skip to main |
skip to sidebar
One-sided matches, almost invariably, are a combination of one side performing exceptionally well and the other side under-performing. The first Test between Pakistan and England at Dubai was no different.
Pakistan were exceptional - keeping tight lines on the first day to create mistakes from the batsmen on an unresponsive wicket, then bat solidly at the top and wag a bit at the bottom to get a more than decent-sized lead, and finally put in another disciplined and at the same time, aggressive bowling effort to bowl England out just 14 runs ahead of their first innings lead.
England were shabby - they got too caught up in trying to be careful against the spin and were done in by Ajmal's guile and wicket-to-wicket lines as a result, then could not find the ammunition to restrict Pakistan despite taking wickets at regular intervals after they had got the first breakthrough, and finally batting poorly again to be shot out just for 160.
The result tells profound tales about both the camps. For Pakistan, it is a huge win, coming against the opponent in whose country they had experienced the lowest point of their recent cricket history - the 2010 Spot Fixing Scandal. Since then, Pakistan has been in a rebuilding state. After showing the promise in the World Cup (and just before than in New Zealand), they have now every reason to be delighted with the progress they have shown under the leadership of Misbah-ul-Haq. This is the first time in about half a decade that there is a sense of stability in Pakistan's cricket, which had been missing ever since they had lost to Ireland in the World Cup 2007, followed by their then coach Bob Woolmer's death and Inzamam-ul-Haq's retirement in the next game against Zimbabwe.
Their win has just made the scenario of Test cricket very exciting at the top. England, because of their Asian struggles, are definitely not in the category of 'Invincibles' yet. Pakistan themselves are on the rise, as is Australia after a decline for some time. India is on a slide, as is Sri Lanka (despite Durban). South Africa is stable near the top, though inconsistent. If Pakistan can unearth another couple of good fast bowler (something they tend to do quite easily and also frankly because I am not very convinced with Aizaz Cheema yet), they might as well threaten for a stint of their own at the top of the rankings in a couple of years.
On the other side of the fence, England have a task ahead of them. They rose to the No. 1 spot in Test rankings not a long time ago. But if they put in such performances in Asia, they will not be holding that rank for a long time, as 2012 sees them play away to Sri Lanka and India as well. Their batting is definitely not as abject as the scores of 192 and 160 would suggest (almost seems like I am talking about India!), but their difficulties against the sub-continental spinners in the sub-continent have been very well-documented. They are not incapable of doing well in the sun-continent - Strauss has a century in each innings in Chennai and a wonderful 150 at Bangalore in the World Cup to look back at, Trott was very consistent in the World Cup, Bell (despite his confusion against Ajmal's doosras) has a fine footwork to counter spin bowling, Pietersen is a class player in a different category of his own, Morgan can counter spin effectively, as can Prior (which is what he showed in the first innings at Dubai).
They have worries in the bowling department too, and it starts right with the structure of their bowling attack. Five bowlers or four bowlers? One spinner or two spinner? What should be the combination when Bresnan is fit and what should it be when he isn't? I don't think two spinners is a good idea for England. Spinners are the bowlers that Asian batsmen relish facing, and so home or away, the best way to attack them is with pace - something the South Africa has done well with a good measure of success in the sub-continent! In the Dubai Test, Swann hardly troubled the Pakistan batsmen. When there is turn, he will surely get a few wickets, but if he is played out comfortably, then 3-4 wickets per Test is not much of a solace. In the sub-continent, the lead spinner of every team needs to be capable of getting 6-7 wickets every Test match!
The other spinner in the English ranks in Monty Panesar, who performed well in the warm-up game prior to the Dubai Test. So bewildering as it might sound to many - here's what I think England should do: draft in Monty Panesar in place of Graeme Swann, their premier spinner. I do feel that sub-continental batsmen prefer facing an off-spinner rather than a left-arm spinner. But the most compelling reason is the abundance of right-handed batsmen in the 3 teams that England will face in Asia in 2012. In their last respective Tests, Pakistan had just 1 left-hander in top-7 (Taufeeq Umar), Sri Lanka had 2 (Lahiru Thirimanne and Kumar Sangakkara), and India had 1 (Gautam Gambhir). With just right-arm fast bowlers in their ranks having to bowl mainly at right-handed batsmen (thereby almost eliminating their chances of bowling around the wicket), there are very little chances of footmarks creating rough patches on the pitch for an off-spinner. But if a left-arm spinner can use those footmarks by going over the wicket. It may be a slightly defensive strategy, but in my opinion, it is the best shot for England!
Greame Swann is a wonderful bowler, but England would do well by adopting a horses-for-courses theory. He can always be drafted back in the side if they are faced with a dustbowl or if Panesar underperforms or if they decide to go with 5 bowlers. But I think going for a left-arm spinner with 3 pacemen is a strategy worth having a shot at!
As for their fast bowlers, they will just have to persevere, get their lengths right, and be patient. The Asian pitches can be a big test of patience, and winning that test shall help them win a lot of Tests. Broad, I suspect, will be their key bowler... and Strauss would do well to hand him the new ball every time with Anderson (unlike what he did at Dubai). England would have loved to have someone with reverse-swing-capabilities of Simon Jones in their ranks... but even without that, they have good men in their arsenal. Now lets see if they can fire!
The verdict from the panel that heard the case of ICC against three Pakistan cricketers (Salman Butt, Mohammed Asif and Mohammed Amir) is due to be out soon. It will, almost definitely, be a landmark verdict... and though the entire world is absolutely convinced about the guilt of the trio involved, there are still some who advocate lesser punishments as compared to the life bans on most people's minds.
I did a bit of my own thinking on this. People who advocate life bans and other stringent punishments do so with all the good intentions of seeing cricket free of all these dirty businesses. Like them, even I want to live in a world where cricket (and every other sport) is played for the pride of winning... and not on the whims of a director behind the scenes. The sole director in any sport should be the spirit of competition between the competitors. And I am sure everyone wants to see it that way (except for the bookies)!
However, I have been, for quite some time, a little unsure about what would be the ideal punishment for those found guilty of all this muck. Does a life ban serve the purpose? Or if not the life ban, then what is the alternative?
Firstly, I would like my readers to think to themselves... what is the purpose of a life ban? Most believe that a life ban will deter anyone else in the future from attempting such shady deals and that it will help cleanse our sport.
But then is that the sole purpose for which we are punishing these cricketers? Once again, lets introspect and ask ourselves, if this is the purpose of a life ban, then what is the purpose of the punishment that will be given to them? Is it just about cleaning our sport or is it something more?
The way I look at it, a punishment is meted out not only to set an example to the rest of the society, but also to help the individual who is subject to such punishment to get better as a result of it. When a criminal is jailed for a crime that he / she has committed, it is with an intention to see him / her come out of it a better individual. A punishment must deter not only the rest of the society, but also that very individual who is being punished, from committing such an offence again.
Take notice of the word 'again' above. I lay stress on it because where one says again, it implies another chance. The individual subject to the punishment should be given a chance to prove to the world that the punishment has served its purpose... and that there has been improvement... that he's come out a different person compared to the one who had been jailed! Isn't that how an ideal society should work?
If the sole purpose of giving a punishment were to deter the others in the society who may have similar motives, then isn't our system a little flawed? Aren't we running a system intent on making scapegoats out of miscreants rather than making better individuals out of flawed ones?
When politicians play their mud-slinging antics every time something is wrong and try to make a scapegoat out of their opposition, we chastise them for their acts. Aren't we doing something similar? "Be the change that you want to see in the world!" This is one of the most famous Gandhian principles. I think it applies very aptly in this case.
Coming to the case of the Pakistani trio, I believe that they must be given a chance. Giving a chance does not imply no punishment at all. Of course they must be punished... and stringently at that! But at the end of the tunnel, they should be allowed to see a small ray of light.
Punish them hard, but also allow them a chance, that somewhere down the line, they might be able to come back to the game and prove to the world that they are improved men. Punish them hard, so much so that if and when they avail their second chance, they shall not even think of trodding on the wrong path again. But at the end of the day, give them a chance!
People may ask that how can one say for certain that they will change for the better with any punishment. But then, are there any certainties in life? How can a traffic cop be certain that you will never cross the speed limits again or that you will never park your vehicle wrongly again after he has fined you? Or to ask a more relevant question, how can you be sure that handing out life bans to the trio will not deter anyone else from trying this again?
For all you know, life bans might have quite a reverse impact as well. The wrong kind of cricketers might well think to themselves that once we are caught, our game will be over... so why not make as much moolah as we can while we are still in the game! That would be a spur to these kinds of shady activities... not a setback!
Eventually, whatever may be the verdict at Doha is almost certainly going to be challenged, one way or the other. There will certainly be an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS), and the men up there will have the final word.
A final word in the lives of these three cricketers... a final word for the future of our sport!
I have been away from blogosphere for about a week now. The Champions League Twenty20 has started and is midway through. And sadly, another round of fixing allegations are coming through.
There are allegations being made about the 3rd England - Pakistan ODI at The Oval, London... something about scoring patterns over different periods during Pakistan's batting innings.
I really hope that these allegations are not some cock-n-bull stories cooked up by certain fragments in the media to target Pakistan cricket and gain visibility as a result of it. After the revelations by the British tabloid News of the World (NOTW) during the England - Pakistan Test match at Lord's, I guess many other media and news agencies are vying to be the ones to release the next big breaking news.
When NOTW laid their allegations against certain players from the Pakistan team, they based it on evidences in the form of video footages that convinced more than half the world of the guilt of those accused. Sure, the investigations are still on and there will be more of bureaucracy involved as this matter progresses further. But what NOTW did was bring out their evidence into the open and put it in front of the world... so that maybe, when the investigations begin, the process would be a little more transparent than it usually is in such cases.
Compare to the new allegations coming through at the moment... about the run-scoring patterns. These allegations have not been based on anything that will classify as evidence in a court of law (unless ofcourse, such evidence has not been revealed publicly). In fact, the words used in the news articles describing such allegations is 'suspicious'. They are talking about suspicious run-scoring patterns, suspicious periods of play and more such things.
Now really, this sounds story in itself sounds suspicious to me. I may be completely wrong in my assessment if the allegations are proven to be true. But till then, I will say only this: the media must be responsible in breaking out their stories. By laying such allegations, they have tarnished what was a brilliant victory for the Pakistan cricket team and their hope of revival. This win could have helped them in a huge way to pick themselves up from this bottomless abyss. But now, not even a win for Pakistan will be looked at with any respectability.
Based on factors like pitch, conditions, bowler, batsmen involved, situation of play, etc, even I can predict the number of runs that will be scored in a particular over in most Limited Over matches. Does that mean that a media news agency should report a "Breaking News" because a cricket follower is claiming to make predictions over his blog? If the predictions are correct, will it be a case of "suspicious scoring patterns" for these media groups?
I am not very fond of media in any case and find them a very irresponsible segment of our society. And I do believe that whenever a news agency makes such allegations, they should be held responsible for their views.
Away from the depressing topic of corruption in cricket, I am today turning my attention to the US Open Grand Slam... the last tennis Grand Slam of the year.
Of the four Grand Slams played in tennis every year, US Open is my least favourite... simply because I live in a time zone that is not ideal if you want to follow every match at this big event! The live coverage of US Open begins at 8:30 pm each evening... and goes through the night to end at about 9:00 am the next morning. Since the best matches are played under lights during the second half of the day, they usually begin after 4:00 am in India.
But this has never stopped me from following the draws and the results at this Grand Slam. Being a Rafa fan, I am desperately hoping that he wins this title to complete his career Grand Slam. But if there's one thing that I want to see even more desperately, it is a Nadal v Federer final. These men have played in 7 Grand Slam finals... competing 30 sets with Nadal holding a 5-2 advantage over Federer.
Their Grand Slam finals showdowns are stuff of legends. Who can forget the brilliant 2008 Wimbledon finals that lasted four and three quarters of an hour interrupted by two rain delays! And then who can forget the 2009 Australian Open finals... just a few months later when Nadal consoled a sobbing Federer after defeating him in another 5-set marathon! Stuff of legends, indeed!
That Australian Open was their last meeting in a Grand Slam Final. Since then, they have met only twice... both times in the finals of Madrid Masters - Federer winning in 2009 and Nadal in 2010. The winner of Madrid Masters in both these years went on to sweep the French Open and Wimbledon titles in that year.
Their dominance in tennis Grand Slams can be ascertained by the fact that after the Australian Open 2005 (won by Marat Safin), only 2 Grand Slams out of 22 have been won by men other than these two - Novak Djokovic of Serbia took the Australian Open 2008 title and Juan Martin Del Potro won the US Open 2009. Add the fact that Del Potro defeated Federer in the finals last year, this means that over the last 5 and a half years, there has been just one Grand Slam final (Australian Open 2008) where both Federer and Nadal have been missing... Djokovic defeated Jo Wilfried Tsonga to win his lone Grand Slam title!
With due respect to the emerging young talents in the world of men's tennis like Djokovic, Andy Murray, Del Potro, Robin Soderling, Tomas Berdych and many others, there still has been no one to match the greatness of these two champions! Federer obviously has more laurels attached to his name with 16 Grand Slam titles as compared to Nadal's 8, but the Spaniard still enjoys a 14-7 record over the Swiss champion! And there is no doubt in my mind that Federer's tally of 16 would have been smaller had Nadal not been 4 years and 10 months younger to him.
As it stands today, I doubt Federer is going to add many more to his tally of 16... but as far as Nadal is concerned, I am really hopeful. Though I don't think it would be realistically possible for him to reach Federer's 16 titles, I hope he comes as close to it as possible. Nadal's game is physically a lot more exhausting than Federer's and that will give him a career shorter than that of Federer, but he's already shown that he can achieve a lot in these short periods!
In the backdrop of the spot-fixing scandal and the corruption charges, ICC issued a statement on Thursday that Mohammed Aamer and Mohammed Asif have been removed from the list of nominations in the ICC Annual Cricket Awards.
Aamer had been nominated under ICC's Emerging Player of the Year Award and Asif had been nominated under ICC's Test Player of the Year Award.
These two bowlers have been brilliant over the last few months for Pakistan's cricket. So if the allegations against them are true (which they are, to my mind - it is almost impossible to believe that there might have been a coincidence or a frame-up), these two will have to suffer dire consequences, along with the cricket in Pakistan.
If these men were under-performing and yet they had been nominated to ICC's Awards, I wonder how good they would have been had they been playing their best cricket!
However, I do believe that ICC has taken a good step in suspending these two and their captain Salman Butt from cricket. We live in a society that says you are innocent until proven guilty... but when the society has seen the overwhelming evidence against those involved, one has to take a different stand!
For a change, ICC has been pro-active and did not wait for investigations to be completed. There was a big chance that this case would get involved in the web of bureaucracy so prominently existent in cricket's administration. That is why, ICC's decision to suspend the 'tainted trio' holds even more significance.
Whichever news channel I decide to view, there is just one story – the story of man’s greed taking over as his primal instinct. The news that some cricketers from Pakistan were involved in spot-fixing during their English summer, and might even have been involved in match-fixing during this tour or in the Asia Cup and the Australian tour before this has saddened cricket.
The former cricketers of Pakistan, the parliamentarians there and every man on the street – all of them have the same view: the system needs to clean itself and weed out all those agents that defile it. They want all the cricketers involved in this muck to be banned from cricket for life and they think that the system will be clean again. I am afraid it cannot happen that way!
I can understand the anger and frustration of each one who wants stern action to be taken. Corruption has been a disease that has plagued cricket for quite a while now… showing its ugly head every once in a while and then diving back underground before the persons responsible to keep this game clean come to try and smash it. For a change, this time the head is stuck above the ground and we have a chance to give this disease a crippling blow. However, if the correct measures are not taken, then we will give it an opportunity to hide back underground and it will continue to disease our game of cricket for a long time to come!
But what exactly are the steps that need to be taken? A life ban? A heavy fine? Both? Have we not seen Pakistan Cricket Board impose such penalties time and again to various individuals in their set-up? Has it helped? I don’t think so! In fact, PCB’s actions have contributed in a big way to make Pakistan (as Ramiz Raja put it) ‘the laughing stock’ of cricketing world today.
To solve this problem, we need to get to the root of it. Why do such problems occur? Why do players get involved in such corruption? Is it just greed? Greed is an element of every human’s nature. Some manage to curb it, some are not so successful! But if greed was the only reason involved here, then surely there should have been occasions when players from Australia, England and New Zealand also got implicated in such scandals? I have never heard of cricket corruption in these countries. It’s only Pakistan and India, along with some odd instances in South Africa, West Indies and Bangladesh. Even if there have been instances of cricket corruption in these countries, they have been the oddity rather than the norm as it has come to become in Pakistan.
I had a long discussion with a friend on this issue… and we came up with a few viewpoints… a few opinions on why corruption in cricket is more common in the sub-continent than in other countries…
Cricketers from Pakistan and India have to cope up with extremism on a large scale… every good performance will be hailed as their best ever and every defeat will be labelled as a ‘shameful’ one! Those very fans that put them on high pedestals after a win will desert them in times of defeats.
Consider the case of Mohammed Aamer… in such a scenario, what will he be doing? A highly-talented teenager touted by everyone as the next Wasim Akram, Mohammed Aamer has given everyone a reason to expect great stuff from him. But he knows that when things don’t go his way, his fans are going to desert him and his Board will not support him! In such a scenario, if a crooked bookie comes across and offers him to bowl a few seemingly harmless no-balls to make a quick buck, why would he say no? He is watching cricketers with much lesser talent than him making huge amounts of money elsewhere in the world… then why would he say no to a chance to earn at least what he deserves, even if it is not the right way! How is he to know that what is spot-fixing today might just turn into a nasty habit and that he might get involved in match-fixing tomorrow? How is he to know that the money that the bookies and others are earning as a result of his no-balls is going in the wrong hands? How is he to know that that very money is the root cause of a lot of terrorism that exists in the very country where he lives?
For this young man, this is an act of immature desperation. Men in Pakistan and India, especially in the rural and semi-urban areas, have to feed numerous mouths in one household using one pair of hands (and one pair of legs to bowl no-balls) that they have. If a seemingly innocuous no-ball is providing them with supplementary income, then why will they say no? I doubt an 18-year old Mohammed Aamer, given his background and upbringing, is mature enough to understand this.
The point I am trying to make here is that it is not only an act of greed… but also an act of desperation! Desperation can make people do dangerous things… match-fixing and spot-fixing are but two illustrations of those!
So what now? How should they be punished? What punishment will act as a lesson for these individuals involved and will also act as a deterrent to other individuals from committing such acts of desperation? The problem with cricket’s way of handing out punishments such as bans is that it is intended to be a warning to others who might be getting tempted to trudge onto this path… but it does not intend to teach any lesson to the men involved in these syndicates except cause them to stay away from the game.
When handed a ban, a cricketer can go through any of these three situations (or rather these three were the situations that my friend and I could think of… there might be more). One, he could miss the game and repent having done what he did! Second, he might just drift away from the game… losing any interest in clearing his name or contribute for the betterment of the game that once was a way of his life! And third, he may not change at all – still remaining that corrupt individual who is a menace not only to the game but also to the society.
The third situation is the most dangerous one… as it harms the society that he live in. He becomes the centre of all the wrongdoings in his circle and helps corrupt the minds of young talents like Aamer!
Coming back to the point, the punishment that they receive should shame them and make them repent their acts and deeds. A fine will not help… they can earn whatever money they have lost through fines by getting involved in more of these ugly activities. A ban may help if it makes the person miss the game and long for it. But does it happen in every case? Is every individual that big a lover of the game that he would not mind giving up his previous ways of life just to get another chance to represent his country at the highest level? Does everyone have that sort of courage? If the answer is no, then we lose out on emerging talents due to the menace of corruption.
One may say what difference it makes if one talented individual is lost because of the lesson that we wanted to teach to the other emerging talents. But what we overlook is the fact that this disease of corruption is going to strike the best talents first… because they are the best investment opportunities, especially when young. How many such talents are we willing to lose out on?
Then what punishment suits them? Frankly, this is one question that I am struggling to come up with an opinion to. However, as a person who lives in a country that earned her independence by using Gandhian principles, I know one thing about how these young men need to be dealt with: we need to SHAME them, not frame them.
When the match-fixing scandal broke out in 2000, something similar was done. There was a need to ban cricketers like Hansie Cronje, Mohammed Azharuddin and Salim Malik as they were too heavily involved in this scandal. But the likes of Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Herschelle Gibbs and others, who had had certain allegations (proven as well as unproven) levelled against them were given further chances. These guys were hugely talented… too precious to lose out on! But they were given the message by the authorities – that if need be, we can act tough. We can impose the life bans and destroy your careers. But we are giving you another opportunity. Come back on the right track and make a name for yourself in cricket’s rich history. If you do not do so, you will be disgraced forever.
That is the message that needs to be sent across to Salman Butt and Mohammed Aamer. The case of Mohammed Asif is entirely different though. This is not the first occasion that we are seeing his name involved with activities that bring the game of cricket to disrepute. He is becoming into some sort of a habitual wrongdoer. He will need to be taught a more severe lesson than the others.
In the end, my stand is pretty clear. I want to see a second chance given to these players who are not too heavily involved in this murky world yet. They need to be shamed publicly, yes! But they need to be given another chance. There is no point in imposing a ban that will be overturned a few years down the line… as it happened with Salim Malik. That not only leaves a wrong message, it also encourages these activities.
They should get a second chance if they prove themselves worthy of it… because if we don’t allow second chances, then cricket’s will become a sorry society where no lessons will be learnt… and none taught either!
I have no idea about when the spot-fixing scandal broke out. In fact, I have not been in too much touch with cricket lately. I have been keeping up with the scores and updates... but I did not have any clue about this piece of news.
The two pieces of cricket that I did witness was the package of Mohammed Aamer's 6 wickets at Lord's and India's attempt to chase 300 in the finals against Sri Lanka at Dambulla. It was quite a bit of a shock to me to hear the names of Aamer and Salman Butt right in the centre of this spot-fixing controversy.
This is sad... really sad for cricket and the way forward for Pakistan's cricket looks extremely bleak to me. Just when I thought that they were recovering from the Shahid Afridi's I-Can't-Play-Test-Cricket scandal, another bolt strikes. Installing Salman Butt as the captain seemed to be a very good move to me... but sadly, it might well backfire.
Salman Butt's test captaincy record is not too bad - 2 wins and 3 losses in 5 games... with the wins coming against the top sides in international cricket... and all the matches played on difficult foreign conditions. But the spot-fixing controversy has ensured that none of that will be looked into when the PCB sits for its next meeting on corruption in their cricket!
The world may not be shocked or even surprised by this latest outbreak of corruption allegations... but it is certainly saddened. Cricket does not need any of this!
