99.94

Some great videos on the great man to mark his 100th birth anniversary here, on a blog rather brilliantly called 99.94. May be we should’ve celebrated the birthday one day ahead to celebrate that tantalising test batting average of the man. Here's the link again.

The men are back

As the soap opera called the IPL meanders towards a conclusion not too many people care for, a couple of interesting test series seem to be unfolding. Well, interesting because there is at least some test cricket happening. And interesting because of the way the tests seem to be panning out. Two contrasting match-ups, one evenly matched no-contest and the other turning out to be a surprisingly matched slug fest.

I suppose it takes an IPL to make an England-New Zealand series seem exciting. A journey man team against a workmanlike team (take your pick on which team is which). A contest (such as it is) between two teams more likely to hope against defeat than bet on winning. And if the weather came to the rescue of both the teams at Lord’s, there was no such respite at Old Trafford, as the match ended in England’s favour on the last day. But thanks to the general ineptness of both teams as collective entities, it turned out to be a fairly even battle. The match card suggests England won, so it must be so. Does that mean they have turned the corner? Are they ready for the next season’s Ashes? Well, Andrew McGlashan hits the nail in the head when he suggests that England mustn’t hide behind victory.

A similar sentiment is not unlikely to prevail in Australia. They embarked on the Caribbean tour thinking all they need to do was to land up at the appointed time to wrap up the series in a clean sweep. Well, how else would you explain the selection of Simon Katich and Stuart McGill? Any way, an overnight Aussie card of 18 for 4 was as chilling as it was delicious to savour. Unfortunately, Andrew Symonds bludgeoned his way to a bit, and with a fairly healthy first innings lead to build on, the Aussies have almost (as I write this) got to the finish line first. Are the cracks beginning to show? Is the opening pair (even after Mathew Hayden’s return) suspect? Notwithstanding the presence of such he-men as Ricky Ponting, Michael Hussey and Symonds, is their middle order just a touch soft? Do opposition teams just need to see off Brett Lee and Stuart Clark and feast on the rest of the Aussie bowling? Or is this just a glitch in the Aussie juggernaut? Will they wipe England out again next year?

Ah, test cricket. Where were you all these days?

Book Review: If Better is Possible: John Buchanan

I did not pick up John Buchanan’s book because I expected it to be a cricketing classic along the lines of The Art of Captaincy or Beyond a Boundary. I picked it up because I wanted to peek into the dressing room of the Australian team; I picked it up because I wanted some inside stories and trivia on some of those legends whom Buchanan strung together into arguably the greatest team ever to step on to the cricket ground; I picked it up because I thought Buchanan would throw light on some of the whispers that came out about his relationship with Shane Warne, Ricky Ponting and some of the other Aussie luminaries.

Talk about over-expectation. If Better is Possible is not even a book on cricket. Yes, you read that right: It is not even a book on cricket. IPL notwithstanding, it is common knowledge that Buchanan intends to focus on a non-cricketing career as a business consultant. If Better is Possible is his calling card for that profession. The cover page descriptor, The winning strategies from the coach of Australia’s most successful cricket team, is as revealing of the shaky language in the book as it is of the book’s subtle attempt at a crossover from cricket to business.

The book is a loose collection of Buchanan’s reflections on different aspects of coaching, and his attempts at tying those to business management. The constant jump from cricket to business is unsubtle, irritating, interfering and forced for the most part.

Buchanan’s career as Australia’s coach (1999 to 2007) has been fairly uninterrupted by failure. The two big blips they’ve had in this streak were the 2001 series in India and the 2005 Ashes. Here’s Buchanan’s take on these two.

First the 2001 series in India, specifically the Kolkata test.

The Aussies take a first innings lead of 274 and Steve Waugh decides to enforce the follow-on, because Australia, as is their wont, want to “be aggressive, dominate and bury the opposition.” Every one knows what happened, VVS Laxman and Rahul Dravid, and then Harbhajan Singh. So what does St. John have to say?

There were some factors outside our control which conspired against us, such as India changing their batting order which allowed VVS Laxman to open after being 50 odd not out in the first innings, some dubious umpiring decisions, a rampant and highly charged Eden Gardens stadium, incessant heat, and ultimately two players, Laxman and Rahul Dravid, who played possibly the best innings of their careers.

Sounds a bit like the Englishmen after yet another defeat, don’t you think? Well, to be fair, the Englishmen put one past Buchanan’s Aussies, didn’t they, in the 2005 Ashes? How does Buchanan explain that?

Jamie Siddons had just taken over as assistant coach from Tim Nielsen for the Ashes. And to facilitate Siddons to get to understand the players better, good old John decided on a strategy: to pull back from the players so I could spend more time being strategic about our preparation, our opposition and about finding tasks and experiences to expand the horizons of the players. One part of his strategy succeeded: Siddons got to know the players well. But it turned out to be a case of winning a battle but losing a war. As the great man confesses, “the situation demanded the opposite approach.” There is something about some sight being 20-20, isn’t there? Of course, there were other reasons as well, as always.

We began the series not fully prepared for a range of reasons – some in our control, some not.

When you lose, there are always factors outside your control, aren’t there?

To be entirely honest, Buchanan does throw light on one character who plays but a cameo in the book. Before you start salivating, the character in question is not an Australian, but an Englishman. Buchanan had just taken over as coach of Middlesex in 1998. Mark Ramprakash had also been made captain just that season, and John and Mark meet for the first time. And Mark says: “You don’t change the rules of the club. The players don’t change the rules of the club. If there are to be changes, I am the only one to make them!”

The Buchanan staples are all there – the emphasis on processes over results, the obsession with “taking the game to the next level”, the importance of rituals, the elevation of Justin Langer to the same level as Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath and such like. The staples of a bad writer are in full evidence as well – a zigzag disjointed narrative, repetition of incidents, incomplete examples, careless language, the cardinal sin of telling-not-showing…

That the most interesting statement in the entire book is not John’s own, but a quote from Glenn McGrath (on the eve of the final of the 2007 World Cup, Pigeon says, “the final is why we are here”) tells its own story. If Better is Possible is a book begging to not be written.

Beau who?

If there’s one aspect of the game the Englishmen have bettered the Aussies in over the last few years (no, seriously, there is something), it is left-arm spin. Monty Panesar may not have had a very successful Ashes series the last time over, but if you consider him and Phil Tufnell and Derek Underwood long before that, they surely have had better international success than the Aussies have had, notwithstanding the odd turns of Allan Border, Michael Bevan and Michael Clarke. And in the anodyne tradition of Ray Bright, Murray Bennett and Tom Hogan (Am I missing someone? That tells its own story, doesn't it?) comes Beau Casson, a left-arm finger spinner from that Mecca of spin bowling, Perth.

Beau has been named as the second spinner to that fitness fanatic, Stuart McGill, so it is fair to imagine he won’t be in the starting line-up for the first test at Kingston, Jamaica on May 22. But what are the odds that he may be in the fray for the second test? Well, McGill can injure his wrist again; or he can miss practice and upset the team management; or he can show dissent on the field for being given out 48 short of a well deserved maiden test half century. And hey presto, test player number 401, Beau Casson. The only thing about it is that the opponents are the West Indies, and so before Beau comes on to bowl, the tail will be in. A few days ago and one could have bet on Shivnarine Chanderpaul holding one end strong, but now he may well have gone off to attend an awards ceremony in one of the other islands.

Speaking of Chanderpaul, Australia have included their version of the West Indian (in terms of batting elegance), Simon Katich in the squad. Surely this is a serious message to Ricky Ponting, considering Peter Roebuck’s suggestions not so long ago that Katich should take over as captain of the Australian team? Considering Ponting has not been in the best of batting form of late, this added pressure will surely be a test to his character and leadership skills. Oh, what an exciting series this is going to be!

It’s an ill wind . . .

It wasn’t quite easy watching the proceedings at the ‘Gabba, and it was really a relief that the weather interfered rather more decisively than it tends to in England. It was a pointless game in a pointless one-day series. (It is a relief to remember that this is to be the last tri-series tournament in the annual Australian cricket calendar, at least until the BCCI realises how to make money off it). No, I’m not saying this because I’m an Indian and the Indians didn’t quite cover themselves with glory with their batting performance. Yes, I did watch Brett Lee bowl give yet another great exhibition of fast bowling. No, it’s not because the game ended resultless. But… you know what I mean.

Yet, and trust a die-hard cricket follower (especially on an otherwise eventless Sunday) to find something to talk about even in a game like this…

It was the third over of the Australian innings. Irfan Pathan was bowling to James Hopes. He starts with a dot ball; then bowls a real wide down the leg side, follows up with another good dot ball; and then disappears to the fence for the next three. Then he comes up to bowl the last ball of the over. It was another delivery on the leg stump, and brushed past the batsman’s pads. Hopes attempted to tickle it to fine-leg but missed. The umpire spread his arms wide. Groan. Pathan had to bowl that one again.

But the batsman’s reaction was instructive. Hopes was practising the shot again and berating himself for missing out on what could have been a certain boundary. If the ball was that close to being hit for a boundary, is it fair that it be declared a wide just because the batsman missed it?

I know it’s a tight call with these leg stump wides, but may be they should be treated like lbws? That is, the umpires have to decide whether the ball was really un-hittable rather than just going by the mechanical definition of a ball just going down the leg side? I know the current trend is to take away as much decision-making as possible from the on-field umpires but surely there are some things they can decide on? And only they can decide on?

Uncomfortable times for India?

It’s interesting to see India not being able to dislodge Australia’s new Sir Don, Mitchell Johnson (career average 108 as I write) and Brad Hogg at the Adelaide Oval today. May be they’re not complaining about it. After all, if India get Australia all out soon, they will have a difficult hour and a bit to negotiate. What with Australia’s bowlers fresh after a two-day rest, with a new ball and in fading light; and an Irfan Pathan coming in after two tiring days on the field. Did anyone say that the lack of a specialist opener will not affect India? Oh oh, as I am about to upload this, Johnson falls and leaves Sir Don alone at the top again.

Australia happy with 2–1?

Matthew Hayden speaking to the media after the third day’s play at Adelaide (emphasis mine).

They wanted us to be attacking. It was indicated by the way they didn’t take the new ball. It was perfect for us to bat time in the game. The way they’ve bowled has been perfect for us not to lose. If it’s wide outside off, we don't have to play. Australia are 2-1 up in the series and that’s the way we definitely want it to stay.

It seems to suggest the Australians are playing for a draw, but more than that, does it hint at a certain unheard-of defensiveness in the Aussies? When was the last time they played for a draw?

It is the same Australia (well, almost; if you disagree, that makes its own point) that chased down a target of 168 in 36 overs (they knocked it off in a ball shy of 33) against England in the last season at the same Adelaide Oval, a game they didn’t really need to win, having won the first test and this being just the second of five. It is the same Australia that pummelled South Africa at the Sydney Cricket Ground, chasing 287 in about 70 overs (they breezed through half way down the 61^st over), a game they just needed to draw to take the series.

Is this Hayden statement a tribute to India? Or am I just reading too much into it?

Adam's contribution

Whatever else he did (and you don’t need to read the different pieces on cricket sites and in the blogosphere to know that he has done quite a bit), Adam Gilchrist has ensured one lasting change in international cricket: the wicket-keeper can no longer be a just a useful batsman and an irritant for the opposition. (A wicket-keeper who is a rabbit with the bat? You are a sly Englishman, aren’t you?). Today’s wicket-keeper has to be a specialist batsman first. No longer for us the Alan Knotts, the Syed Kirmanis, the Ian Healys and the Ian Smiths. Instead, we have the likes of Mark Boucher, Kumar Sangakkara, Tatenda Taibu and MS Dhoni. The last-mentioned may not be the best wicket-keeper in his country, but he is perhaps their best wicket-keeper-batsman. Even Kamran Akmal, that ultimate anti-wicket-keeper, is persisted with by Pakistan, purely for his batting skills. And England, er, who is their wicket-keeper now?

A lot to play for at Adelaide

Australia may have retained the Border-Gavaskar trophy, but there still seem to be too many things at stake in the Adelaide test starting tomorrow. India has a chance to end with a 2-2 scoreline and thus enable this series to lay claim as one of the tightest contests ever. Australia, on the other hand, will go all out to prove that they can be nice and win. That’s as far as the cricket on the field is concerned. There’s as much, if not more, off the field as well.

The “monkey-calling” hearing comes up a day after the test, and the response to it could well be governed by the Adelaide, and hence the series, result. It will be a matter of eternal debate, but the correlation between the series result and the hearing verdict is bound to be discussed at least until the next big controversy.

The big five of Indian cricket – Anil Kumble, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Sourav Ganguly and VVS Laxman – are surely playing their last test match in the country they have thrilled and tormented in equal measure over the years. And considering only Tendulkar is staying back for the one-dayers, the others will be stepping on to an Australian ground for the final time. And the likes of Matthew Hayden and Adam Gilchrist may be facing off against India in the test arena for the last time as well.

Well, the match is just a few hours away, but the game is already on. Ricky Ponting is trying his best to hide his grin when he claims that Australia has not ruled out Shaun Tait from the playing eleven. So the Australian eleven is clear then – Brad Hogg for Tait and Matthew Hayden back in for Chris Rogers.

The Indians, on the other hand, don’t necessarily possess Ponting’s media savviness and sense of humour, so when they make noises about playing five bowlers, you tend to take them a bit more seriously and worry. I hope sanity prevails come match day morning and they get back to their 6 + Dhoni + 4 composition.

The old adage says that if you can’t win with six batsmen, you can’t do so with seven either. I think the same applies to the bowling as well – if four bowlers are not good enough, a fifth isn’t going to turn the tables for you. One of them is likely to be under-bowled any way.

Moreover, look at the imbalance that a five bowler line-up creates for India. If Wasim Jaffer is dropped for Harbhajan, India starts with one opener short. Revert to Dravid as opener? That, I reckon, was one of the key factors that cost India the first two tests. And Dravid at No. 3 was also a key player in the WACA win. What about Irfan Pathan as opener? Pathan’s decline before the recent comeback can be attributed quite a bit to his ever-changing position in the batting order in the Greg Chappell regime. Does India want to re-live that all over again?

Hype and tripe aside, India will have to focus on the game to the exclusion of the previous one as far as selection goes. And there really is only one change India needs to make. Draft Harbhajan Singh in for Ishant Sharma (their job expectations are similar, aren’t they – just get Ponting out?). I know Jaffer hasn’t quite been a success on this tour, but getting a low-on-big-match-practice Dinesh Karthik into such a pressure cooker atmosphere isn’t a great idea either.

There is another, more daring option if India dares to think unconventional. Drop Jaffer for Harbhajan, and bring in Karthik for MS Dhoni. Did I hear gasps of shock, awe and horror? Look at it objectively. Karthik is as good a wicket-keeper as Dhoni, and though he was not an opener by choice, he has moulded himself into an adhesive one over the last few seasons, and an adhesive partner to the slippery Virender Sehwag could be just what the doctor ordered for India. And it might just be the spur required to get a glorious swansong century from Sourav Ganguly.

Anil Kumble is known to be a cool-headed man. Tomorrow morning, when he exchanges team lists with Ricky Ponting, we will know whether the heat of the occasion has got to him.

So how will the next five days pan out? As the good lord quite often decides, the more the hype, the less the real excitement. So we could well be in for a damp squib of a game, in the form of a high-scoring draw, more likely a rain-affected draw or, most likely a ruthless one-sided victory for Australia, as they lay the marker for the next 16-test winning streak.

Terry’s question and Berry’s spin

It’s proving to be quite an education trying to decipher what different people have to say about Australia’s defeat at the WACA last week. Terry Alderman, that smiling England-slaying assassin of the 1980s, had me scurrying to my favourite search engine when he ordered “an inquisition into why India have been able to swing the ball and Australia haven’t” in a Herald Sun story.

My first understanding of the word “inquisition” was Inquisition (with the initial capital letter), the Roman Catholic Church’s strategy to suppress heresy and anti-religious thought and sentiment. The Spanish Inquisition came in as a logical next connection.

Surely Alderman wasn’t suggesting that the Indians did something heretical by swinging the ball? Or the Australians by not swinging it? Surely swing or the lack of it is not against the (how I hate to use this much-abused and well-past-its-expiry-date expression) spirit of the game?

Then I did what I should have done in the first place. I referred to the good old dictionary. The trusty favourite, www.dictionary.com, gave the following definitions for inquisition.

1. an official investigation, esp. one of a political or religious nature, characterized by lack of regard for individual rights, prejudice on the part of the examiners, and recklessly cruel punishments.
2. any harsh, difficult, or prolonged questioning.
3. the act of inquiring; inquiry; research.
4. an investigation, or process of inquiry.
5. a judicial or official inquiry.
6. the finding of such an inquiry.
7. the document embodying the result of such inquiry.
8. (initial capital letter) Roman Catholic Church.
1. a former special tribunal, engaged chiefly in combating and punishing heresy. Compare Holy Office.
2. Spanish Inquisition.

I saw where I slipped. I could only think of the last definition from this list. And good old Terry was probably thinking of meaning no. 3. Or was he? Boy, this game is proving to be tough to follow. Speaking of which brings to mind Scyld Berry’s piece in The Telegraph a couple of days ago.

The true Englishman that he is, Berry sees India’s performance at the WACA as an eye-opener for what England can do when facing Australia in the Ashes in 2009.

In planning their strategy for 2009, England need to think about slow, turning pitches, negating Australia's advantage in pure pace and playing to their own strengths of swing and left-arm spin.

The swing factor is understandable, considering the success (albeit one-off so far) of RP Singh, Ishant Sharma and Irfan Pathan at the WACA, and England’s undeniable strength in that department, in the form of Mathew Hoggard, Ryan Sidebottom et al. But spin?

England hasn’t had a glorious track record with spinners since Derek Underwood a few decades ago (okay, Phil Tufnell for all you romantics). And while Monty Panesar is good, I’m not sure I’d plan my team strategy around him yet. Even if England plays its cards right and gets Saqlain Mushtaq into the squad, I am not sure the idea will still have enough legs. Saqlain’s test record for Pakistan hasn’t quite been outstanding, with an average almost touching 30 over a 49-test career. Moreover, Saqlain is bound to be rusty – after so many years of relaxed cricket with Surrey and Sussex, coming up against the hard-as-nails Aussies in the big cauldron of test-match cricket may be just a bit beyond him. But all ye Englishmen can be romantic and hope for fairy tales.

On a different note, how would the cricket world react if England does indeed manage to create slow, turning pitches? The sub-continental nations, especialling India and Sri Lanka, have always been “accused” of providing turners and thus creating an unfair advantage for themselves; will it be acceptable if England does so? I remember a saying about sauce and geese, but then like with “inquisition,” I may be looking up the wrong meaning.

The 15 overs that cost Australia No. 17?

Many theories will be offered for Australia stumbling on No. 17 again, this time at the WACA. Yes, the Indians, particularly the bowlers played out of their skin (Why does the press always use this phrase when India wins against serious opposition abroad?); yes, Hayden’s absence affected Australia (Would he have made up for the margin of 72 runs and the 19 runs that Chris Rogers managed between the two innings?); yes, Shaun Tait proved to be as effective as Rawl Lewis; yes, there are many more reasons like these. A certain passage of play could have played a key part as well.

Roll your memory back to overs 46 to 61 of the Indian second innings. India finished the 45^th over at 182 for 6. For the next 15 overs, Andrew Symonds and Michael Clarke rolled their arms over, one bowling hopeful seam-up, the other, hopeless donkey drops. And by the time Brett Lee returned for over 62, India had moved on to 234 for 6, which, added to the healthy first innings lead of 118, took India’s overall lead to 352. (As if on cue, Lee softened the Indians and Symonds took two wickets in his next over.)

Were those 15 overs crucial? MS Dhoni, who was having quite a wretched time with the bat in the series, was allowed to settle down; he ended up with a useful 38, and added 75 priceless runs with VVS Laxman. The period also allowed Laxman to contribute, helping him to shepherd the tail around to add a further 56 runs after the Symonds double-strike. Considering the final margin was 72 runs, you can work out the mathematics and the probabilities.

Ricky Ponting’s reason for the Clarke-Symonds duet is perhaps that Australia were lagging behind on the over-rate, and risked incurring the wrath of the match referee even to the extent of a match ban for the skipper. (Eventually, they were only two overs short, and so escaped with just a monetary fine, 20 per cent for the skip and 10 per cent for the rest of the team.)

The imperative of having to bowl 90 overs in 390 minutes (6 hours of normal play plus the half-hour extension) proved to be a bit beyond Australia, more so because of their four-pronged pace attack.

Should this little aside force a re-think on the minimum overs requirement? Is 4 minutes too tight for an over of fast bowling? Is it fair that the requirement be decided based on a certain notional number of overs of slow bowling in an innings? Are teams constrained to choose their line-up based on this requirement rather than the nature of the pitch and the opposition?

In test match cricket, with its five day spread and its acceptance of a draw as an acceptable result (at least officially, if not for the spectators), is this kind of time constraint required at all? Remember the West Indies teams of the 1980s. Do you imagine Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Garner, et al squeezing in anything approaching 90 overs in a day’s play? On the contrary, did they not produce results in test matches?

Of course, there is the other side of this argument as well, where teams delay things to prevent the opposition fro winning. Dilip Doshi, under instructions from Sunil Gavaskar, taking ten minutes (or was it twelve minutes?) to complete an over of slow left-arm comes to mind. So does Desmond Haynes’ (in one of those rare games he captained the West Indies) delaying tactics in the test match against England at Port of Spain in the 1989-90 season.

So yes, we do need some kind of control over time. But whether 90 overs is too harsh is the question. Inasmuch as you don’t want a team to lose because of poor umpiring, you don’t want them to struggle because of regulations that have perhaps been overtaken by reality and pragmatism.

Lasting the distance

As I write this, India is slowly giving the WACA game back to Australia. Why am I not surprised? One thing India does not seem to be able to master is the fact that test cricket is a game played over five games and fifteen sessions. And you need to dominate more than half those sessions, especially towards the latter half of the game, if you are to make a serious fist at winning.

The Melbourne test was a harbinger of things to come. After a bad first session, India swung back and won the next two sessions, thus ending the first day with their nose ahead. That was as good as it got, as Australia swung back and won all the nine sessions that followed, to wrap up the game rather convincingly with a day and most of a session to spare.

At Sydney, India looked like they were getting better, dominating the first two sessions and having Australia in a spot of bother at 95 for 2, in more than a spot of bother half the way into tea at 134 for 6. However, the Aussies battled back to dominate the rest of the day, and the first session of the next day, recovering to a more-than-respectable 462. India did come back strongly over the next session, going into tea at 101 for 1. The next session also belonged to India, as they motored on to 215 for 3 at stumps, though they did lose two quick wickets towards the close to keep the Aussies interested. So on day 2, India had won about the half the exchanges.

Day 3 also belonged mostly to India, as they dominated all three sessions and closed in on 532, and a handy lead of 69. That was as good as it got. The next six sessions belonged to Australia, umps, chumps and all, as Michael Clarke’s scarcely believable 3-card trick towards the very end put paid to India’s hopes of escaping with a draw. In essence, India got the better of the exchanges in 7 out of the 15 sessions, just one less than Australia. But the difference was 122 runs, and it was a defeat grabbed from the jaws of a draw, even from a distant dream of victory.

Perth looks similar. India won sessions 1 and 2, wobbled in 3, galloped through all the three sessions of day 2 (barring the Symonds-Gilchrist counter attack either side of tea), had a bad first session today and what is turning out to be a slightly better second session. That means they have (more or less) dominated five of the eight sessions so far. Can they maintain this and have three more good sessions? History suggests otherwise.

Is it the excess of limited-overs cricket? Is it not having sufficient firepower to deliver twice in a row? Or is it just that Australia is too good a team to fail back-to-back? Think back to the Ashes last season, and the story was quite similar in some test matches. Yes, this Australian team just seems a touch invincible. And Ponting doesn’t even need his Sydney antics to get there. This Perth test can prove that Australia can win while still behaving themselves.

Bhajji the batsman and other tales

Having been a solid test match opener, Gary Kirsten knows the virtues of a good, steady start as opposed to a chancy, attractive one. So when he landed in Australia to begin his stint in one of the two toughest coaching assignments in international cricket, one expected him to open as he did on day one of a test match. So he started, with polite noises about the importance of “specialists” when talking of a specialised opener, and a long overdue No. 3 slot for Rahul Dravid.

But very soon, Kirsten nibbled at one outside the off-stump when he said this about Harbhajan Singh: “…the thing I enjoyed was his batting performance in Sydney. We’ve identified that it’s very important that members of the lower order make a contribution with the bat and he did that in the Test.”

After all the events following the Sydney test, one was wondering how the Indian team was going to justify either decision on Harbhajan. Now the answer is clear: Bhajji is the missing link, er, all-rounder in the Indian line-up.

So much has happened over the last few days it’ll be a shame not to read deeper than necessary into some of those.

The Australian cricket team apparently had a team meeting to discuss their Spirit of Cricket pledge. Without references to bolted horses and broken fences, it’s interesting to wonder why the Aussies did it. Apart, of course, for the noble intentions which they surely had. Is it to lead the administrators to believe that they are a chastened lot now? And thus set themselves up for a repeat in future tests? Is it to come across as a more “spirited” lot than the Indians and thus put India on the defensive? Or is there a more mundane, practical explanation? That they have achieved their ambition of retaining the Border-Gavaskar trophy (and 16-on-the-trot) and so can afford to play cricket the way others want them to?

The Indian team is no slouch when it comes to such done-for-this-but-intended-for-that gestures. How else would you explain their dropping charges against Brad Hogg? Surely they’ve put Australia in a fix? How can Australia not play Hogg on the raging turner that is the WACA?

Peter Roebuck’s suggestion that Australia replace Ricky Ponting with Simon Katich as national captain is as original as any. Having played in England for all his career, Roebuck is perhaps still an Englishman at heart. So his suggestion comes probably with an eye on the next Ashes.

The game is indeed being taken beyond its traditional confines – it is much more interesting and closely fought outside the 22-yard strip nowadays. I look forward to the days after the WACA test.

Total Cricket from Australia

Let’s not take anything away from Australia – they were so obsessed with getting to the finishing line for the 16th time in a row that they let little come in their way, notwithstanding their captain’s delayed, safety-first declaration.

Leading from the front, as always, was Ricky Ponting. The nick he got off that flick would have shamed many lesser lights to have walked, but then, none of them was standing on the threshold of greatness. Of course, Ponting demonstrated his sporting side by walking when the umpire gave him out erroneously, in one of the rare howlers that went against Australia. And yes, he denied having taken a catch cleanly in the Indian first innings when he very clearly had not. Of course, he made amends for that on the final day when he claimed a catch after having obviously grounded the ball while getting up. (But in a rare lapse of concentration, the umpire seemed to have realized that for a catch to count as a dismissal, the ball needs to make contact with some part of the bat or glove.) And Ponting demonstrated his total commitment to the team’s cause when he took over the white coat to declare Sourav Ganguly out caught by Michael “Pup” Clarke. To which incident we shall turn to next.

Pup is widely regarded as the future captain of Australia and in this game he showed us that he is moving in the right direction. Poor Ganguly, after a dream run in 2007, 2008 seemed to have started well with two crisp half-centuries. And he was looking good for more when fate intervened to send him into the record books (and the pavilion) for being one of the rare batsmen to be “not out” twice to the same ball – except that the scorecard (and the umpire) record otherwise. It was a good ball for sure, Ganguly nicked the ball all right and Clarke did dive forward athletically to take the catch – except that Pup took the ball on the half volley and then touched it on the ground while completing the tumble. Of course, he stood up and claimed the catch – after all, Ganguly was an important wicket for the Aussies. And Pup’s captain confirmed it, using the newly agreed principle that the on-field captain decides the legitimacy of catches when the umpires are in doubt. Of course, Pup had already demonstrated his commitment the previous day when he stood his ground after playing the ball straight to the slip fielder (note: it wasn’t a front-foot bat and pad affair but a clean edge of a back foot drive). In the post-match interview, Andrew Symonds said, “Pup is comfortably one of the luckiest blokes I know.” A pity the umpire did not know it before.

Andrew Symonds’ contribution to the victory was more than just the revelation on Pup. He seems to have found his metier in the test match arena too. Apart from making a few runs, he contributed massively to the Australian victory with his bowling, more so with his appealing. He made it so clear to the umpires that the Aussies were a victimised lot that Steve Bucknor gave Dravid out in a new form of dismissal – pad before bat.

Symonds was ably supported in the Dravid dismissal by Adam Gilchrist. Gilly has cultivated an image of honesty and sportsmanship, someone who plays the game in its true spirit. He walks when he nicks the ball and is known to appeal only when he knows the ball has touched the bat. But even he knows what comes first when it comes to a question of team glory versus individual integrity. Sample his appeal against Dravid – the ball closer to the silly point fielder than to Dravid’s bat. May be when the team gets together to thank the Lord, Gilly will slip in a quick confession to clear his conscience.

The rest of the team did contribute to the victory, but these four clearly demonstrated a level of commitment rarely seen before in the game. Oh wait a minute, quite a few from Steve Waugh’s team (including Tugga himself) might qualify. And some of Ian Chappell’s ugly Australians (what an unfair tag for such a great bunch of winners!) as well.

The Aussie juggernaut seems relentless and ruthless. And with such a total domination strategy, it’s hard to see them lose their grip on the game. May be this is what is called Total Cricket.

Four stumps for a free hit

Should we call this cricket 2.0? Getting players involved in running the game? Well, that’s what the Australian Cricketers’ Association seems to be trying, by asking cricketers what can be done to improve the game. Well, the concept is interesting. Some of the findings (the focus was on Twenty20) are even more so. Of course, they seem to fly in the face of logic and certainly contravene tradition (as all change tend to), but out of such fantasy comes progress.

First up is the suggestion to have four stumps. Aesthetic and terminological (Which one is the middle stump? Which the off and leg?) challenges apart, anything that is even loosely pro-bowler appeals to me tremendously. (An easier solution could be to just increase the size of the stumps to give bowlers a better target to aim at.) For the same reason, giving a bowler an extra over if s/he takes a wicket is a thought. And abolishing leg byes is a most sensible idea Steve Waugh had mooted long ago – a leg bye is neither a function of the batsman’s skill (like a run off the bat is, for the most part) nor a failure on the part of the fielding side (as in the case of a bye or a no-ball or wide).

Giving a batsman a free hit off the first ball s/he faces is a curious suggestion. Who came up with the idea? What were they thinking? And what was the question that led to this?

A couple of minor suggestions came up as well. Like players wearing shorts in matches. Well, honestly, I’ m not too sure I agree with that. Especially with all the protective equipment players wear, they may look a wee bit odd with just a bit of skin peering between those pads, thigh pads, etc. And whether players have names or nicknames on the back of their shirts is unlikely to affect their performance or their marketability, so it’s one of those questions that can be ignored.

The use of microphones has registered a high degree of acceptance. I see a lot of opposition to this, especially from coaches. Will talking to the media distract a captain or a fielder? And will it capture sledging a little more clearly? As a viewer, I’d rather not hear what goes on, and stick to just watching the game.

Worth reading, again and again and again

It’s an article that’s more than nine months old; it’s about a cricketer who retired about eight months ago; and it’s about the cricketer’s lesser abilities. But this article on Cricinfo keeps resonating in my mind. It’s perhaps the best article I have ever read, for its sheer ability to tickle the funny bone without stating anything except the bare facts. Even the adjectives are not over the board and are always substantiated by numbers. It’s a glorious example of brilliant wit using simple statistics, this piece on Glenn McGrath by Tim de Lisle. Stop everything and read this, if you haven’t already. If you have, another read (and another, and another) won’t hurt.

Australia’s Twenty20 vision

I wrote about England’s selection for the Twenty20 World Cup in a post last week, about how they seemed to have dusted the who’s who editions of the past and pulled out people from the middle of their benefit games. Now Australia have announced their Twenty20 squad. And guess what they have done?

They’ve stuck to the tried and tested – taken the victorious World Cup squad, replaced the retired Glenn McGrath with the fit-again Brett Lee, and left the rest of the team intact.

Does this say anything about the difference between Australia and England (or any other cricketing side, for that matter), in terms of how they approach the game? It does, to me. Not just how Australia approach the Twenty20 version, but their attitude to cricket itself. The goal is to win – the best team will be chosen, the proven will be preferred.

It’s almost like a corporate organization – every project is equally important, every client is pursued zealously, every product has to hit home.

The Bradman of coaches?

Is John Buchanan the best coach cricket has ever had? Apart from the seemingly endless sequence of wins that Australia have enjoyed under his coaching, the ways Australia have dominated (and continue to dominate) the game suggests an answer in the affirmative. Are there any composite numbers that can rank cricket coaches? For a game that thrives so much on statistics, it’s a surprise that we don’t have win averages, margin ratios and such like discussed on a consistent basis for coaches.

Back to Buchanan. Some may have questioned his coaching methods; some may have found his penchant for misplacing notes on the opposition a bit funny; but no one can question the fact that he has been the coach of the most successful cricket team of the past decade, and perhaps in all of cricket history until now. (Quiz question: who was the coach / manager of the 1948 Australian Invincibles? Or did Sir Don do that role as well?)

Rohit Brijnath of the Sportstar catches up with the Buchanan in this interview.

Buchanan’s stringent training routines and his focus on a corporate style of people management may have got more ink space in the media through his tenure as coach, but this interview brings out the little factors that characterize Buchanan’s success. Like the insistence on carrying their own bowling machine to West Indies during the World Cup this year, even though the West Indies Cricket Board had promised that there would be bowling machines at all venues, just because “it is one of the things we can then control.”

“Playing the percentages” is a term that gets used a lot in cricket. Buchanan does this too.

“Batting wise I looked at our scoring shot percentages, which is the number of balls we score from in an innings and roughly we average 150 to 180 balls an innings, so that means we're not scoring from 120 to 150 balls. And I said to the players I think it's realistic we can actually improve that by 5 to 10 per cent.

“The flip side to that is our bowling, we're in the vicinity of 50 to 55 per cent dot balls in an innings", and so again they tried to increase that by 5 to 10 per cent. In fielding it was the same. Buchanan looked at the opportunities created, the catches, throws at stumps, dives, and the numbers told him the team was successful about one in four times. So they tried to get it close to one in three.”

Buchanan almost seems to treat runs and numbers as entries in a Profit & Loss statement and work on them accordingly – increasing something here, cutting a little bit there, and thus improving the overall numbers successfully. (May be Peter Moores should just tell a certain Stephen Harmison to ensure that he gets the batsman to play at at least 3 deliveries in an over. Now that would be a start, wouldn’t it?)

Simply put, success (in cricket at least) is about doing the little things right, seems to be Buchanan’s mantra. Contrast this with coaches who talk of processes, long-term plans, “building a team for the future” and the like.