What England need in ODIs

Graham Thorpe suggests that Michael Vaughan retire from one-day internationals and England make Kevin Pietersen their captain for the limited overs version of the game.

Enough has been said about Vaughan’s performance (or lack of it) in the 2007 World Cup. His performance in one-day internationals overall hasn’t been glorious either. An average of a mere 27.15 over an 86-game career without a single century to his name speaks for itself. So may be he should do a Steve Harmison vis-à-vis the one-day game.

But should Kevin Pietersen be the captain? Will it be too early? (Memories of a certain Ian Botham come to mind.) Will the responsibilities of captaincy curb Pietersen’s free spirit? If Andrew Flintoff were to come back to full fitness, would he be a better candidate for captaincy? However, inasmuch as Pietersen (apart from Flintoff, when he is not on the surgery table) is the only automatic selection into the England one-day squad, may be his name should at least be discussed.

But captaincy is not the core of England’s concerns when it comes to the one-day game. Their bigger problem is that they just don’t seem to have grasped the gestalt of the game, notwithstanding the plethora of one-day games that are played as part of the county season. The so-called one-day specialists are too one-dimensional (Who was that opener who hit one swept six off the fast bowlers per game and nothing much else?) and journeyman-like; the test specialists are too rigid in adapting to the limited overs game (Vaughan himself and Ian Bell come to mind; Graham Thorpe in the past was not dissimilar either, with due respect). But its not about the players; the England management seems to be lost in terms of one-day strategies, team selections, and the like.

May be what England really need is a coach specifically for the one-day game. A coach who understands the one-day game. A coach who will build a one-day team for a few seasons and not tournament by tournament. A coach who will fill the team with the optimal mix of solid players and floaters. A coach who will get the team to take the one-day game seriously. And a coach who is not an Englishman.

It’s a challenge that can daunt a John Buchanan. And tempt him too. Imagine he takes up the gauntlet. And gets England to lift the big cup in 2011 (with a finals victory over Australia)? Won’t he go down the annals of cricketing history as the greatest coach ever?

The bowler's Holding, the batsman's Willey

That one line from Brian Johnston sums up BBC’s Test Match Special for me. Witty, wicked, irreverent, but without an extra word.

TMS has completed 50 years of existence. While the BBC has a matter-of-fact piece on it, Peter Baxter gives a personal perspective in Test Match Special – 50 not out.

It is a tribute to their quality that notwithstanding competition from newer forms of media like television and the Internet and a decline in the popularity of test match cricket (especially when England was so depressingly unsuccessful at it for a such a long time), TMS has survived and thrived for so long. And this without changing much – the commentary still has an old-world charm about it and does not rely on statistics and gimmicks to sustain itself. I reckon the key to their longevity and success is the depth of knowledge of the commentators and the joy with which they appear to be doing their jobs. Not to mention their wit and humour.

Granted cricket does offer its share of opportunities for innuendo, what with terms like no ball, wide, hook, slip, fine leg, third man and, if I may be permitted some shameless self-promotion, cow corner; but it takes a fine bunch to take advantage of these opportunities and make hay with them. And then take it to a different level with incidents like the classic “leg over” commentary.

The wikipedia entry on TMS provides a good level of detail on them.

Great half century, TMS. Hope you make it to three figures.

Well left

Steve James, writing in the Guardian, talks about the importance of leaving the ball, especially in the kind of conditions England and West Indies were up against at Headingley. He quotes Sir Vivian Richards: “You’ve got to do it in England,” he said, “In fact, in early season over here leaving the ball early on gave me more pleasure than it hitting the middle of the bat. You’ve got to show respect.”

Two interesting points being made here.

Leaving the ball actually gives Sir Viv greater pleasure than middling it. Counter-intuitive as it might sound, it seems perfectly sensible. It’s probably true in business as well – success is a function of not just what you choose to do but what you choose not to do as well. And it is not counter to aggression either – aggression does not mean going hell for leather against every delivery – it’s about choosing the right delivery to hit. A certain Mr. Sehwag can benefit from this advice.

Sir Viv talking of respecting the bowling? He who stepped inside the line of Mike Hendrick’s full-length delivery and flicked it for six over midwicket in the last ball of the West Indian innings in the 1979 World Cup Final? He who murdered bowlers across the world with shots all round the wicket? He who is still talked of in awe for his gum-chewing nonchalance and chilling stroke play? No, Sir Viv was talking of respecting the conditions. If the ball swings, it is a function of the nip in the air. If the ball wobbles, it has to do with the wind behind the bowler. Respect for nature is what Sir Viv is referring to. An interesting way of saying “adapt to the conditions.”

Will they? Won’t they? Should they?

Now that the Bangladesh tour is done and dusted, India face up to the challenge of the tour of England. There is bound to be a lot of speculation on the team selection, and whether the ones that finally get selected deserved to be in or not. Let me make my task easier, and ponder over some of the doubtful starters.

The captain of my not-bound-for-England team is VVS Laxman. No, let me confess, I am a big fan of Laxman. But while he has prospered on the bouncy pitches of Australia and the predictable ones of India, I am not sure the juicy English wickets are quite his cup of tea. Moreover, he has been a bit rusty for want of match practice for a few months now. Add to this the fact that he is bound to be a backup for the untouchable trio of Rahul Dravid, Sachin Tendulkar and Saurav Ganguly – which may not make him too comfortable. And his fielding outside the slip cordon, er, what fielding?

For the first time in a really long while (when did it happen last?), India will probably carry two wicketkeepers. While I am not arguing the merits of Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Dinesh Karthik, I would not carry Dhoni as the first ‘keeper. Not in England, surely. I would carry him though, but as a second wicketkeeper for the tests. His batting, of course, is never going to stand up to count in English conditions, except perhaps on the Oval shirtfront towards the end of the tour. Of course, Dhoni will be the first choice for the one-day internationals. And if I get Karthik to keep wickets, I will not open the batting with him. No sir, I would recall a certain Virender Sehwag – he of the slam-bang-sorry-ma’am school of batting. Harmy’s deliveries need to be directed, to the boundary, and who better than Sehwag to do that?

Munaf Patel is another person I’d prefer to give a rest. With his injury problems, his non-existent fielding and batting, and his much-reduced pace, his accuracy and line-and-length stuff is unlikely to count for much. And if he is injured, he can’t carry too heavy a drinks crate either, can he?

It may seem like stating the obvious, but Ajit Agarkar is another who should not make the cut. Agarkar seems to be the never-forgotten man of Indian cricket, and some wise man may remember his century at Lord’s (in a lost cause, in case you forget) and consider taking him as a specialist all-rounder.

They are unlikely to select him, but I do hope the selectors do not consider Robin Uthappa for the test matches. With a technique like his, being blooded in English conditions is a free ride to retirement.

Notwithstanding his (supposedly) useful batting, flashy sunglasses, and genuine flight, Ramesh Powar is not a man for tests in England. He is so slow in the air, the batsman can play two shots to his quicker one.

So which of these will make it? And who will be the other surprises in the squad? We’ll know soon. In Indian cricket, the selection phase is usually as entertaining as the real game; some times even more.

Defining cricket in the next decade

The print issue of Wisden Cricketer has come out with a list of 10 players who will define cricket in the next decade. CricketNext carried a brief report.

I am sure the magazine has detailed analyses and opinions on how each of these individuals will contribute their mite to the game over the next few years, but I haven’t read it yet. In that delightful ignorance, it’s interesting to spend an idle Friday evening speculating how each of these people will make a lasting difference.

Michael Clarke was apparently touted as Australia’s future captain even before he made his debut. So what kind of an impact when he becomes captain? May be he will preside over the Australian team as it falls off the pedestal it has occupied longer than anyone wants to remember? Thus making the game more competitive?

How do you describe Shaun Tait? As accurate as Harmy one ball, as wayward as Pigeon the next. So will Tait usher in a new rule for bowlers: If you bowl three straight balls in an over, you are allowed one wide? Now that should reduce the disparity between batsmen and bowlers! And extend Harmy’s career in the bargain.

Shane Watson may well come to define the new age versatile cricketer, currently known as the bits-and-pieces journeyman. Middle-order-slogger one day, first-choice-but-injured opener the next, and then fit-again-middle-order-slogger the third. And a sudden test match hopeful in the next interview. With a bowling arm that comes in handy when nine, ten and jack are at the crease.

What’s cricket without commerce? And what’s commerce without personality? We do need personalities for the future, don’t we? Reverse-sweeping the best off-spinner in the world for six in a test match or taking four wickets in four balls against the second best ODI team in the world (but the unquestioned champions in “choking”) in a World Cup game are fine, but where will be our “model” cricketers of the future be if their hair was straight and its colour, plain and monochromatic? Take a bow, Kevin Pietersen and Lasith Malinga.

A loose-limbed action and a test bowling average of 20.12 after 9 matches (as of today) is all interesting to note, but how can you improve on this and make a difference in the next decade? How about being caught in a drug scandal one day and then becoming the vice captain in the next series you play? That’s Mohammad Asif for you.

Playing for one of the weaker teams in the circuit has its own advantages. You need to make a century only once in a season to get noticed. It helps if you are extravagant in your stroke play or if you make the century against the right opposition. And sometimes, if you don’t mind, the result of the game matters. Little wonder then, that Bangladesh’s Mohammad Ashraful is a shoo-in into this list.

The West Indies re-defined fast bowling in the 70s and 80s, where their bowlers reputedly had three types of deliveries – fast, faster and fastest. So what you do say to a West Indian fast bowler (all rounder, at least in the relative sense) who makes his reputation because he also has three types of deliveries – slow, slower and slowest? Welcome him into the list of players who would redefine the next decade, of course. Ladies and gentlemen, Dwayne Bravo.

They are the eternal bridesmaids of international cricket, and their neighbours have always treated them with scant respect. So if New Zealand unearths a young exciting talent like Ross Taylor who spearheads a successful run chase of Australia’s 336 in his very first international season, how can he be ignored? Considering how he performed in the 2007 World Cup, may be Taylor’s role in the future will be only to score centuries against Australia in home ODIs when chasing imposing totals. Thus giving a totally new definition to the term “big occasion man”.

That leaves us with the man the magazine says “had the talent to be a left-handed Sachin Tendulkar but warns that he needs to be handled sensitively by the Indian selectors.” So does Suresh Raina represent the corporatisation of cricket, where the management takes accountability for the performance of individuals?

Running the game

The MCC World Cricket Committee’s meeting on May 14, 2007 seems to have touched on some of cricket’s most common themes of recent years.

International schedules and how hectic they are came up invariably for discussion. While the committee sounds noble when it “recommends a review of the international playing calendar, with the aim of striking a balance between financial gain, player welfare and audience satisfaction”, it is easier said than done. Balancing the needs of stakeholders something corporate organisations strive for all the time. May be we need to find avenues through which boards can make money on non-play days? May be the sponsorship models need to be reexamined? May be the definition of seasons should be more strictly adhered to and optimised? Basketball in the U.S. and football in Europe operate with hectic schedules in their seasons as well. Are there any lessons to be learnt from there?

The committee recommends “regular monitoring of bowling actions under match conditions.” This is a valid point because under test conditions, bowlers of dubious arm angles tend to be extra cautious with their actions. But there needs to be a clear process for and way of doing this, without disrupting the game. Can some technology akin to the hawk-eye be used to enable this?

The committee has also commented on a few other things – shortening of boundaries, gluing of pitches and the length of the World Cup. Nothing original in any of these recommendations either.

But to me, the key is really the composition of the Committee itself. It comprises 14 members, led by Chairman Tony Lewis. It is an interesting mix of players from most of the test cricket playing nations (except New Zealand, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh) and one umpire – David Shepherd. Another aspect of the committee’s composition is that there are only two bowlers – Courtney Walsh and Tony Dodemaide. Considering the kind of issues that have come up, the committee perhaps needs a rethink its composition.

Running the game is not just about managing the on-field action – it is akin to running a corporate organization. So they may do well to consider people from different specialisations as part of the management, like the board of a company. Here’s my mix.

1. Former and current cricketers – one batsman, one fast bowler, one spinner and the odd wicketkeeper (at least two of them should have captained their national side for a considerable duration).
2. An umpire
3. A match referee
4. A groundsman
5. A coach
6. A sports doctor
7. A couple of senior corporate executives
8. A couple of computer technologists
9. A couple of administrators – one from European football and one from the NBA

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.