have a pretty accurate description of the Christchurch one-day international. Thirty one sixes were hit on the day, and cricket, ostensibly a game between bat and ball was reduced to a game between bat and bat. This was cricket as pornography, in the finest traditions (if we can use that word for a format that is so young) of Twenty20. It was magnificent, they said of the charge of the Light Brigade (cannons to the left of them, etc), but it was not war. Likewise, the one-dayer was magnificent, but it was not cricket. How can it be when bowlers were around merely to play straight men to batsmen who supplied the punch with all the joy of stand-up comics?]]> I had written (on the ESPN website) before the start of the one-day series that it could see one-day cricket's first-ever double century. This was due to three factors - the size of the grounds, the form of the batsmen, and above all, the influence of Twenty20 where hitting into the stands was part of the fun. Instead of getting to the pitch of the ball, batsmen had developed the technique of getting the front foot out of the line and swinging through. It meant that straight sixes were hit with across bat, or, as Herschelle Gibbs once showed, batsmen could actually swivel and pull the ball to third man. Sadly, the bowlers are being taken out of the equation (although it might have been interesting to see how Daniel Vettori might have reacted to the carnage in Christchurch), and that cannot be good for the game. The one-day game, it has been said often enough, is about batting. And when teams make over 700 runs in a day in perfect batting conditions, with flair and flourish, bringing joy to spectators, it might be churlish to complain. Wasn't it wonderful to watch Tendulkar and Yuvraj and Raina and Ryder and McCullum? Yes, but as Eco said, a movie in which there was only copulation would be intolerable. Physically for the actors, and economically for the producer. And it also would be psychologically intolerable for the spectator. For the transgression to work, it must be played out against a background of normality. In porno movies, time is wasted by showing actors commuting or climbing stairs or changing clothes or whatever. In one-day cricket, the wickets, the run outs, the fielding play the same role - that of reminding us of normality. And then the sex - or the six - takes over. Dealing with the demons tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2009:/longstop//146.9769 2009-03-04T08:02:47Z 2009-03-31T15:11:54Z Suresh Menon



How the trauma has affected the talented, happy Sri Lankan cricketers will not be known immediately © AFP
I was in denial most of yesterday. Perhaps the terrorists didn’t actually mean to kill the players, I reasoned. Perhaps they merely wanted publicity. How could a rocket launcher miss from so close? Or a grenade refuse to go off? I was in denial because I had bought into the prevailing myth of the region - that cricketers would never be touched. Not in India, not in Sri Lanka, not even in Pakistan. No organization would want the adverse publicity. But terrorists are not in the public relations business. They have gone beyond attracting minds and hearts to their cause and are perpetrators of the 21st century’s greatest threat, the motiveless murder. Old certainties have been overthrown by new realities; you can be the most stylish batsman of your generation and still be shot at in someone else’s war. You can be the finest left-handed batsman in the world and still take shrapnel in your shoulder on your way to work. ]]> The physical scars will heal quickly enough. The players acted with remarkable dignity and displayed rare grace under pressure. The stories in the bus have begun to emerge - Kumar Sangakkara has written movingly about how he shifted his head slightly at one point and a bullet whizzed past his ear and thudded into the seat. In the evocative words of Joan Didion: ‘Life changes fast/Life changes in the instant/You sit down to dinner and life as you know it ends’. Or, you sit down in the team bus. How the trauma has affected this bunch of talented, happy cricketers will not be known immediately. They are like soldiers returning from war who have seen people die and know that they survived only because of enormous luck. Or, as Mahela Jayawardene said, because they had done something good in their previous lives. They will replay in their minds the moments of sheer helplessness when they became sitting ducks in a stationary vehicle while masked men opened fire. To come back from that experience and bowl the perfect offbreak or place a drive between point and cover will not be the easiest thing to do. If some of the laughter and joy goes out of Sri Lankan cricket, it would be a pity. Each player will have to deal with the demons himself, but they have one another to lean on - and men like Jayawardene and Sangakkara and Muralitharan to guide them. If players need group therapy or individual therapy to conquer their ghosts, the cricket board should pay. Or the ICC should. Or perhaps funds could be raised from across the cricket playing world. Indian captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni’s there-but-for-the-grace-of-god-go-I statement from New Zealand was brutally honest, if a trifle insensitive. But he knows now, as does every player anywhere in the world, that cricketers are no longer immune. Cricket reporting borrows heavily from terms used in warfare; sadly, now playing the game itself will be like warfare. Those in denial all these years have had a rude awakening. The un-people of ICL tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2009:/longstop//146.9693 2009-02-28T08:05:42Z 2009-03-31T15:11:54Z Suresh Menon
Anyone, anything to do with the ICL must be banned © Cricinfo Ltd
  Recently I found myself defending the principle of celebrating it, although I don’t think much of Valentine’s Day itself. Likewise, without being a fan of the ICL or indeed Twenty20 cricket, I have been defending its right to exist without being harassed by the Indian cricket board. Fascism, in one form or another, makes extremists of us all! If the Indian board had its way, it would, metaphorically speaking, dig a mass grave for the likes of Kapil Dev and anyone remotely connected with the ICL. Perhaps erase their impressive records from international cricket. Pretend they didn’t exist, make them un-people. How dare they take our copied idea and run with it originally? Anyone, anything to do with the ICL must be banned. Grocers who supply the Kapil Dev household with their monthly foodstuff must be banned. Butchers who supply the meat must be asked to leave Delhi. Anyone seen saying ‘Hello’ to ICL players, from taxi drivers to bookshop owners to airline pilots, must have their licenses revoked. No one whose initials are ICL - Inderjit Chandra Loknath, for example, or Ian Carmichael Lewis - should be allowed to play for India, or get his meat from the same butcher as Kapil Dev. Silly? Ridiculous? Perhaps. But not sillier or more ridiculous than the board getting all pompous and deciding that Sachin Tendulkar and Dinesh Karthik cannot play in a friendly Twenty20 game with a bunch of old timers just because a player involved, Hamish Marshall, once played in the ICL (he no longer does). What did the board achieve, apart from showing New Zealand Cricket who is boss (the cricket world knows that already), depriving the two Indians of some cricket, even if it is of the pointless Twenty20 variety, and robbing fans of the pleasure of watching them play? The board never misses an opportunity to stick it into its counterparts around the world. This is a strange mixture of arrogance and uncertainty; of egotism and diffidence. How much longer before it insists India will not tour a country unless a certain number of Indian victories are written into the contract? Or - the more likely scenario - the rest of the world gets together, tells the Indian board to stuff itself and gives up on the money (India’s trump card) in exchange for self-respect? India argues the rest cannot exist without them, but the reverse is also true: India cannot exist without the rest. The louder he talked of his honour, said Emerson, the faster we counted our spoons. The more often India speaks of principles, the louder grow the guffaws. This is the board which sees no clash of interests in its secretary (and perhaps others) owning a team that participates in its IPL. This is the board which has given itself the authority to clear the commentators who sing its praises on television. It would be a pity if, just as the players work themselves into the top position in the world rankings, the board implodes with its own self-importance and India become the pariahs of world cricket. ]]> Safety first, but at what cost? tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2008:/longstop//146.8533 2008-12-24T06:13:50Z 2009-03-31T15:11:54Z Suresh Menon



Having decided too early that it was not possible to get England out a second time, India decided to focus on individual records - the bane of Indian cricket © AFP
It is easy - and tempting - to be harsh on the two captains and their teams for the way the series ended, with a giggle preceded by a yawn. But these same teams had given us in Chennai one of the finest Test matches of recent years, and anyway, the series was never going to be about the cricket alone. To begin with, India and England have probably altered the meaning of the word ‘series’. Do two Tests constitute a series? Is this the precursor to the one-Test series? Captains have a responsibility towards Test cricket, especially at a time when interest in this form of the game is waning worldwide. But it cannot be the captains alone. Administrators have an even greater responsibility. The Indian cricket board pays lip service to Test cricket, but shows by its actions that its real interest is the shortest form of the game. Senior board members, who ought to be concerned with the big picture, run private IPL teams - and in this clash of interests, it is Test cricket which loses out. ]]> It is easy to criticise Mahendra Singh Dhoni for his apparent negative tactics in Mohali, but the fact remains that this is no time to play Test cricket in that part of the country at this time of the year. A Test match was reduced to a virtual four-day affair, and it was difficult to shake away the impression that India were only going through the motions. True, it was up to the 0-1 down England to do all the running, yet it was a trifle disconcerting to see the attacking, positive, cheerful, imaginative captain Dhoni do a Sunil Gavaskar by taking the early lead in a contest and then sitting on it. Once Virender Sehwag was run out in the second innings, India simply shut shop. It would have been good to see at least an attempt to win the Test. If safety first was the theme, then England would not have returned to India after the terror attacks. There is a time for clinging to safety and a time for taking on a challenge head on. Having decided early (too early, in fact) that it was not possible to get England out a second time, Dhoni decided to focus on individual records - the bane of Indian cricket. Perhaps had the full quota of play been available over the five days, this might not have happened. Playing under lights is an answer. Where lights are available, they must be used. Playing in Mohali was bad enough, but fobbing off spectators with a 50% contest is criminal. Especially when Test cricket needs special looking after. England came, they came back, and they gave us a good first Test. It meant that Indian cricket was able to send out a message to the rest of the world. All this was to the good. But two-match series where one match is a washout after three days’ play cannot be good for Test cricket. One of the arguments for Twenty20 cricket is that it will attract new fans to Test cricket. But when a ‘series’ is handled thus, it will do the reverse - frighten away genuine fans of Test cricket and drive them towards Twenty20. Or was that the plan all along? Dravid's inspirational comeback tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2008:/longstop//146.8479 2008-12-20T15:33:49Z 2009-03-31T15:11:54Z Following the debacle in Sri Lanka, the so-called Fabulous Four have now reasserted themselves. Ganguly, Laxman and Tendulkar had already shaken off the horrors of that tour ... Dravid has finally got there, but what a heart-wrenching trip it has been! Suresh Menon



It has been torture watching this pillar of Indian cricket go through a phase when he couldn’t do anything right © Getty Images
After his successful Test debut following the car accident that cost him his right eye, Tiger Pataudi was asked when he thought he could make runs with only one eye. “When I saw the English bowling,” replied the player who was then not yet 21. Whether Rahul Dravid thought he could make a century when he saw this English team and climb out of the hole he had been inhabiting in recent weeks is difficult to tell. After scores of 3 and 4 in the previous Test, he was probably among only a handful of people who thought that a century was round the corner. Luckily that handful included his captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni, who made the pertinent point that Dravid would continue to bat at No. 3 in Mohali because shifting him to No. 5 would mean India had already lost three wickets. It also included the selection committee, four of whose members had played for India and were thus able to empathise with a player of proven ability struggling to find his touch.]]> His fans can heave a sigh of relief. It has been torture watching this pillar of Indian cricket go through a phase when he couldn’t do anything right. But it has been inspiring to watch him get out of the slump using the same methods that have got him over 10,000 runs in Tests. The temptation to change your game is strongest when things are not going right, but Dravid had to bat like Dravid and rediscover his touch. Anything else would have lacked authenticity. All of India seems to have been praying for him - not just his parents who, if newspaper reports are to be believed, visited a shrine in Mangalore to offer prayers. Soon after he completed his century, I got a phone call from a friend taking credit for the turnaround. “I didn’t move from my seat from the first ball he played till the last. I wore the same clothes, did everything in the same order over the two days,” he said in all seriousness. This is one of fandom’s oldest superstitions. By the same token, I am sure there were those who missed his century because they didn’t watch the first day’s play and so couldn’t watch the second day in case they brought their hero bad luck. It is not true that only the media were on Dravid’s case; those who were most vicious in their criticism will point out that few batsmen have been given as many chances to come good as Dravid has. But 800-plus runs in the calendar year is not the worst batting performance in international cricket. Dravid was being judged by the standards he has set himself, and by that reckoning he fell short. More to the point, with every failure, he seemed to withdraw deeper into himself, and go to areas that he ought not to have revisited. The dark areas where failures, shortcomings and bad days in the office make their opposites seem like mirages. Following the debacle in Sri Lanka, the so-called Fabulous Four have now reasserted themselves. Ganguly, Laxman and Tendulkar had already shaken off the horrors of that tour ... Dravid has finally got there, but what a heart-wrenching trip it has been! Harbhajan should take on a mentoring role tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2008:/longstop//146.8432 2008-12-16T04:40:42Z 2009-03-31T15:11:54Z Is Harbhajan suffering from the No. 1 syndrome, the pressure of being the top spinner in the side? Suresh Menon



He needs to dine at the high table with the captain, planning strategy and ensuring that India’s pre-eminent position as the home of spin is retained © Getty Images
During the Chennai Test, Harbhajan Singh went past Lance Gibbs’ aggregate to become the second most successful offspinner in the game behind Muttiah Muralitharan. For his 309 wickets, Gibbs played 79 Tests over 18 years; Harbhajan’s 310 have come in ten years and 73 Tests. He is only 28 and given different circumstances might have been pushing for the captaincy. That question does not arise now, with Mahendra Singh Dhoni, a younger man in charge and inspiring the team to famous victories. But on the evidence of the Chennai Test, the question that needs to be asked is this: Is Harbhajan suffering from the No. 1 syndrome, the pressure of being the top spinner in the side? He is trying too hard, bowling too fast and too flat and on a track he should have thrived on, he finished with just four wickets in the match. India’s victory and yet another failure by Rahul Dravid will ensure that the focus will be elsewhere, but India’s leading spinner needs to introspect. He needs to play the kind of mentoring role to the younger spinners that Anil Kumble did when Harbhajan himself was making his debut. He needs to dine at the high table with the captain, planning strategy and ensuring that India’s pre-eminent position as the home of spin is retained. But none of the big picture contribution will be forthcoming if the bowler lacks the confidence that comes from having wickets in the bag.]]> With Kumble, Harbhajan formed one of the most successful partnerships - in the 54 Tests they played together, they claimed 501 wickets and helped India to 21 victories. That is a terrific record. Yet Harbhajan did not bowl in Chennai like a bowler with over 300 wickets in his bag. Traditionally English batsmen, unlike the Australians, have played offspin better than they have legspin. This, far from acting as a spur to the main spinner seems to have discouraged him, and the focus has been on keeping down the runs. When the teams reassemble for the Mohali Test on Friday, they might decide to replace a spinner with a medium pacer if the track promises more for the seamer. Ironically, the respective spinners heading for the chopping block then might be the two leading men – India’s Harbhajan and England’s Monty Panesar. Both spinners seemed to forget in Chennai that they were in the team to take wickets, not just to keep down the runs. Spin bowling is about taking chances, about challenging the batsman into making mistakes, drawing them forward to drive the ball that doesn’t get there or tricking them into misreading the spin. Harbhajan’s predictability does not augur well for the Indian team. He is an attacking bowler by temperament and technique. And he needs to rediscover the touch that has made him so successful so far. He is the country’s number one spinner - he must bowl like one. Does Dravid have one final innings left in him? tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2008:/longstop//146.8385 2008-12-13T13:08:57Z 2009-03-31T15:11:54Z Seldom can a fourth innings have been so important - for country and individual - as the one that is about to unfold before us Suresh Menon



Can Rahul Dravid work his way out of a slump? © AFP
One of the saddest sights in sport is the ageing, once-great player struggling to come to terms with his game in full public glare. Struggling architects who have run out of ideas can repeat themselves or rely on their juniors, struggling politicians can hire a PR agency and bluff their way back into power. But struggling sportsmen have no such cushion: when the goals dry up or the runs stop coming there is no place to hide. The past is no guide to the future. The present is all. Sport is cruel. And right now Rahul Dravid, one of the few players of his generation both loved and respected, finds himself facing the question that two of his contemporaries, Sourav Ganguly and Anil Kumble, thought had only one answer. Ganguly gave himself a tension-free Australia series by announcing at the start of it that it would be his last. Kumble’s end was hastened by injury. Even his worst critics, however, hope that over the next two days, as India begin a fourth-innings chase, Dravid rediscovers his old form. He might still decide to quit, but at least that will be out of choice and not because of circumstances. In the recent past, he has been a piece of classical music played at the wrong speed. Even when he has looked good, every note in place, he has suddenly faltered, and even when he hasn’t faltered he has looked like going off key any moment.]]> At 35, Dravid cannot look outside his natural game for answers. He is not likely to change his game and hit himself out of trouble as he sees the light at the end of the tunnel begin to flicker ominously. Dravid needs to find the solutions playing like Dravid, and time is running out. His catching is beginning to let him down too. It was strange to see him field on the leg-side boundary today. He will be the first to admit that he has had the support of the selectors and his captain. The slide began in England a year ago, with whatever went wrong causing him to give up captaincy. The man who consistently averaged above 55 averages around 30 this year. The thoroughbred - to change our analogy - is turning into a cart-horse. It is not a pretty sight. Does he have one final match-winning (or match-saving) innings in him? The romantics will hope he does. One good innings is all he needs, say friend and foe alike, but with every failure hope is beginning to recede. Not for the first time, a visiting team written off before the start of the series is about to upset all calculations. Seldom can a fourth innings have been so important - for country and individual - as the one that is about to unfold before us. Let's give this clash what it deserves tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2008:/longstop//146.8326 2008-12-10T08:29:28Z 2009-03-31T15:11:54Z Suresh Menon



The players are putting on a show to help us regain our poise, we must respond by allowing them to find their own peace © AFP
Cricket often stands for something beyond itself. It has been the symbol of an empire and the symbol of the colonies striking back. Cricket matches are seldom bereft of symbolic content; the baggage of history ensures that. No India-Pakistan series, for example, can ever be about the cricket alone. The game takes the shape of the vessel it is poured into - the vessel made from the prevailing political and social thinking of the period. Today in India it stands for anti-terrorism. It is a heavy responsibility. Few matches in recent years have had as much symbolic power as the one set to commence in Chennai. It will be seen, at the very least, as a match between England’s bulldog spirit and India’s resilience. Cliché, yes, but clichés become clichés because they happen to be true. And before we are through, other symbols are bound to be imposed on the game. Sport is convenient that way. ]]> Chennai, a city which knows both its history and its cricket, is bound to give the English captain a roar of approval and gratitude when he goes out to toss. Merely by turning up England have won many hearts. Some even think they have won a victory already regardless of what happens in the two-match series. Still, before the umpire shouts ‘Play’, we need to dust the game of its excessive symbolism and drag it back to its slot as a competitive sport between two countries. So far the focus has been on the English team - their generosity, their sacrifice, their spirit - but the Indian team has had to deal with its demons too. Some of the players have lost people they knew in the terrorist attacks; like the rest of us, all of them will have experienced a sickening feeling in the pits of their stomachs while watching the events unfold on television. They too will have problems concentrating on the job at hand. Sachin Tendulkar might have played 154 Test matches, but even he will have to make a mighty effort to push the events that paralysed his city and the country into the back of his mind and focus on doing what he does best. It is a tough call. The players are putting on a show to help us regain our poise, we must respond by allowing them to find their own peace on the cricket field. India have a responsibility to tour Pakistan tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2008:/longstop//146.8273 2008-12-06T12:48:53Z 2009-03-31T15:11:54Z If India understand the frustration of being an outcast and the joy that comes with acceptance, then they have a responsibility to tour Pakistan next month Suresh Menon

England have another 5000 or so kilometres to travel before they land in Chennai and hopefully someone will get close enough to the team to recognise the players and confirm that they have indeed arrived. Security is bound to be a bigger bugbear than the traditional Indian welcome which comprises confusion and noise in equal measure, but the players are not likely to complain. The Indian captain, we must remember, has an entourage of 22 policemen protecting him and an escort car every time he drives out of his home - so we can understand the scale of these things. According to newspaper reports, Mahendra Singh Dhoni is unhappy with this meagre protection, and expressed his unhappiness by ditching his security and riding to the airport on his own. Kevin Pietersen is unlikely to do likewise. ]]> The reactions to England’s return have ranged from the cynical to the upbeat. On the sceptical side of the ledger are such reasons as money, bargaining chips at the IPL, ensuring that the Champions League is not affected, while on the positive side are support for a country which has suffered, a way to tell the terrorists off and belief that whatever happens, the show must go on. Pessimists have been quick to point out that a cancellation might have split the cricket world along racial lines, a line of argument one has been hearing for sometime now, whether the sticking point is yet another Indian being hauled up for misbehaviour or an occasional protest about the way India is running world cricket. Perhaps there is no single reason for England’s return. Even those who honestly believe they are going ahead with the series in order to cock a snook at terrorists cannot be unaware of the business advantages of such a stand. And those who hope this will mean the IPL will look kindly upon a short-term individual contract would be just as pleased to be lauded for seeing the larger picture. Yet, whatever the reason or combination of reasons, India have reason to be grateful to the players for coming back. It is not yet official - that will happen when Reg Dickason gives the all-clear - but when they do, sacrificing quality time with the family at home for the uncertainty in a foreign country, the Indian board must acknowledge the enormity of the decision. It will be the first step towards showing the world that neither the Commonwealth Games nor the World Cup in 2011 needs to be in danger of being taken away from India. Perhaps mixed with the relief will be somewhat warmer feelings towards a neighbour whose cricket has suffered because no one wants to go there. If India understand the frustration of being an outcast and the joy that comes with acceptance, then they have a responsibility to tour Pakistan next month. Things might change between now and then, but in principle at least India must accept that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We ought not to forget tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2008:/longstop//146.8164 2008-11-29T08:07:55Z 2009-03-31T15:11:54Z Suresh Menon



'If England are forced to return, and come without some of their top players, we will understand' © Getty Images
Either England return to India to play two Test matches and show the terrorists that sport is eternal and sportsmen, nay, a country cannot be bullied into submission or they stay back in England because the situation is fluid, safety is paramount and motivation is low. For most, it is a black-and-white situation. Ranged against human emotions and the futility of sport in times of danger are the symbolism of regained strength and the power of sport in times of danger. What happened in 1984 when Mrs Gandhi was assassinated or in 2005 after the London bombings (both times a cricket tour went ahead) is irrelevant because in neither case was a specific group of people targeted. Any reassurance from security agencies can only sound hollow after what they failed to do to prevent the Mumbai attacks in the first place. ]]> I am not so sure that terrorists are particularly impressed by a show of normalcy - it is the consolation of those who have been attacked to believe that by carrying on as before they are thumbing a nose at those who would disrupt their lives. Terrorists don’t deal in symbols, they deal in death, their own and that of as many people as they can kill. It is not as if they or their leaders sitting far away say, “Our Mumbai mission has been a failure because England and India are playing a Test match anyway.” Sport does have the power to unite people especially in times of disaster. By the same argument, it has the power to make people forget. And therein lies the danger. We ought not to forget. We ought not to pretend that things are honky-dory when they aren’t. Also, a Test series in which the players’ hearts and minds are not involved is no good for the game. There is something to be said for the morale-boosting effects of normalcy on the public, of course. But at what cost? Those who have made the argument for England returning for the Tests - a surprisingly large number of Englishmen have said they should - feel they owe it to the Indian people who have suffered. This is a noble sentiment, but irrelevant in a larger sense. A nation has suffered, and the national debates cannot be sidetracked by issues of whether India should play three seamers or two. Cricket has the power to make us forget, but we ought not to forget. Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it. The Indian board’s fear of losing its primacy in world cricket is a real one. That is the only way to understand some of the more insensitive comments made by its vice-president, Lalit Modi. Millions of dollars are at stake, especially in the Twenty20 versions like the Champions League and the IPL, and when he says “we shouldn’t allow such attacks to disrupt our determination”, it is not difficult to read between the lines. Depending on which side your bread is buttered you can see a resumption of the series as a way of expressing solidarity with the people of India or telling them that in their hour of need we shall continue to laugh and play as usual. Luckily, in recent years, the views of players are being sought before a cricket board makes a decision. The England and Wales Cricket Board has been bullied by the Indian board of late, but not even Modi can tell them which players to pick. If England are forced to return, and come without some of their top players, we will understand. Only the other day an official was screaming on TV that India should not tour Pakistan because he could not conceive of the consequences “if a single hair on Tendulkar’s head” was touched. Kevin Pietersen’s hair deserves the same consideration. Enter killer instinct, exit quotas tag:blogs.cricinfo.com,2008:/longstop//146.8069 2008-11-24T06:05:11Z 2009-03-31T15:11:54Z The killer instinct and the quota instinct - the lack of one and the existence of the other - have been analysed threadbare. Now, gradually, Indian cricket seems to have ingested the one and eliminated the other Suresh Menon



Sourav Ganguly: big on killer instinct, and backed players regardless of where they came from © AFP
It is possible that we are witnessing the erasure of some of the cliches associated with Indian cricket. The lack of a killer instinct - for so long a catch-all phrase used as excuse for defeats - is not heard any more. Both the Test series against Australia and the one-day series against England have shown that whatever instincts the Indian team might lack, killer instinct isn’t one of them. But there is a wider, happier trend emerging. For years, what many considered a bane of Indian cricket was the “quota” system. Five selectors, one from each geographical region, each with his own compulsions, each with limited knowledge of players in the other zones, picked teams that paid a tribute to the quota system. Many players from weaker zones were accommodated in the national side merely to keep that section of the country happy. Often a better player from another zone was overlooked because there were already too many players from his zone in the team. ]]> The cry to delink geography from cricket went unheeded. Appoint three selectors (regardless of their zones), said those unhappy with the system, and give them the job. But it never happened. While watching the Bangalore match against England, someone pointed out that there was no home boy to cheer for - no Dravid, no Kumble, no Uthappa. But it went further. There was no player from the South in the Indian team. So why should this be a good sign, you ask? It is a good sign because it means no player has been sacrificed for the quota. Globalisation in one sphere seems to have inspired true nationalism in another (although it would be more correct to call it professionalism). The best team, regardless of zonal affiliations - the dream of the objective cricket watcher has finally come to pass. India have played four matches against England without a single player from the south. S Badrinath was south’s last representative (and doubtless he will come into the side now) to have played. That was against Sri Lanka in Colombo. What makes all this very significant, and cause for rejoicing is that the chairman of the selectors, Kris Srikkanth is from the south. The killer instinct and the quota instinct - the lack of one and the existence of the other - have been analysed threadbare. Now, gradually, Indian cricket seems to have ingested the one and eliminated the other. Former captain Sourav Ganguly should take some of the credit for bringing about this twin revolution. He was big on killer instinct, and backed players regardless of where they came from. Success strengthened the captain’s hands - as Dhoni who reportedly had reservations about a recent selection or two - will discover with every passing success.