Showing posts with label Indian cricket. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Indian cricket. Show all posts
August 11, 2011
August 07, 2010
If I was a ball
If you was a ball
Whose bat would you be touched by
If you was a ball
Whose bat would you be touched by
If I was a ball I’d like to stay in shape
I’d like to travel far beyond the boundary ropes
If I was a ball
I’d like to go for an on drive
I’d like fielders running after me
Like boys run after girls
I’d like them to chase me, always interested somehow
Never giving up hope
I’d like to be played off the pads
Pulled and cut and flicked
But never in anger
I may be a ball, but I got my feelings
Feelings that very few can tell
Feelings that very special few can tell
Very, very special few can tell
If I was a ball, I’d like to be touched
By VVS’ bat
He doesn’t ignore, he plays me
With his bat
The pads they’re part of his uniform
What’s with Laxman, he’s always in form
If I was a ball, If you was a ball
June 07, 2010
May 25, 2010
Suresh Raina in fancy dress
I have always been a big fan of Roman generals like Russel Crowe in Gladiator!
On Bored: Raina's bizarre fielding drills
December 26, 2009
Who will bowl with the relatively new ball?
Through the one-day series India has picked 3 medium pacers, one of whom has ended up going for plenty. Of course, once Ishant was included he was the chosen one. In his latter years when Kumble was still playing one-day cricket, then too India played 3 seamers plus the one spinner; the fifth bowler’s role tackled by part-timers.
Thus India’s attack lost out on either Kumble or Bhajji when playing teams like Australia and South Africa away from the sub-continent. The 2003 finals in South Africa, when the Aussies whipped 359 runs was against an attack sans Kumble; Zaheer going at over 9, Nehra at 8 plus runs per over.
Surprisingly it was the part-timers like Mongia, Yuvraj, Sehwag, Sachin who bowled 15 overs for 85 runs. Where as the three seamers went for 211 of their 27 overs.
That’s one game, but this is a pattern across India’s one-day games over the last few years. And if the part-timers(usually spinners), and there are always a few who can bowl 10 overs – why doesn’t India take the lead and start playing two specialist spinners as an attacking move?
That is, bowl them in the power plays – take pace off, challenge the batsmen to hit over the top when the field is in; these are cricket clichés, said often enough, but no Indian captain has been brave enough to play two specialist spinners.
It’ll be interesting to see how many one-dayers Bhajji and Kumble have played together; it’s time India realised you don’t need a home test series to play two specialist spinners; always play your best four or five bowlers.
For old time’s sake, I took another look at that India v Bangladesh scorecard in the 2007 world cup game; while the final scores do not give you a sense of the mauling, here too India played three seamers plus Bhajji.
Times like this you wonder, where did Kumble play his 271 one dayers, when did he take those 337 wickets, why wasn’t he good enough to be the fifth bowler?
Kumble played his last one dayer in March 2007, an inconsequential world cup game against Bermuda. He played his last test much later, in November, 2008. For the record, Bhajji did not play in that game, India bowled three seamers, and the fifth bowler’s role was split between Sachin and Sehwag.
Kumble’s one day bowling average was 30.89; Bhajji’s stands at 33.12.
Today, Bhajji is a first choice spinner while either Ojha and Mishra make the squad (but not the playing XI) depending what the flavour of the season is. Not long before both are dispensed with, and India turns to an old flame, Piyush Chawla. What better, he even bats as high as six for his Ranji team.
On Bored: batty about batting
Thus India’s attack lost out on either Kumble or Bhajji when playing teams like Australia and South Africa away from the sub-continent. The 2003 finals in South Africa, when the Aussies whipped 359 runs was against an attack sans Kumble; Zaheer going at over 9, Nehra at 8 plus runs per over.
Surprisingly it was the part-timers like Mongia, Yuvraj, Sehwag, Sachin who bowled 15 overs for 85 runs. Where as the three seamers went for 211 of their 27 overs.
That’s one game, but this is a pattern across India’s one-day games over the last few years. And if the part-timers(usually spinners), and there are always a few who can bowl 10 overs – why doesn’t India take the lead and start playing two specialist spinners as an attacking move?
That is, bowl them in the power plays – take pace off, challenge the batsmen to hit over the top when the field is in; these are cricket clichés, said often enough, but no Indian captain has been brave enough to play two specialist spinners.
It’ll be interesting to see how many one-dayers Bhajji and Kumble have played together; it’s time India realised you don’t need a home test series to play two specialist spinners; always play your best four or five bowlers.
For old time’s sake, I took another look at that India v Bangladesh scorecard in the 2007 world cup game; while the final scores do not give you a sense of the mauling, here too India played three seamers plus Bhajji.
Times like this you wonder, where did Kumble play his 271 one dayers, when did he take those 337 wickets, why wasn’t he good enough to be the fifth bowler?
Kumble played his last one dayer in March 2007, an inconsequential world cup game against Bermuda. He played his last test much later, in November, 2008. For the record, Bhajji did not play in that game, India bowled three seamers, and the fifth bowler’s role was split between Sachin and Sehwag.
Kumble’s one day bowling average was 30.89; Bhajji’s stands at 33.12.
Today, Bhajji is a first choice spinner while either Ojha and Mishra make the squad (but not the playing XI) depending what the flavour of the season is. Not long before both are dispensed with, and India turns to an old flame, Piyush Chawla. What better, he even bats as high as six for his Ranji team.
On Bored: batty about batting
October 03, 2009
How old is Munaf Patel
Older than the hills, older than Sanath Jayasuriya, even older than Sachin Tendulkar. But how old is he? Does Munaf age, does he have an age – when did he make his debut? Did he make his debut, do you recall any game he played?
Isn’t it strange that he’s called Munna? He looks old enough to be your uncle. But again, that doesn’t answer the question, how old is Munaf?
Whatever age he is, surely too old to play for India. Not like RP and Ishant who get younger by the day.
Isn’t it strange that he’s called Munna? He looks old enough to be your uncle. But again, that doesn’t answer the question, how old is Munaf?
Whatever age he is, surely too old to play for India. Not like RP and Ishant who get younger by the day.
June 15, 2009
Men in Blue Chip
What Do You Get From Investing In Indian Cricket?
Laughing Stock Options.
Enjoy the Bye Bye T20 WC series at Bored Cricket Crazy Indians. Because it's worth it.
Laughing Stock Options.
Enjoy the Bye Bye T20 WC series at Bored Cricket Crazy Indians. Because it's worth it.
April 15, 2008
We’re No. 2.
Do we try harder?
What’s common between the No. 2 car rental company in the 1960s and the No. 2 test cricket team in 2008?
They’re both No. 2. Apart from that, not much.
While Avis, America’s No. 2 car rental company, came to terms with its rank, India, the world’s No. 2 test nation, isn’t quite there yet.
When Avis cracked its brilliant ad campaign in the 60s, it first faced facts: it was No.2, not No.1. And to be No.1, it must first consolidate as No.2.
Meanwhile, after India’s first ever test win at Perth, it was presumed, somewhat prematurely, that India will soon be No.1. This was constantly communicated by the power brokers of Indian cricket. Nowhere was it mentioned how India would be No. 1, it was just assumed. Possibly because when you’re climbing, after No.2 it’s No.1. No negative thoughts of shaky ground that can make No. 2 slide.
Avis made no bones about their No. 2 ranking, and saw a big-time opportunity in it: a cult advertising idea was born: We’re No.2. We try harder.
And try harder they did. It was the little things like, “cleaner ashtrays” and “shorter queues” they harped on about. Stuff that struck a chord. Better still, they stuck to their promises. And that’s how they delivered. They became a stronger, more credible No.2. And even threatened the No. 1 car rental company, Hertz.
Today, while India retains its No. 2 ranking, it plays more like No. 3 or 4 on most days. In the last series in South Africa, form and a 1-0 lead was squandered. Ultimately, India lost that series 2-1. Appears India’s surprise at winning their first ever test there overwhelmed this bunch of underachievers. Against a rudderless Pakistani side, India at home, barely managed a test series win.
Is team India just a motley crew of the most gifted cricketers assembled together– the Soviet Union of cricket?
When Avis started its “we’re No. 2” ad pilgrimage, it ensured every employee across the United States was on the same page. For India, having one team on the same book is a tall order. Then what must it be like to have three teams play under two different captains?
So, what can the Indian test learn from Avis’ “We’re No. 2. We try harder” campaign
1. Accept the truth: you are not close to No. 1 yet
2. To become No. 1, you first have to be a potent No. 2.
3. To be a potent No. 2, you have to be a world-beater –that is, do more things right than wrong – i.e. win more than you lose.
4. Accept graciously that you’re just about No. 2 today – one good session for South Africa on the 3rd day, and they might have been No. 2. And one session is not enough to separate two teams.
5. Is it possible there is not a team worthy of being No. 2? Instead there are two No. 3 teams.
6. The opposition is not within the team, it is the opposing team.
7. Introspect, ask questions. If ad legend, Bill Bernbach had not asked the folks at Avis any questions, there would never have been any answers.
8. Innovate. Do not copy Australia. Just like Avis did not ape Hertz. Find your own way to beat the best.
9. Every little counts. From “clean ashtrays” and “shorter queues” in the Avis way – to better fitness, improved fielding, running between wickets and overall attitude.
10. Respect the customer – i.e. respect the cricket fan, they make you possible.
11. Try harder.
And an aside, not from the Avis school of thought, but from the Indian cricket school:
Respect your seniors. One day you may play as a senior too. Never know what happens, when you try harder. Ask Saurav Ganguly.
Do we try harder?
What’s common between the No. 2 car rental company in the 1960s and the No. 2 test cricket team in 2008?
They’re both No. 2. Apart from that, not much.
While Avis, America’s No. 2 car rental company, came to terms with its rank, India, the world’s No. 2 test nation, isn’t quite there yet.
When Avis cracked its brilliant ad campaign in the 60s, it first faced facts: it was No.2, not No.1. And to be No.1, it must first consolidate as No.2.
Meanwhile, after India’s first ever test win at Perth, it was presumed, somewhat prematurely, that India will soon be No.1. This was constantly communicated by the power brokers of Indian cricket. Nowhere was it mentioned how India would be No. 1, it was just assumed. Possibly because when you’re climbing, after No.2 it’s No.1. No negative thoughts of shaky ground that can make No. 2 slide.
Avis made no bones about their No. 2 ranking, and saw a big-time opportunity in it: a cult advertising idea was born: We’re No.2. We try harder.
And try harder they did. It was the little things like, “cleaner ashtrays” and “shorter queues” they harped on about. Stuff that struck a chord. Better still, they stuck to their promises. And that’s how they delivered. They became a stronger, more credible No.2. And even threatened the No. 1 car rental company, Hertz.
Today, while India retains its No. 2 ranking, it plays more like No. 3 or 4 on most days. In the last series in South Africa, form and a 1-0 lead was squandered. Ultimately, India lost that series 2-1. Appears India’s surprise at winning their first ever test there overwhelmed this bunch of underachievers. Against a rudderless Pakistani side, India at home, barely managed a test series win.
Is team India just a motley crew of the most gifted cricketers assembled together– the Soviet Union of cricket?
When Avis started its “we’re No. 2” ad pilgrimage, it ensured every employee across the United States was on the same page. For India, having one team on the same book is a tall order. Then what must it be like to have three teams play under two different captains?
So, what can the Indian test learn from Avis’ “We’re No. 2. We try harder” campaign
1. Accept the truth: you are not close to No. 1 yet
2. To become No. 1, you first have to be a potent No. 2.
3. To be a potent No. 2, you have to be a world-beater –that is, do more things right than wrong – i.e. win more than you lose.
4. Accept graciously that you’re just about No. 2 today – one good session for South Africa on the 3rd day, and they might have been No. 2. And one session is not enough to separate two teams.
5. Is it possible there is not a team worthy of being No. 2? Instead there are two No. 3 teams.
6. The opposition is not within the team, it is the opposing team.
7. Introspect, ask questions. If ad legend, Bill Bernbach had not asked the folks at Avis any questions, there would never have been any answers.
8. Innovate. Do not copy Australia. Just like Avis did not ape Hertz. Find your own way to beat the best.
9. Every little counts. From “clean ashtrays” and “shorter queues” in the Avis way – to better fitness, improved fielding, running between wickets and overall attitude.
10. Respect the customer – i.e. respect the cricket fan, they make you possible.
11. Try harder.
And an aside, not from the Avis school of thought, but from the Indian cricket school:
Respect your seniors. One day you may play as a senior too. Never know what happens, when you try harder. Ask Saurav Ganguly.
October 19, 2007
Ghost in the machine.
“I see dead people” - Now, I may not quite be Cole Sear from “The 6th Sense” whose long unattended claim that was, but when it comes to cricket, it’s something like that.
I was watching the Australian innings unfold (fold?) in the last one-day game. Hopes was at the crease, playing a well ironed innings. Murali Kartik the bowler, about to deliver the 35.5th ball of the Aussie innings. Isn’t the suspense killing you? But I’m getting ahead of myself: after the previous ball (35.4th ) Hopes had a peculiar expression – nearly a half grimace, not a very comfy look if you ask me. I stood there and Boing! I pronounced him dead – he’ll have to go! And then lo, behold, Murali became Mackenna and struck gold – he bowled Hopes all ends up. Murali didn’t look over the moon, just another wicket in a day of excess. Maybe he knew something I did – that the end is nigh, it’s utterly hopeless for you-know-who.
When you look back it all fits in: Hopes’ expression after the previous ball, his obvious discomfort, the well thought of faster, skidding one that finally cleaned him up. Suffice to say, my reaction was no different from Kartik’s – after all, I was expecting it.
Of course, most cricketers have the gift, they’re sort of 6th sensed: but while playing Australia this instinct crumbles into a negative force, and they almost expect doom - why else do they give in so meekly? That too, without embracing any new thought whatsoever.
Shouldn’t Indian cricket use all its intuitive powers, and at least challenge this Aussie bully? Dare say, normal cricketing acumen isn’t enough to overpower Oz - they have to resort to guerilla warfare, like opening with spin or someone other than the usual suspects.
India opened with Harbhajan Singh after they made a measly 148 at the Vadodara ODI– but why alone do desperate times call for such extreme measures? Is it too tricky for Indian cricket to think out-of-the-box? Is the proverbial, what if, always haunting Indian cricket? Is the fear of criticism stopping Indian cricket from exceeding itself?
Experiments are essential versus Australia as they’re a far better team. However, their superiority is augmented when we serve them the same eleven-course meal repeatedly. How often, if ever, has India bothered to counter Aussie might with unconventional new thinking?
Granted, Zaheer Khan had an exceptional last game, and Kartik pulled off more rabbits than Hugh Hefner has bunnies – but usually India’s playing catch-up with Australia. Throughout the series Australia won handsomely while India’s wins were anything but that. And along with Shakira’s hips, facts don’t lie either: In this series, India won vs. Australia (chasing) after a gap of more than nine years.
Also, Australia is known to lose the last game in a dead rubber, maybe some of them are human too. But as Rameez Raja said of Symonds, “He is not human”.
So, how does one beat the machine? Not by calling it a monkey. Not by sledging alone. If it was so, Symonds would have rolled over and not been the man-of-the-series.
Face it, just like in those Hollywood fantasies, you beat the machine by staying human; true to your instincts, your own strengths, and not by aping the enemy. It may not work instantly, but it will push them harder – Australia will have to scrap harder to win games. No more one-sided 9-wicket wins. No more dreary defeats by a hundred plus runs. No, none of that.
Eventually, the doubts will creep in. That’s when the machine will show signs of mortality.
Now, pace alone cannot counter the Australians. Chances are, spin alone won’t do the trick either, but at least it will make them think out of their comfort zone. Even though the Wankhede wicket turned square, it’s worth asking, how often in the past has India gone into a one-day game vs. Australia with two specialist spinners?
Never too late for Indian cricket to face facts: the ghost in the Aussie machine is beatable. But first, we must beat the ghosts within our own machine - our screwed-up system – that which runs Indian cricket. And unless we put our own house in order, the cracks will only widen. And that like Hopes’ dismissal, I can see that clearly.
“I see dead people” - Now, I may not quite be Cole Sear from “The 6th Sense” whose long unattended claim that was, but when it comes to cricket, it’s something like that.
I was watching the Australian innings unfold (fold?) in the last one-day game. Hopes was at the crease, playing a well ironed innings. Murali Kartik the bowler, about to deliver the 35.5th ball of the Aussie innings. Isn’t the suspense killing you? But I’m getting ahead of myself: after the previous ball (35.4th ) Hopes had a peculiar expression – nearly a half grimace, not a very comfy look if you ask me. I stood there and Boing! I pronounced him dead – he’ll have to go! And then lo, behold, Murali became Mackenna and struck gold – he bowled Hopes all ends up. Murali didn’t look over the moon, just another wicket in a day of excess. Maybe he knew something I did – that the end is nigh, it’s utterly hopeless for you-know-who.
When you look back it all fits in: Hopes’ expression after the previous ball, his obvious discomfort, the well thought of faster, skidding one that finally cleaned him up. Suffice to say, my reaction was no different from Kartik’s – after all, I was expecting it.
Of course, most cricketers have the gift, they’re sort of 6th sensed: but while playing Australia this instinct crumbles into a negative force, and they almost expect doom - why else do they give in so meekly? That too, without embracing any new thought whatsoever.
Shouldn’t Indian cricket use all its intuitive powers, and at least challenge this Aussie bully? Dare say, normal cricketing acumen isn’t enough to overpower Oz - they have to resort to guerilla warfare, like opening with spin or someone other than the usual suspects.
India opened with Harbhajan Singh after they made a measly 148 at the Vadodara ODI– but why alone do desperate times call for such extreme measures? Is it too tricky for Indian cricket to think out-of-the-box? Is the proverbial, what if, always haunting Indian cricket? Is the fear of criticism stopping Indian cricket from exceeding itself?
Experiments are essential versus Australia as they’re a far better team. However, their superiority is augmented when we serve them the same eleven-course meal repeatedly. How often, if ever, has India bothered to counter Aussie might with unconventional new thinking?
Granted, Zaheer Khan had an exceptional last game, and Kartik pulled off more rabbits than Hugh Hefner has bunnies – but usually India’s playing catch-up with Australia. Throughout the series Australia won handsomely while India’s wins were anything but that. And along with Shakira’s hips, facts don’t lie either: In this series, India won vs. Australia (chasing) after a gap of more than nine years.
Also, Australia is known to lose the last game in a dead rubber, maybe some of them are human too. But as Rameez Raja said of Symonds, “He is not human”.
So, how does one beat the machine? Not by calling it a monkey. Not by sledging alone. If it was so, Symonds would have rolled over and not been the man-of-the-series.
Face it, just like in those Hollywood fantasies, you beat the machine by staying human; true to your instincts, your own strengths, and not by aping the enemy. It may not work instantly, but it will push them harder – Australia will have to scrap harder to win games. No more one-sided 9-wicket wins. No more dreary defeats by a hundred plus runs. No, none of that.
Eventually, the doubts will creep in. That’s when the machine will show signs of mortality.
Now, pace alone cannot counter the Australians. Chances are, spin alone won’t do the trick either, but at least it will make them think out of their comfort zone. Even though the Wankhede wicket turned square, it’s worth asking, how often in the past has India gone into a one-day game vs. Australia with two specialist spinners?
Never too late for Indian cricket to face facts: the ghost in the Aussie machine is beatable. But first, we must beat the ghosts within our own machine - our screwed-up system – that which runs Indian cricket. And unless we put our own house in order, the cracks will only widen. And that like Hopes’ dismissal, I can see that clearly.
September 29, 2007
What the flux!
By Gaurav Sethi
Contrary to what everyone and their cricket punditjee may say, Indian cricket is in a heightened state of flux. And regardless of the India-Australia series’ result, flux is here to stay. It started unassumingly with senior players dropping out of the T20 tournament - gained momentum with each subsequent win - and became super-flux with the T20 championship victory.
Flux in Indian cricket is not a bad thing by any means. But it happened, as often does here, by default - with Rahul Dravid’s announcement that he, Tendulkar and Ganguly will not play in the Twenty20 World Cup. One thing led to another, and before we knew, flux had taken over the reigns of Indian cricket. And this is how it unfolded:
1) No captain, M.S. Dhoni takes over.
2) No deputy, Yuvraj Singh takes over.
3) No openers - Gautam Gambhir and Virender Sehwag take over.
4) No Sehwag in finals - debutant Yusuf Pathan takes over.
5) No Gambhir at no.3 - Robin Uthappa takes over.
6) No Ramesh Powar - Harbhajan Singh takes over
7) No Zaheer Khan as spearhead - RP Singh and Irfan Pathan take over
8) No Yuvraj – Rohit Sharma takes over
9) No Ajit Agarkar – Sree Santh and Joginder Sharma take over.
10) No M.S. Dhoni as wicket keeper – Dinesh Karthik takes over
11) No lucky mascot – Piyush Chawla takes over
By the end of the tournament, nobody in the Indian team was indispensable. When did that last happen? For years, Tendulkar’s dismissal made fans dismiss their T.V. sets. Then, when Tendulkar’s star was on the wane, Sehwag was the chosen one. And after Sehwag, Dhoni now threatens to become the man upstairs. Meanwhile, Rahul Dravid, VVS Laxman and Saurav Ganguly worked their wonders behind the scenes.
The difference between the first and second lot is overall impact in all forms of cricket along with public and media perception: Tendulkar and Sehwag were impact players in both tests and one-dayers – also, they were perceived as big match winners in both forms. While Dravid’s and VVS Laxman’s impact in test cricket was unquestionable, their reputations as one-day players was never in the same hallowed ballpark. And while Ganguly was a top ODI player, his success in tests wasn’t quite the same. But these lacks were nearly compensated by his captaincy.
Today, M.S. Dhoni is young in both test and ODI years. Yet he threatens to reach cricket’s Everest, where Tendulkar and Sehwag once camped, almost unaccompanied. Two crucial test innings in England plus many more in ODIs and T20 plus a short albeit highly regarded stint as captain. However M.S.D. will do well to take a leaf out of Ganguly’s career book - as they say, the same thing that makes you live can kill you in the end.
Meanwhile, Yuvraj nearly usurped Dhoni’s exalted position in the T20 World Cup. But as in the case of Dravid, Laxman, Ganguly, this was only one form of the game – and though Yuvraj gets top billing in T20 and ODIs, he is no cowboy in test cricket.
Ever wonder, why no one speaks of Michael Bevan and Mark Waugh in the same breath? While the short ball kept Bevan out of the longer version, Yuvraj needs to exorcise his spin demons. No accident that the Paki spinners bowled during Yuvraj’s T20 innings in the final.
Even though it is premature to gauge many of the T20 players just yet, by creating a larger pool of 33 players across 4 grades, there will clearly be no one Team India. Especially with the bizarre cricket calendar - an ODI vs. Australia just four days after a World Cup final – two days after returning home - with one day for pre-match conditioning; it’s now realistic to have two-three different teams.
While this could mean the end of the demigod cricketer, it might well ensure that players do not break down mid tournament or in between a series – or an ill-timed T20 World Cup doesn’t short circuit key test players. What if Australia was here for a test series (instead of the seven ODIs) with both Ponting and Hussey injured? If anything, players will have to be smarter about when they play and when they abstain.
Recently, when Sachin Tendulkar cramped in an ODI, barely half way through the innings, it was a strong pointer that enough is enough. According to Tendulkar then, two days recovery time between games wasn’t nearly enough. Even though Sachin spoke of himself and his adding cricket years, even a teenager will burn out at this frantic pace. In cricket, nobody is eighteen till they die. Not when the itineraries are on cocaine.
The India-Australia series has the same punishing schedule as the ODI games in England (with barely two days break between games), yet hopefully, better sense will prevail now. So if in one game Ganguly-Tendulkar open, in the next, Gambhir-Uthappa can kick off. This same logic could have Zaheer Khan make way for Sree Santh and Powar for Harbhajan.
As it was in the T20 World Cup, another player can always take over. Worst case, you lose without a key player. But then, you can also lose with that key player. And it’s better to lose the odd game, then a key player to the odd injury.
The key is not to panic when India loses with new blood. Better to write it off as an investment in future successes. Better to embrace flux today, rather than badly injure Indian cricket tomorrow.
By Gaurav Sethi
Contrary to what everyone and their cricket punditjee may say, Indian cricket is in a heightened state of flux. And regardless of the India-Australia series’ result, flux is here to stay. It started unassumingly with senior players dropping out of the T20 tournament - gained momentum with each subsequent win - and became super-flux with the T20 championship victory.
Flux in Indian cricket is not a bad thing by any means. But it happened, as often does here, by default - with Rahul Dravid’s announcement that he, Tendulkar and Ganguly will not play in the Twenty20 World Cup. One thing led to another, and before we knew, flux had taken over the reigns of Indian cricket. And this is how it unfolded:
1) No captain, M.S. Dhoni takes over.
2) No deputy, Yuvraj Singh takes over.
3) No openers - Gautam Gambhir and Virender Sehwag take over.
4) No Sehwag in finals - debutant Yusuf Pathan takes over.
5) No Gambhir at no.3 - Robin Uthappa takes over.
6) No Ramesh Powar - Harbhajan Singh takes over
7) No Zaheer Khan as spearhead - RP Singh and Irfan Pathan take over
8) No Yuvraj – Rohit Sharma takes over
9) No Ajit Agarkar – Sree Santh and Joginder Sharma take over.
10) No M.S. Dhoni as wicket keeper – Dinesh Karthik takes over
11) No lucky mascot – Piyush Chawla takes over
By the end of the tournament, nobody in the Indian team was indispensable. When did that last happen? For years, Tendulkar’s dismissal made fans dismiss their T.V. sets. Then, when Tendulkar’s star was on the wane, Sehwag was the chosen one. And after Sehwag, Dhoni now threatens to become the man upstairs. Meanwhile, Rahul Dravid, VVS Laxman and Saurav Ganguly worked their wonders behind the scenes.
The difference between the first and second lot is overall impact in all forms of cricket along with public and media perception: Tendulkar and Sehwag were impact players in both tests and one-dayers – also, they were perceived as big match winners in both forms. While Dravid’s and VVS Laxman’s impact in test cricket was unquestionable, their reputations as one-day players was never in the same hallowed ballpark. And while Ganguly was a top ODI player, his success in tests wasn’t quite the same. But these lacks were nearly compensated by his captaincy.
Today, M.S. Dhoni is young in both test and ODI years. Yet he threatens to reach cricket’s Everest, where Tendulkar and Sehwag once camped, almost unaccompanied. Two crucial test innings in England plus many more in ODIs and T20 plus a short albeit highly regarded stint as captain. However M.S.D. will do well to take a leaf out of Ganguly’s career book - as they say, the same thing that makes you live can kill you in the end.
Meanwhile, Yuvraj nearly usurped Dhoni’s exalted position in the T20 World Cup. But as in the case of Dravid, Laxman, Ganguly, this was only one form of the game – and though Yuvraj gets top billing in T20 and ODIs, he is no cowboy in test cricket.
Ever wonder, why no one speaks of Michael Bevan and Mark Waugh in the same breath? While the short ball kept Bevan out of the longer version, Yuvraj needs to exorcise his spin demons. No accident that the Paki spinners bowled during Yuvraj’s T20 innings in the final.
Even though it is premature to gauge many of the T20 players just yet, by creating a larger pool of 33 players across 4 grades, there will clearly be no one Team India. Especially with the bizarre cricket calendar - an ODI vs. Australia just four days after a World Cup final – two days after returning home - with one day for pre-match conditioning; it’s now realistic to have two-three different teams.
While this could mean the end of the demigod cricketer, it might well ensure that players do not break down mid tournament or in between a series – or an ill-timed T20 World Cup doesn’t short circuit key test players. What if Australia was here for a test series (instead of the seven ODIs) with both Ponting and Hussey injured? If anything, players will have to be smarter about when they play and when they abstain.
Recently, when Sachin Tendulkar cramped in an ODI, barely half way through the innings, it was a strong pointer that enough is enough. According to Tendulkar then, two days recovery time between games wasn’t nearly enough. Even though Sachin spoke of himself and his adding cricket years, even a teenager will burn out at this frantic pace. In cricket, nobody is eighteen till they die. Not when the itineraries are on cocaine.
The India-Australia series has the same punishing schedule as the ODI games in England (with barely two days break between games), yet hopefully, better sense will prevail now. So if in one game Ganguly-Tendulkar open, in the next, Gambhir-Uthappa can kick off. This same logic could have Zaheer Khan make way for Sree Santh and Powar for Harbhajan.
As it was in the T20 World Cup, another player can always take over. Worst case, you lose without a key player. But then, you can also lose with that key player. And it’s better to lose the odd game, then a key player to the odd injury.
The key is not to panic when India loses with new blood. Better to write it off as an investment in future successes. Better to embrace flux today, rather than badly injure Indian cricket tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
