If recent reports are to be believed, Mr. Lalit Modi, the brains and the body, and perhaps every that matters, behind the IPL is about to be booted out owing to his increasing obsession with favouring his clout in the IPL and Rajasthan cricket administration. Now his reputation is has become that of a limelight-hogging businessman who won’t listen to any opinions or even care for even considering any proposal that tries to streamline his baby — the IPL in any way.
It should be understood that with increasing concerns about IPL causing international players to deviate from the seriousness of performing national duties, many suggestions were put forth for Mr. Modi to consider. Instead, he was planning to further, increase the size of the IPL franchise by including two more teams and increasing the number of preliminary games by at least three more. I think, this absolute disregard for authority and that too within the Indian cricket’s administrative structure just became too overbearing for many BCCI personnel, many of whom have their own political clout and regional affiliations to impose upon any decision-maker. While the IPL is still a hot commodity and players are ready to join this money-minting bandwagon, it would be interesting to note how many of them actually support Modi, now that IPL's maker finds himself a bit cornered?
India's almost drops the Rajkot Match...400+ is simply inadequate!!
This had to be one of the most ordinary fielding efforts by the present Indian side, under Dhoni, wherein they kept on dropping sitters and their fielding for a major part of the Lankan innings was literally, sub-standard. It will not be an exaggeration to say that they almost lost the match owing to their poor efforts in holding on to simple catches and backing-up the throws to avoid follow-ons.
What is even more strange is that good fielders like Kohli and Raina too kept on missing the ball...it appeared as if the entire squad had a sighting problem where they couldn't get themselves in line with the ball. I would say that India really haven't edged past the Lankans by achieving this Rajkot win simply because they were run ragged until the last ball, where one of India's rare, consistent bowlers in the last few months, Ashish Nehra, ensured that he bowled according to the field and somehow ensured that the batsmen weren't able to get under the ball and ease it through the off-side. What is also worrying is that India during their batting were looking content for a score of around 385, when it was plainly visible that a score of somewhere around 450 was there to get. After the 30-over mark, most of the Indian batsmen fell to careless strokes, just trying to up the run-rate needlessly, as it was already around the 8.00 runs per over mark. It was only Virat Kohli and Jadeja's sensible effort towards the last five overs that ensured that the team managed a score in excess of 400 or else, the match would have been lost even before entering the final over of the match. I can only hope that the Indian team realizes that this is not a comprehensive win by any means and that they drop the habit of taking things easy rather than dropping catches. They have been letting teams come back and steal away wins from them in the last six months or so. The Series against Australia had a semblance of being casual in the field and the series result could have been in India's favour had they shown more intensity and planned their batting in a more structured manner when chasing/setting-up scores. This old habit of just going through the motions simply because a huge score has been put-up and putting in the real effort to field the ball, only in small patches during the match has to go, if India want to become serious contenders for world championship in any format of the game...something the Aussies do very well> no matter what stage of the game it is, they seem so vigilant and enthusiastic.
What is even more strange is that good fielders like Kohli and Raina too kept on missing the ball...it appeared as if the entire squad had a sighting problem where they couldn't get themselves in line with the ball. I would say that India really haven't edged past the Lankans by achieving this Rajkot win simply because they were run ragged until the last ball, where one of India's rare, consistent bowlers in the last few months, Ashish Nehra, ensured that he bowled according to the field and somehow ensured that the batsmen weren't able to get under the ball and ease it through the off-side. What is also worrying is that India during their batting were looking content for a score of around 385, when it was plainly visible that a score of somewhere around 450 was there to get. After the 30-over mark, most of the Indian batsmen fell to careless strokes, just trying to up the run-rate needlessly, as it was already around the 8.00 runs per over mark. It was only Virat Kohli and Jadeja's sensible effort towards the last five overs that ensured that the team managed a score in excess of 400 or else, the match would have been lost even before entering the final over of the match. I can only hope that the Indian team realizes that this is not a comprehensive win by any means and that they drop the habit of taking things easy rather than dropping catches. They have been letting teams come back and steal away wins from them in the last six months or so. The Series against Australia had a semblance of being casual in the field and the series result could have been in India's favour had they shown more intensity and planned their batting in a more structured manner when chasing/setting-up scores. This old habit of just going through the motions simply because a huge score has been put-up and putting in the real effort to field the ball, only in small patches during the match has to go, if India want to become serious contenders for world championship in any format of the game...something the Aussies do very well> no matter what stage of the game it is, they seem so vigilant and enthusiastic.
Raina's batting position quandary should be resolved now
The ODI series between the Lankans and India is about to begin within two-three days and while the batting line-up and the first-choice bowling options pretty much confirm themselves without the need to think too much about anything, I am a still concerned about how Suresh Raina is being handled. I can clearly remember that in his comeback season, Raina was given a chance to bat at number 3/4, and he did a very good job, scoring much very critical half-centuries. However, during the 'Mini' World Cup, he was found wanting against the short-ball and further, his compulsive pulling habit further did him in.
However, the way he was quickly yanked back to the number 6 - 7 slot after just one average tournament outing wherein the entire team had actually failed as a unit, was a bit surprising. Further, since that debacle, Raina has never been given another chance in the top four, fearing that his limitations against the short-pitched stuff might get further exposed. But does the Indian team really need to think about such an issue so seriously when it is clear that Suresh Raina is being wasted, almost finds himself confused, in the lower middle order, where he is invariably asked to come-in when the runrate is around 8-runs per over mark or the batting order has tanked? Just look around the nine, main test playing nations and nearly every team has a handful of batsmen who cannot handle quality, pacey bowling. Then why this special treatment for Raina? Even Ganguly was found handicapped when bowlers started hitting around the rib-cage length but he did overcome the issue because he was persisted with, as an opener.
However, the way he was quickly yanked back to the number 6 - 7 slot after just one average tournament outing wherein the entire team had actually failed as a unit, was a bit surprising. Further, since that debacle, Raina has never been given another chance in the top four, fearing that his limitations against the short-pitched stuff might get further exposed. But does the Indian team really need to think about such an issue so seriously when it is clear that Suresh Raina is being wasted, almost finds himself confused, in the lower middle order, where he is invariably asked to come-in when the runrate is around 8-runs per over mark or the batting order has tanked? Just look around the nine, main test playing nations and nearly every team has a handful of batsmen who cannot handle quality, pacey bowling. Then why this special treatment for Raina? Even Ganguly was found handicapped when bowlers started hitting around the rib-cage length but he did overcome the issue because he was persisted with, as an opener.
Vettori might have delivered the knock-out punch
The last of the three test matches between Pak and NZ had tilted seriously in favour of the Pakistani team with Kaneria having taken a five-wicket haul when no one was expecting the ball to turn. Well, to be honest, most of the wickets were handed out to him due to the inability of the Kiwis to come forward and meet the ball before it gained that decisive curve.
However, Vettori has delivered once again, augmenting and cementing his position as a contemporary all-rounder and not just another handy, low-order contributor with runs. His batting was simply awesome in terms of being choosy about his strokes. I cannot recall Vettori having made a more crucial century in his entire test cricket history. And now it seems that another comeback man in the series, Tuffey, has taken a liking to Vettori's mold and probably for the first time he contributed handsomely with a well-made 80. With a total of 450+ runs on the board, it will take some doing for the Pakistanis to turn the match around as they have to counters Vettori's bowling on a slowing pitch and overcome the first innings lead before even imagining of bowling-out the Kiwis on the final day. For now, it seems like a 2-1 result in favour of New Zealand unless they do something drastic to undermine their chances in this match.
However, Vettori has delivered once again, augmenting and cementing his position as a contemporary all-rounder and not just another handy, low-order contributor with runs. His batting was simply awesome in terms of being choosy about his strokes. I cannot recall Vettori having made a more crucial century in his entire test cricket history. And now it seems that another comeback man in the series, Tuffey, has taken a liking to Vettori's mold and probably for the first time he contributed handsomely with a well-made 80. With a total of 450+ runs on the board, it will take some doing for the Pakistanis to turn the match around as they have to counters Vettori's bowling on a slowing pitch and overcome the first innings lead before even imagining of bowling-out the Kiwis on the final day. For now, it seems like a 2-1 result in favour of New Zealand unless they do something drastic to undermine their chances in this match.
Kiwis just cannot handle Pak bowlers
The final of the three test match series between Pakistan and the Kiwis is underway and it is very clear that no matter how little the Pakistani batsmen will score, their bowlers can always pull the game back, courtesy the poor batting on display by the Kiwi batsmen. It is not just the spin of Saeed Ajmal or Kaneria that they are struggling against, nearly every Pakistani bowler has got his number on a Kiwi batsmen.
Vettori must be scratching his head, trying to find at least two batsmen to bat at the top of the order who can at least play out a session without giving the jeepers to the men in the dressing room. What is amazing is that these are the kind of pitches that the Kiwis have been brought up on and yet, their footwork against swing bowling is almost non-existent. All of them are happy to be perched on the backfoot, waiting for the ball to swing and do something before they commit themselves to a stroke and by the time they do so, their stumps are shattered or they are caught plumb, in front of the wicket. As things stand now, it is again up to the latter half of the lower-middle order of New Zealand to somehow bail out the team, as the top-order has crumbled to Kaneria who has been absent from the wicket-taking scene for some time. Asif first and now Kaneria, it is like a comeback season for the Pak bowlers against suspect, under-par Kiwi batsmen.
Vettori must be scratching his head, trying to find at least two batsmen to bat at the top of the order who can at least play out a session without giving the jeepers to the men in the dressing room. What is amazing is that these are the kind of pitches that the Kiwis have been brought up on and yet, their footwork against swing bowling is almost non-existent. All of them are happy to be perched on the backfoot, waiting for the ball to swing and do something before they commit themselves to a stroke and by the time they do so, their stumps are shattered or they are caught plumb, in front of the wicket. As things stand now, it is again up to the latter half of the lower-middle order of New Zealand to somehow bail out the team, as the top-order has crumbled to Kaneria who has been absent from the wicket-taking scene for some time. Asif first and now Kaneria, it is like a comeback season for the Pak bowlers against suspect, under-par Kiwi batsmen.
After Test-match glory, India's poor going in T20s is re-surfacing
It might have been largely unnoticed owing to India’s decent ODI status and their extremely improved test rankings, but their showing in the T20s has been on the downslide ever since they became champions at the inaugural T20 World Championship. It is hard to pinpoint the reason for this but it seems that the bowling department isn't able to come good, as there are no seamers who can hit the block-hole with regularity.
It is precisely the same reason, turned opposite, that is working for Pakistan’s success as the current World Champions of T20 and their continued success in this format. With Umar Gul and Mohammed Aamer bowling a good, yorkish length repeatedly and with Ajmal able to fox-out the batsmen, scoring runs against them isn't very easy. Similar is the case with the Lankans, who have Malinga and Kulusekera who generally are adept at bowling tight overs when the batsmen are going crazy. The same cannot be said about India wherein they have more line-and-length bowlers who are also handicapped in terms of bowling some pacey, short-stuff that can curtail the run making.
It is precisely the same reason, turned opposite, that is working for Pakistan’s success as the current World Champions of T20 and their continued success in this format. With Umar Gul and Mohammed Aamer bowling a good, yorkish length repeatedly and with Ajmal able to fox-out the batsmen, scoring runs against them isn't very easy. Similar is the case with the Lankans, who have Malinga and Kulusekera who generally are adept at bowling tight overs when the batsmen are going crazy. The same cannot be said about India wherein they have more line-and-length bowlers who are also handicapped in terms of bowling some pacey, short-stuff that can curtail the run making.
Not Knee-jerking this... why are Yusuf, Rohit Sharma backed so much?
Please understand that this is not a knee-jerk reaction to India’s defeat in the first T20 match against SL. This has been happening over the last two seasons. For some strange reason, the selectors and the likes of Gavaskar and Ravi Shastri seem to be very vocal about the abilities of Rohit Sharma and Yusuf Pathan.
The elder Pathan for one is touted as the missing all-rounder that the team needs though he has never done anything even close to substantial to justify this faith. Similar is the case with Rohit Sharma who despite a string of failures, now combined with injury-enforced breaks and an average domestic season is back in the reckoning though he has never actually delivered when it mattered the most — so why are these two players being imposed upon us as the ‘young’ stars of the team that ‘will’ win the 2011 World Cup for India? Ravi Shastri seems to have a blind faith in Pathan’s ability to score match-winning innings, though every time he comes out to bat, an average, ridiculous dismissal is always guaranteed and he isn't a spinner by any measure — when is the last time you saw Yusuf turn the ball in any imaginable way?? Even when playing for the Rajasthan Royals, Yusuf has not been the greatest of performers considering that that his team depends a lot on his batting, often looking up to to finish the matches, but he has done that very, very seldom.
The elder Pathan for one is touted as the missing all-rounder that the team needs though he has never done anything even close to substantial to justify this faith. Similar is the case with Rohit Sharma who despite a string of failures, now combined with injury-enforced breaks and an average domestic season is back in the reckoning though he has never actually delivered when it mattered the most — so why are these two players being imposed upon us as the ‘young’ stars of the team that ‘will’ win the 2011 World Cup for India? Ravi Shastri seems to have a blind faith in Pathan’s ability to score match-winning innings, though every time he comes out to bat, an average, ridiculous dismissal is always guaranteed and he isn't a spinner by any measure — when is the last time you saw Yusuf turn the ball in any imaginable way?? Even when playing for the Rajasthan Royals, Yusuf has not been the greatest of performers considering that that his team depends a lot on his batting, often looking up to to finish the matches, but he has done that very, very seldom.
3 Day test cricket..is Weekend cricket a solution?
Ian Chappell recently said that he wanted test cricket to be formatted in a style wherein only three days of cricket would be played, with nearly seven hrs of cricket every day. Yes, he did make sense in saying that the matches should be scheduled over the weekend, from Friday to Sunday, but does this assure of better viewership in a substantial manner?
I mean, the game is suffering more from boredom induced by dead pitches rather than lack of crowds in the stadium and I don't agree that stretching proceedings beyond 100 overs is an actual solution. Yes, day and night test matches do make sense and are needed but the more critical need is to ensure that test matches are played on result-oriented pitches with some breathing game in the cricketing calendar. Test matches are played on slow, turning Lankan wickets wherein the chances of the Lankan side winning are always high and matches are often scheduled on weekends, but the attendance is stadiums is not every average, why? simply because the pitches are such that the day's proceedings can be foretold to a large extent, taking out the surprise element from the game and as a result, the crowd's attention cannot be engaged. Weekend cricket just doesn't seem like a very effective solution Mr. Chapell.
I mean, the game is suffering more from boredom induced by dead pitches rather than lack of crowds in the stadium and I don't agree that stretching proceedings beyond 100 overs is an actual solution. Yes, day and night test matches do make sense and are needed but the more critical need is to ensure that test matches are played on result-oriented pitches with some breathing game in the cricketing calendar. Test matches are played on slow, turning Lankan wickets wherein the chances of the Lankan side winning are always high and matches are often scheduled on weekends, but the attendance is stadiums is not every average, why? simply because the pitches are such that the day's proceedings can be foretold to a large extent, taking out the surprise element from the game and as a result, the crowd's attention cannot be engaged. Weekend cricket just doesn't seem like a very effective solution Mr. Chapell.
Pakistan's fielding standards set new benchmarks for being hopeless
If you did happen to miss the second test match between Pakistan and New Zealand then consider yourself lucky in a way for you didn't have to witness what must be one of the worst fielding displays by any team. At one point, commentators from both the nations, Pak and NZ simply said that they had 'resigned' to the fact that this Pakistani side was hell-bent on mocking the demise of the NZ innings by delaying it via dropping a catch, nearly every 20 mins! Shoaib Malik was actually seen retracting his hands from a simple, straightforward catch that came his way in a manner that suggested that he was instructed no to accept a catch - yes, some of the catches were so simple that Waqar Younis who on air commentating actually said that he had seen school cricket games that had set better fielding standards. An the biggest irony - even after so many lef-offs the Kiwis were still sent packing> you can call it the talent of the Pakistanit bowlers to deliver despite the utter chaos that was unleashed around the stumps or another nail in the coffin of test cricket.
ODI’s Suggested ‘25x4’ Format has Distinct T20 Flavoring
It would be an understatement to say that the contemporary format of ODIs is fighting hard for its existence. The constant criticism that it faces, seems to be echoing louder with every passing day. Among all the suggested alternatives to make the format more appealing, only one proposition has found favors among the ICC’s conservative hierarchy and many ex-cricketers.
It was the maestro, Sachin Tendulkar, who suggested that the ODI game should be reinvented by introducing four innings instead of the current trend of every side having once chance to bat. According to him, each innings should be of 25 overs only. This essentially means that each side would be batting and balling in two, separate installments. The proposal has already caught the attention of many ICC bosses and some of them are willing to give it a go-ahead by introducing it in the English county circuit. Some purists say that this format would be a bit too confusing, since most viewers would find it difficult to keep a tally of the scores over four innings in a single day. However, I really don’t think this argument makes much sense. In our times, having access to information on a 24x7 basis is no longer a challenge and hence, any concerns about viewers getting confused are unfounded. In fact, trying to read into the scoreline after each innings might just be an added incentive for people to check upon the match’s progress.
So is there anything wrong with the suggestion? My personal opinion is that it tampers with the current format too extensively. We have already seen what the T20 game is doing to the game. Teams are constantly on the lookout for players who can score a quickfire, 20-30 runs, seldom batting with any elegance. Considering this, ODIs still breed batsmen that have some basic batting technique and the bowlers’ mettle isn't tested on the grounds of being able to contain runs only.
If the 100 overs are split into four installments of 25 overs each, aren't the players being indirectly told to treat a one-dayer like a couple of back-to-back T20 games? I have no doubt that an excess of five overs in this suggested alternative won't be able to stop the madness of T20 seeping into the ODIs and changing its very essence.
Yes, there are advantages such as reducing the impact of weather conditions that often render teams at the mercy of the toss. The recently concluded tri-series in Sri Lanka is ample proof that the ground conditions could pre-decide the fate of the match — every team that batted second in this tournament, lost.
Therefore, splitting the 100 overs between the two teams in an alternating format would distribute the weather-related implications. However, it is still bound to change the ODIs beyond recognition. Aussies who lost the Ashes rather comprehensively have whitewashed the English team, leading the seven-match series, 5 to nil and these variations is worth preserving. Introduction of changes based upon Tendulkar’s perspective would mean making the ODI game considerably similar to the T20 format and hence, slowly eradicating the fundamental nature of one-dayers.
I am not against introducing changes but they should complement the fundamentals of ODIs rather than trying to eliminate them. Perhaps the ICC should try to correct its own mistakes that initiated the downfall of the ODI game, i.e. making the game bend too much in the favor of batsmen by allowing games on dead, lifeless pitches that don’t offer anything to the bowlers. Had this issue been dealt with in time, the aura of ODIs with the game constantly seesawing between the bowlers & batsmen would have sustained viewer interest and the present fiasco would have never emerged.
I guess, self-introspection is a lot tougher and the ICC is no different. The easy solution obviously lies in hosting numerous ‘meetings’ in plush resorts and five star offices to suggest wholesome, unwanted changes and you don’t have to be an ODI enthusiast or discriminator to understand this.
It was the maestro, Sachin Tendulkar, who suggested that the ODI game should be reinvented by introducing four innings instead of the current trend of every side having once chance to bat. According to him, each innings should be of 25 overs only. This essentially means that each side would be batting and balling in two, separate installments. The proposal has already caught the attention of many ICC bosses and some of them are willing to give it a go-ahead by introducing it in the English county circuit. Some purists say that this format would be a bit too confusing, since most viewers would find it difficult to keep a tally of the scores over four innings in a single day. However, I really don’t think this argument makes much sense. In our times, having access to information on a 24x7 basis is no longer a challenge and hence, any concerns about viewers getting confused are unfounded. In fact, trying to read into the scoreline after each innings might just be an added incentive for people to check upon the match’s progress.
So is there anything wrong with the suggestion? My personal opinion is that it tampers with the current format too extensively. We have already seen what the T20 game is doing to the game. Teams are constantly on the lookout for players who can score a quickfire, 20-30 runs, seldom batting with any elegance. Considering this, ODIs still breed batsmen that have some basic batting technique and the bowlers’ mettle isn't tested on the grounds of being able to contain runs only.
If the 100 overs are split into four installments of 25 overs each, aren't the players being indirectly told to treat a one-dayer like a couple of back-to-back T20 games? I have no doubt that an excess of five overs in this suggested alternative won't be able to stop the madness of T20 seeping into the ODIs and changing its very essence.
Yes, there are advantages such as reducing the impact of weather conditions that often render teams at the mercy of the toss. The recently concluded tri-series in Sri Lanka is ample proof that the ground conditions could pre-decide the fate of the match — every team that batted second in this tournament, lost.
Therefore, splitting the 100 overs between the two teams in an alternating format would distribute the weather-related implications. However, it is still bound to change the ODIs beyond recognition. Aussies who lost the Ashes rather comprehensively have whitewashed the English team, leading the seven-match series, 5 to nil and these variations is worth preserving. Introduction of changes based upon Tendulkar’s perspective would mean making the ODI game considerably similar to the T20 format and hence, slowly eradicating the fundamental nature of one-dayers.
I am not against introducing changes but they should complement the fundamentals of ODIs rather than trying to eliminate them. Perhaps the ICC should try to correct its own mistakes that initiated the downfall of the ODI game, i.e. making the game bend too much in the favor of batsmen by allowing games on dead, lifeless pitches that don’t offer anything to the bowlers. Had this issue been dealt with in time, the aura of ODIs with the game constantly seesawing between the bowlers & batsmen would have sustained viewer interest and the present fiasco would have never emerged.
I guess, self-introspection is a lot tougher and the ICC is no different. The easy solution obviously lies in hosting numerous ‘meetings’ in plush resorts and five star offices to suggest wholesome, unwanted changes and you don’t have to be an ODI enthusiast or discriminator to understand this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)