RESTRUCTURING INDIAN DOMESTIC CRICKET

I have had this thought in mind for a long time now… months, really! Now I am finally getting down to laying it down in words. While doing so, I was again delayed by this post on Cricinfo by Harsha Bhogle… which was very related to my post, though not completely in agreement. It was definitely more food for my thoughts!

India’s domestic structure is a pretty complex one, and by almost a unanimous opinion, not the most effective or efficient one! For a long time now, there have been random voices and calls from various personalities suggesting, advocating and demanding changes… but there really has not been much of it! Like Harsha Bhogle, my post does not call merely for a change… it calls for an overhaul!

Along this line, I have written a post in a detailed and comprehensive manner describing specifically the changes I would like to see in Indian cricket's domestic structure. It has been hosted by Freehitcricket. Have a read!

A LESSON LEARNT FROM YUVRAJ SINGH

I haven't been very regular in posting here in the recent past. However, for some strange reason, I feel compelled to write here today. It's 12th December 2011 today... and it happens to be the day when a certain Yuvraj Singh turns 30.

Yuvraj Singh has never been on my list of most-liked sportspersons, but when it comes to his abilities... there has never been any doubt! He's been a match-winner for India in limited-overs cricket for quite a few years now, and there is no taking away the fact that he was one of the chief architects of India's greatest ODI triumph of this millennium.

But why am I writing all this? After all, everyone knows about these exploits of Yuvraj Singh! It's something else. He was in news recently when his mother revealed that he had been suffering from a non-malignant lung tumor for a few months, and that he was on his way to recovery and making a comeback.

At that time, I had been thinking about his career. Over the last couple of years, there is always a murmur of IPL in every cricket discussion. Even when one talks at length about Yuvraj Singh, it is difficult to refrain from talking about the IPL and its easy money.

In recent times, I have heard a lot of people on different forums question the commitment of cricketers claiming that increased remuneration from IPL and other Twenty20 leagues directly affects their desire to represent their country. In the specific case of Yuvraj Singh, there had been questions related to form, fitness, commitment, desire, and God-knows-what-else during his lean patch in 2010.

All these opinions were aided by the reporting done by our media houses, which sadly aren't the most responsible news presenters around! They never seem to present facts... their interest is more in passing judgments!

In response to all this and more, Yuvraj Singh played out of his skin and had a fairy tale of a World Cup earlier this year. There is one incident during the finals of the World Cup between India and Sri Lanka at Wankhede Stadium, Mumbai that I clearly remember.

It was the first ball of the 10th over of the first innings... TM Dilshan was facing Munaf Patel. Dilshan unleashed a fierce cut that was headed between point and cover, certain to reach the ropes. However, Yuvraj Singh leaped across to his wrong side and cut it off... saving four runs for his team! This was just one of the many brilliant fielding efforts by him in that big match. Here's what the Cricinfo commentary description of that delivery reads:

"9.1 Patel to Dilshan, no run, 132.8 kph, The flying Singh again, Yuvraj leaps full length to his right at point and cuts off a Dilshan cut, which was hit hard into the ground and heading towards the boundary"

In that match, through the Powerplay overs, he fielded at point... a position that he has hardly fielded in during the last 4 years of his international career. He was diving around, and putting his body on the line, for a match that could be considered as the most important one of his career.

After that World Cup was won, Yuvraj Singh captained Pune's IPL side for a month and a half. But I don't remember seeing him at point in Pune's black-and-silver. He was back to fielding at mid-on and mid-off... and there weren't too many dives forthcoming.

In hindsight, it's easy to recognise where his actual priorities lay. He was ready to put his fragile and suffering body on the line for the glory of a World Cup win, but not for the millions of dollars of the IPL. And sitting comfortably at home, the armchair critics went on and on.

I too had been amongst those who had passed a few judgments about Yuvraj Singh during his troughs. Though I had stated in 2010 that Yuvraj Singh's good form is very important for India if the World Cup has to be won, but I had also been doubtful about whether he was still capable of putting in those kind of performances that had made him an indispensable part of India's ODI team. Those four months from February to May taught me a lesson! Yuvraj Singh's performances taught me a lesson about how woefully wrong our judgments sometimes tend to be.

WHY I DO NOT AGREE WITH ANDREW MILLER

On reading this piece by Andrew Miller on Cricinfo (How good are this England side?), I was left with quite a few questions in my head. There are a couple of points in that piece that immediately left me shaking my head in disagreement. Here is the first bit:

"It is said that the acid test for this England team will come when they are faced with Asian pitches in the UAE and Sri Lanka this winter, though it's hard to believe that's really the case. If any side has the ingredients to triumph in such conditions, it is England - the fittest squad of international cricketers on the planet, whose batsmen have demonstrated the dedication required to grind out big scores in attritional passages of play, whose bowlers build pressure by strangling runs, and whose spinner, Swann - for all that he falls short of true greatness - is indisputably the best in the game at present."

I do not quite understand why is it so hard to believe that the acid test for England will come on Asian pitches. The current England squad is undoubtedly brilliant, and arguably at the peak of its powers at the moment. They managed to earn a hard-fought draw away in South Africa, flattened Australia in Australia, and demolished India at home. Like the great teams of the past, the only ground that remains to be conquered is the sub-continent (or broadly Asia, since they will be playing Pakistan in UAE).

He reasons that England is the fittest squad currently (though I think that the South Africans might want to challenge him on that), their batsmen have the capability to be attritional and score big, bowlers can strangle runs when needed, and they have the best spinner in the world. Fine reasons those!

But each of those reasons applied even to Steve Waugh's men who conquered everything in their path... or rather, almost everything! They were the fittest squad of their time, some of the batsmen and bowlers on their payroll are acknowledged today as all-time greats, and they definitely featured the best spinner of their time - one who even managed to make it to Cricinfo's All-Time Test XI as a unanimous choice!

Yet, on either side of their run of 16 consecutive Test wins through 1999, 2000 and 2001, Steve Waugh's Australia failed in its acid test on Asian wickets. The Kolkata and Chennai defeats to India in 2001 are famously remembered, but what is not remembered is that just before the start of their 16-match winning streak, they had recorded a series loss in Sri Lanka (September 1999).

So hard as it may be for Mr. Miller to believe that Asian pitches shall be their acid test, they would really still need to pass it to be able to make a further claim. Just having ingredients of success is not enough, as we Indians learnt it the hard way this English summer! We may not have had all the ingredients of success in our Indian squad, but we had managed to hold on to the No. 1 ranking with whatever ingredients we possessed for 20 months. It all came down spectacularly in 1 month! While I don't think it will be quite as dramatic for England, they still do have a task on hand to consolidate their top-of-the-table ranking.

Now, coming to the second excerpt from Mr. Miller's piece that I actually managed to frown upon:

"Passages of play such as Mishra's stand with Sachin Tendulkar prove that England are not unstoppable, but given that no team in the world can replicate their current levels of desire, it's going to take something extra to derail their ambitions."

Just one question here - just how does one claim that a certain person or a certain team's level of desire is the greatest or the least? I am really not a fan of blanket statements such as these where desires, ambitions, courage, spirit, and other such immeasurable aspects of a sportsman or sportsmen are judged.

I was not the only one who did not quite agree with this statement. There were others too, like @thecricketcouch and @grangergabblog. In reply to @thecricketcouch's question as to how could he make such a statement of England team's desire, this is what Mr. Miller (@miller_cricket) replied: 

Honestly, I believe this is as wrong an argument as any I have seen. I don't think that desire is always directly proportional to your on-field performance. Does that mean that every time a team loses a match, they did not desire to win it? It's a very rhetorical question... so lets just explore this with a few examples.

India lost 7 for 33 vs. England at Bangalore, 4 for 30 during the middle overs vs. the Netherlands at New Delhi, a mammoth collapse of 9 for 29 vs. South Africa at Nagpur, and even a 7 for 50 vs. West Indies at Chennai during the league stages of the World Cup 2011. Does this mean that they had no desire to win it? Going by @miller_cricket's response to @thecricketcouch on Twitter, it would tantamount to lack of desire.

Lets use an English example. England lost 6 for 63 in the first innings of the 1st Ashes Test match at Brisbane last year. Does that mean that the Australians had more desire to win that Ashes Test match than England? Does Rafael Nadal's loss to Novak Djokovic at Wimbledon finals this year (2011), or his loss to Robin Soderling in the 4th round of French Open 2009 or Federer's loss to Nadal in the finals of Wimbledon 2008 imply that the victors were the ones who desired those wins more?

That, in my opinion, would be an insult to the vanquished - be it India this summer, Australia last winter, or Nadal and Federer over those (and other) matches. Every sportsman in every sport (be it a team game or an individual sport) takes the field of play with the sole desire to win. That is my opinion at least, for that is how even I used to play during my school days even against an XI comprising of seniors! These men are professional, and to compare and judge their levels of desire, in my opinion, is quite like insulting them!

TAKING A PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW

This is a very frustrating time for an Indian cricket fan! Coming into the English tour as the World No. 1 Test team, India has now not only lost that ranking, but will also take field at The Oval seeking to prevent a whitewash!

There is such a hollow feeling in my head right now that I really cannot be coherent with my thoughts on anything related to cricket. The criticism and finger-pointing that I wanted to indulge in, I have done so in my previous blog post. In this one, I am not going to indulge in any of that.

Over the last 2 days, I have finished reading ESPNCricinfo's publication "Sealed with a Six". It is a journey through the World Cup 2011. Just to get the complete feel of revisiting that journey, I also read the blogs that I had posted myself during that time.

In this particular blog, I want to quote two excerpts. The first one is what I had written on 5th April 2011, just 3 days after the World Cup win for India. The second one is an excerpt from an article by Sambit Bal, the editor of ESPNCricinfo. He wrote that article on the eve of the penultimate match of the World Cup - the 2nd semi-final match between India and Pakistan at Mohali.

Here's the first excerpt (from my own writing):

"I felt proud to be witnessing this moment, and not just proud because I am a fan of Indian cricket team, no! That would kill my joy! I was proud of that moment in Indian cricket because I have supported Indian cricket team even through its darkest hours, like the World Cup 2007. I have had faith in these men and boys, and I have always wished for them to perform. There have been some players I have liked more than others, a lot of decisions from the captain that I have criticised, and I will continue doing so. I have and will continue pointing out shortcomings of certain players, and loopholes in our team. But through all this, I have never stopped supporting the team through its turbulent times, nor will I ever do so."

And now here's the second excerpt (this one from Sambit Bal):

"Sportsmen compete fiercely and proudly, exhausting themselves mentally and physically in the pursuit of victory, and then the victor and vanquished walk off the field, shaking each other's hand, and often with the knowledge that no victory or loss is final. They will compete again tomorrow and there will be another shot at redemption. That is the essence of sport."

In these two excerpts, I have summed up, as best as I could, the way forward for the fans of Indian cricket, who feel as distraught about the Indian cricket team's loss as I feel. India and England will meet again in the future, on the field of cricket, and we will have our chance at redemption. And when we earn that redemption some time in future, the memory of the pain of this defeat will make it feel that bit sweeter!

ICC'S 'WORLD' CUP PLANS FOR 2015

By now, we all know about ICC's ridiculous decision to keep the Associates out of the 2015 World Cup to be hosted by Australia and New Zealand. The fact that they have decided on a 10-team World Cup restricted to the 10 Full Members of the ICC only for the 2015 edition means that it will be the first time in the history of Cricket World Cups that not a single non-Test playing nation shall take part. Amongst all the regressive decisions taken by the world body, this is second to none.

There is outrage and disgust over this decision. A lot of tweets have been addressed to ICC's official twitter feed. A new Twitter Feed by the name of Cricket Justice has been formed by people against this decision. People have been writing to the ICC, and its commercial partners, to express their anger and non-support to this decision. In fact, even I intend to email them in a day or two. I don't know if all this will make a difference, but I intend to play my part in any way (howsoever small) that I can!

The most important bit, which I would like all my viewers to do (if they have not already done it), is to sign this online petition initiated by Tim. I have put in my signature and the message already (No. 243), and last I checked, there were more than 900 people who had signed in their support to the petition. Please do the same.

Another very important measure that we must all undertake in our own small ways is show more interest in the cricket played by these 'minnows'. I will not be large on the blogging or tweeting scene over the next two months because of upcoming examinations, but I will definitely follow the matches of the World Cricket League Division 2 (starting 8th April), ICC Americas Division 2 World Twenty20 Qualifiers (starting 10th April) and other World Cricket League Divisions / World Twenty20 Qualifications / Intercontinental Cup fixtures a great deal more than I have done in the past, and I urge everyone to do the same for the benefit of our game.

I hope and pray that ICC takes cognizance of this outrage and disgust that people world over have shown towards this decision, and moves towards changing it. This decision has obviously been taken by the Boards of all the Full Member nations together, and is quite obviously intended towards the protection of the weaker ones amongst the Full Member nations. Given that ICC has 105 members registered as 10 Full Members, 35 Associates and 60 Affiliates, this decision really does come as a huge setback to the sport.

Here is what the Irish coach Phil Simmons had to say about this: "I'm afraid the next World Cup will be like the American World Series - you are crowned World Champions but the world did not take part - congratulations to India on winning the last real World Cup. Finally - congratulations to ICC for pulling the game we love back ten years!"

It's not just 10 years... it's a lot worse!

(P.S.: Please DO NOT FORGET to sign the petition, if you have not already done so!)

WORLD CUP '11 - XI AND XV

Everyone has been forming their World Cup XI from the recently-concluded World Cup 2011, where India were crowned the World Champions (wow... feels so nice to write this!).

I decided to form my own XI too, and in fact, unlike the ICC and Cricinfo, I decided to go further and list my team of XV for the World Cup. But before that, lets take a look at both ICC's and Cricinfo's team for the World Cup.

ICC TEAM: T Dilshan (SL), S Tendulkar (Ind), K Sangakkara (SL), M Jayawardene (SL), AB de Villiers (SA), Y Singh (Ind), S Watson (Aus), S Afridi (Pak), D Steyn (SA), Z Khan (Ind), M Muralitharan (SL). 12th man: T Southee (NZ).

Cricinfo TEAM: T Dilshan (SL), S Tendulkar (Ind), K Sangakkara (SL), J Trott (Eng), AB de Villiers (SA), Y Singh (Ind), S Afridi (Pak), G Swann (Eng), D Steyn (SA), Z Khan (Ind), L Malinga (SL).

Now, here's a look at my team:

T Dilshan (SL), S Tendulkar (Ind), J Trott (Eng), K Sangakkara (SL), AB de Villiers (SA), Y Singh (Ind), R ten Doeschate (Ned), S Afridi (Pak), D Steyn (SA), Z Khan (Ind), M Muralitharan (SL).

Remaining players in the XV: R Peterson (SA), T Southee (NZ), R Taylor (NZ), R Price (Zim).

THE WIN IS SINKING IN

The last 2 days have been surreal. So much so that this is my fourth attempt to write a blog after India's win... and after deleting the first 3 drafts, I have decided that I will publish this one even if it does not really explain the things that are in my head.

I will go through the thoughts that erupted in my head as the day went by - the day being 2nd April 2011!

After almost a sleepless night, I got up unusually early and read everything that Cricinfo and other blogs that I follow had to offer. There was no way of getting back to sleep (which had been less even in the run up to the finals), so I thought I might as well get up and be ready in the lucky t-shirt that I wear for every India match.

Yes, God really was with us!

On the previous day, I had seen the weather forecast for this match and read that there will be wind (or rather, breeze) of 14 - 16 kmph from the west. When I had read this, I was of the opinion that Sreesanth should get a chance as the breeze will be from the direction of the sea and the moisture in that sea air will help him more than any other bowler. In fact, this also made me a bit wary of how Kulasekara would perform, for he can get some very good swing when there is assistance.

But when the telecast began, and Harsha Bhogle had a chat with those present at the Wankhede Stadium, I realised that there was no breeze at all. Not one bit! The shirts and ties of the men there were not moving an millimeter. And my thoughts changed immediately. In these conditions, R Ashwin was a shoo in for me.

When the toss happened, it was frustrating. But what surprised me was that even MS Dhoni showed his frustration. There was a very perfunctory shake of hands with Sangakkara before he turned his back to him in what was obvious show of dissatisfaction. That kind of convinced me that Dhoni must have won the first toss, but as it later turned out, it was Sangakkara indeed who had won both the tosses. So all well here!

I was disappointed slightly by the fact that India would have had to bowl first, yet confident that India will be able to restrict Sri Lanka to less than 260, a score which I thought India should be able to chase keeping in my mind the occasion.

Zaheer Khan started brilliantly. Even Sreesanth started fairly, despite his second ball no-ball. When Sehwag caught Tharanga, for a moment, I was under the impression that the ball had reached him on the bounce, and then I saw Zaheer celebrating with his arms spread. And I celebrated too, because the statistically best opening partnership of the World Cup had been broken.

Dilshan briefly threatened to shine, before he succumbed to the pressure created due to tight bowling and amazing fielding. Fielding! Oh my word! To see Yuvraj Singh make that flying stop off a Dilshan drive through the off-side was a throwback to the era of Ganguly's captaincy. It almost felt as if we had the younger version of Yuvraj Singh back in the team, and it was great to watch that.

When the Sangakkara-Jayawardene partnership was flourishing, I felt that Dhoni should have brought back Zaheer Khan. His famous knuckle ball works a lot better with left-handers and Sangakkara was definitely looking the more dangerous of the two then. Eventually, he was unlucky to fall to a long hop from Yuvraj Singh, who again bowled better than what is expected out of a fifth bowler.

I was a bit disappointed to see Zaheer Khan leak runs at the end... moreover because he was genuinely bowling bad balls for that period. There were too many length balls and they were taken full toll of. A target of 275 did make me wary, but there was still confidence in the team that had chased tougher targets without a full-strength team over the past one year.

During that short 20-minute break, I had texted a friend that in my opinion, Sachin Tendulkar, Gautam Gamhir and Virat Kohli would be the main men in the chase. Later on, I also added Yuvraj Singh to the list. I chose SRT for the occasion, GG for his brilliant play against the spin, VK for his tremendous record in chases, and Yuvi for the obvious reason - his current form and confidence!

Sehwag's dismissal disappointed me, but did not dishearten me. I was not expecting much from him due to his poor second-innings record, but a contribution greater than 0 would definitely have helped! Sachin's dismissal shook me... not the confidence of a win, but the realisation that it was not exactly going to be a fairytale if we got there. Though it was a tense situation then, I still had the confidence in the team.

The next 4 batsmen vindicated my confidence in them, and each one played a knock to remember. Gambhir was brilliant. It was a solid knock paced beautifully. He was given a reprieve when Kulasekara did not catch a difficult chance when he was on 30, but what Gambhir did after that was very impressive.

Gambhir loves playing the inside out shot over extra cover to spinners, and Sangakkara had set up a trap for him there by placing a very straight-ish deep extra cover, along with a long off. After getting that reprieve, he did not attempt that shot again even once, even though he must have been very tempted to given the fact that he faced three off-spinners. He even played a conventional sweep, and I don't remember seeing him play that too many times in his entire career. He changed his game a little bit to suit the occasion, and he deserves all the accolades for that!

Virat Kohli continued to show cool head and maturity in a tricky chase under pressure. Even though he was beaten on that ball, but his dismissal was still more on account of a brilliant work by a Sri Lankan rather than him making a mistake. I would have to see him get a 50, just as I would have loved to see Gambhir getting his 100, but well, I am satisfied with the World Cup!

When Kohli was dismissed, I felt a little wobbly for the reasons that have now been discussed and dissected everywhere. I was uncertain about Yuvraj Singh coming in to face three off-spinners. And I was also uncertain about the running between the wickets of Gambhir and Yuvraj Singh together, who had had a series of mishaps in the game against Australia before Gambhir lost his wicket.

So I was quite okay to see MS Dhoni coming out to bat despite his bad form. A couple of hours later, he proved to the world that that particular move was a masterstroke from him, and played a very mature knock to guide India home. Yuvraj's assistance was also very good. There was a point after India had taken the batting powerplay when Yuvraj played 4 dot balls from Malinga. That was the moment Sri Lanka would have felt that Yuvraj is susceptible to a rash stroke. But he very coolly managed a 2 and a 1 from the next two balls to finish the over, and India knew that the Cup will soon be ours.

That winning six brought about different emotions in me. Watching alone at my house, I gave Dhoni and the team a long round of applause. But what was really touching to see was the emotions that came out then. Yuvraj in tears, unashamedly in tears! Harbhajan sobbing uncontrollably. Dhoni's twirl of the bat and then hopping madly to get a stump before Yuvraj could reach him. Kohli, Raina and Yusuf Pathan carrying Sachin Tendulkar on their shoulders around the ground. The joy that was so clearly etched in Gary Kirsten's face. And then the smile of Sachin Tendulkar himself. Those were images that I am going to remember forever, and when I say forever, I mean it!

Ashish Nehra - awkward bowling action, awkward victory celebration!

After having fantasised about this moment for almost over a year now, I just did not know how to react, and I guess the members of Team India felt the same! I felt proud to be witnessing this moment, and not just proud because I am a fan of Indian cricket team, no! That would kill my joy!

I was proud of that moment in Indian cricket because I have supported Indian cricket team even through its darkest hours, like the World Cup 2007. I have had faith in these men and boys, and I have always wished for them to perform. There have been some players I have liked more than others, a lot of decisions from the captain that I have criticised, and I will continue doing so. I have and will continue pointing out shortcomings of certain players, and loopholes in our team. But through all this, I have never stopped supporting the team through its turbulent times, nor will I ever do so. I take pride in this fact!

For me, this triumph was also a vindication of the faith shown by me and many other cricket fans in our cricket team when there was criticism heaped upon them. We believed in our team when men like Steve Waugh and Allan Border tipped Sri Lanka to win the finals. We believed in our team when men like Dean Jones said that "Dhoni must be dreaming if he thinks that he can win the World Cup with a team like this". He has not been heard from since the night of 2nd April 2011.

Darren Gough had said after the Ashes win that England can beat India any day of the week. We will continue to believe in our team when we tour England later this year. We will continue to believe in our team when England visit India after that. We will continue to believe!

Thank you, Team India for giving the nation this wonderful victory. I place it as the biggest win in the history of Indian cricket for two reasons: A) It was achieved in the claustrophobic pressure of enormous expectations, whereas the 1983 triumph as well as the 2007 World Twenty20 triumph came when there was nothing expected from the team; B) I was born in 1988 - unable to witness the glory of 1983, so this will remain, to me, India's greatest cricketing triumph till date.

As I run out of thoughts, I would just like to say how glad I am to see the Indian team celebrate the win, and how overwhelming it is to see, as his fan, Sachin Tendulkar get a chance to lift that trophy. The respect that he has from his teammates was wonderful to see. Virat Kohli became the darling of a nation when he delivered the quote of the World Cup: "He (Sachin Tendulkar) has carried the burden of the nation for 21 years; it was time we carried him." Who cares about what Imran Khan had said earlier - that if he were Tendulkar, he would be embarrassed by all this mention of "We want to win it for Sachin" dialogue. To hear this statement coming from a man who talked only about his personal ambitions and failed to mention even a word about his team in his victory speech as a World Cup winning captain in 1992 is a blasphemy. It was also great to see how Sachin Tendulkar celebrated the win with his fan, and read about how the team's family time in the dressing room.

Well done, Sri Lanka and congratulations, India!

SNAPS TO REMEMBER #MOAG BY

Here are a few snapshots from the Mother of All Games India v. Pakistan semi-finals at Mohali of the ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 on 30th March 2011. All photos taken from Cricinfo (except for the first screenshot of my tweet).

This is what I had tweeted 2 and a half hours before the match began...

... and that (and a little more) is exactly what Mr. Shastri went on to say!

If you think that the cameraman wanted to capture India's No. 10 with the two PMs in one shot, think again! He wanted to capture the face above SRT's left ear in the same shot with the two PMs

Discussing the script of a new movie called "Saat Chances Maaf!"

Uhhh... Errr... can't quite understand how they ended up in this tangle!

The best... Here is what Cricinfo's caption reads: "Suresh Raina inexplicably holds Munaf Patel and Virender Sehwag aloft after Abdul Razzaq's dismissal"...

UDRS 2.5 M RULE - CRITICISM AND SUGGESTION

First and foremost, I am sorry but this is a pretty long and detailed post... and will also be a little repetitive to the readers who have read my previous post on UDRS. But this one is more comprehensive and includes a suggestion for improvement at the end, on which I'd like you all to comment.

In one of my earlier posts on UDRS which I put up after the end of the India v. England World Cup match due to the Ian Bell reprieve (yes, I call it a ‘reprieve’), I received a few comments where the basic question that everyone was trying to seek an answer to was why Billy Bowden could have ruled it not out. 

This UDRS debate has raged on and gotten bigger now with Dhoni calling it as “an adulteration” of technology with human judgement, and then ICC coming out with an explanation defending that decision, followed by Haroon Lorgat (ICC Chief Executive) and Dave Richardson (ICC General Manager) too lending support to that decision and the rule of 2.5 metres (distance between the stumps and the point of impact) and 40 centimetres (distance between the point of impact and the point where the ball pitches). 

I have already explained in the earlier post about how the 2.5 metre rule makes the UDRS partly-redundant. I will re-explain that point here again and also suggest and alternative that, in my view, be a much better solution in respect of the ball-tracking technology (Hawk Eye and Virtual Eye). 

Wordings of the actual rule {Appendix 5, Clause 3.3, Sub-clause i (iii)}

"If a ‘not out’ decision is being reviewed, in order to report that the ball is hitting the stumps, the evidence provided by technology should show that the centre of the ball would have hit the stumps within an area demarcated by a line drawn below the lower edge of the bails and down the middle of the outer stumps.

However, in instances where the evidence shows that the ball would have hit the stumps within the demarcated area as set out above but that the point of impact is greater than 250 cm from the stumps, the third umpire shall notify the on-field umpire of:
a) The distance from the wickets to the point of impact with the batsman
b) The approximate distance from point of pitching to point of impact
c) Where the ball is predicted to hit the stumps.

In such a case, the on-field umpire shall have regard to the normal cricketing principles concerning the level of certainty in making his decision as to whether to change his decision."

How UDRS becomes partly-redundant 

With this 2.5 metre rule, the UDRS becomes completely redundant for a fielding captain when a batsman lunges forward more than 2.5 metres. Where there is an appeal for LBW denied with the batsman so far ahead, the fielding captain shall be averse to go in for a review no matter how plumb it looks. This is because the umpire can always go with his original decision even if the review shows all three criteria (pitching, impact and hitting the stumps) as red, simply because the batsman was lunging a long way forward and the ground umpire can cite that as a reason to not reverse his decision. 

Had the impact been 2.49 metres in front of the stumps, the umpire would HAVE HAD TO reverse his decision and rule the batsman out. But because the batsman was 2.51 metres ahead, the umpire gets AN OPTION to stick by his original decision. I am sure 2 centimetres wouldn’t have made that big a difference in the decision. 

If you like it, then lets have a hypothetical situation. Imagine Lasith Malinga or Mitchell Johnson bowling to Kevin Pietersen or Matthew Hayden (I know he’s retired, but we can always imagine!). These two bowlers, because of their slinging actions, release the ball from right on top of the stumps (when they are bowling over the wickets, of course!) and these two batsmen like to stand outside their crease even to fast bowlers and usually get a HUGE stride forward as a result of their lengthy frames. 

If Malinga / Johnson were to bowl straight and full and strike the front pad of Hayden / Pietersen and the umpire were to rule not out to an LBW appeal, the fielding captain should not even contemplate a review if the batsman in question was struck on the front foot. Even if the ball pitches on off stump, impact is on middle stump and the ball-tracking technology suggests that the ball would have gone to hit between middle and leg stump half-way up, the umpire would still have AN OPTION TO RULE NOT OUT… simply because of that big stride. What’s the use of those Malinga yorkers then! 

Why this rule 

In Haroon Lorgat’s own words, “The rules were designed with serious thoughts in mind. That particular one [pertaining to the 2.5m rule] was to accommodate the scepticism that some players have got with predictive technology.” 

Another quote from that Cricinfo article – 

"What we have been trying to avoid because of the DRS is the absolute shocker. Umpires will acknowledge this and they are happy with the system. They can go to sleep at night knowing that had they made that one mistake, it can be rectified. That would not have happened without DRS."

The rule about the distance between impact and the stumps had been put in place precisely because experts had said that the accuracy of the ball tracker - in this case Hawk Eye - begins to falter from that point. "So we said if it's a longer time frame than 2.5m, and people say the prediction cannot be relied upon, then we are allowing the umpire (to take his decision)."

Dhoni had asked why the mark had not been stipulated at 2.4, or 2.6m, and Lorgat said that while, "You can call a mark wherever you want to, where Dhoni was saying 2.4 and 2.6, whatever, call it whatever you wish... it was the experts' views that had been taking into account by the ICC. From the experts' point of view, they said beyond 2.5m, beyond a longer stretch than that, you rely on the umpire." 

The absurdity 

In Lorgat’s own words, where the prediction becomes even tougher for the technology (after 2.5 metres), they are leaving it to the human judgement. Usually, technology is used in any field to assist people when it becomes difficult to use human element. Here, human element is being used when it is becoming difficult for technology! 

My suggestion to make it more acceptable 

I admit that over a longer distance, the predictive element of the technology will become less accurate. However, to set a rigid marker like 2.5 metres is incorrect… as I have shown in an example above where 2 centimetres between 2.49 metres and 2.51 metres can impact the result of a match! 

Instead, what I would like to see is that the companies who manufacture this technology (Hawk Eye and Virtual Eye) should include this element of uncertainty and inaccuracy in their predictive path. In other words, when the tracker is being shown on the television replay, the ball path predicted after the impact should continuously grow larger in radius as it progresses towards the stumps. This will enable the umpires to judge a lot more accurately about the probability that the ball would have hit the stumps. 

The circular area depicted in red around the ball is an addition made by me in an attempt to portray how the area of inaccuracy / uncertainty can be depicted over television replays.

I have taken this screenshot above from Cricinfo’s Hawk Eye application. This is the ball path of Graeme Smith’s LBW dismissal to Zaheer Khan during the first innings of the Third Test recently in January 2011. As I have illustrated above, let the technology show up its area of inaccuracy / uncertainty (whichever term they may want to use), so that we know with absolute certainty that the ball could not have hit outside this area. I have highlighted that with a red circle around the ball.

Here, we know now that larger the distance between the point of impact and the stumps, the bigger will be its area of inaccuracy / uncertainty. Now the umpire will get all the information required that is required for as-accurate-as-possible decision-making, i.e. (a) he shall know what is the most probable path the ball will take, (b) if not that path, then where and how much can the ball deviate, and (c) most importantly, how much percentage of that area is making impact with the stumps.

Where more than 50% of the area of inaccuracy / uncertainty is making impact with the stumps, the batsman should be ruled out (obviously assuming that other conditions are satisfied as well). I am sure that Yuvraj Singh would have earned the dismissal of Ian Bell if we were to follow this methodology of predicting ball paths.

For one, Yuvraj was bowling around the wicket and since Hawk Eye showed that impact was on the off stump, it is obvious that the ball couldn’t have missed off stump as Yuvraj hardly turned that ball… it just straightened very little. It definitely wouldn’t have climbed over the stumps on any sub-continental track. And I am sure it wouldn’t have missed leg stump as well, because the Hawk Eye showed impact between middle and off stumps… so even if the area of inaccuracy / uncertainty were to be very large, there would be no way that it would exceed the leg stump by a margin so huge that even 50% of it would not be deemed within the stumps.

Conclusion

So firstly, ICC should reconsider their rules and usages of technology… because till they don’t get it as right as possible, they cannot shirk away from criticism. Secondly, they should admit that the decision from Billy Bowden was wrong simply because he failed to apply common sense in that decision, which I have applied in the previous paragraph. And thirdly, they should set standards on this type of decision-making… for there have been cases in the past where similar Not Out decisions by the on-field umpires were overturned on review despite the impact being more than 2.5 metres out!

Case 1: Here is the video link of Tim Paine (Aus) being dismissed LBW by Liam Plunkett (Eng) at Perth (out of all places) on 6th February 2011 (7th match of the recently concluded ODI series), as a result of umpire Paul Reiffel overturning his original Not Out decision on review by the English captain, Andrew Strauss (watch the portion between 4:15 and 7:20)!

Case 2: Here is the video link of Shane Watson (Aus) being dismissed LBW by Graeme Cremer (Zim) at Ahmedabad on 21st February 2011 (4th match of the ICC World Cup 2011), as a result of umpire Richard Kettleborough overturning his original Not Out decision on review by the Zimbabwean captain, Elton Chigumbura (watch the portion between 3:03 and 3:48)!

THE HEARTBREAKS OF FANTASY CRICKET

Cricinfo's Fantasy Cricket game is really driving me nuts. For three days in a row now, I have had less than average days... which means my ranking has fallen from a best of 988 to a worst of 6355. But this is not what is driving me nuts... it's the occasions when I end up being just just just short of bonus points for my team.

After the Australia v. New Zealand game at Nagpur, I was quietly satisfied. Even though I did not have the Man of the Match performer Mitchell Johnson in my team, I had had a good performance by my team's captain Shane Watson, a decent outing for Brett Lee and another okay outing for Michael Clarke.

In fact, in the case of Michael Clarke, I had been very lucky. During Australia's chase of New Zealand's paltry target, Clarke had taken a very go-slow approach and ended up with a Strike Rate of 64.86. In the Fantasy Cricket Scoring system, a Strike Rate of less than 75 is penalised with -15 points. But this penalty is applicable only when the batsman has scored a minimum of 25 runs.

Luckily for me, Clarke was 24* when White scored the winning single on the last ball of the 34th over. Had White played out the over, Clarke would have had to score the winning runs off the newer ball in the next over... and instead of 24 points, I would have earned only 10 points. So much for scoring more runs!

But I did not know that the luck I had in that game would be wiped out by the time the Sri Lanka v. Pakistan game at Colombo came about. There was an entire sequence of bad luck cases that took away crucial and valuable points that I could have earned in this game. Have a look:

TM Dilshan (Captain) - 41 runs of 55 balls at a SR of 74.54 {i.e. (41 - 10 - 15) X 2 = 16 X 2 = 32 points}. Had he batted 1 ball less OR scored 1 run more, his SR would have been above 75, and I would have had 62 points from him.

Kumar Sangakkara - 49 runs from 61 balls with 1 six (i.e. 49 -10 + 6 = 55 points). Had he scored just 1 more runs, I would have has a bonus of 15 points for his fifty. So here I lost another 16 points... 15 for the bonus and 1 for the run.

Nuwan Kulasekara - 24 runs from 14 balls with 1 six at a SR of 171.42 (i.e. 24 + 6 = 30 points). This is the worst case. Had he scored just 1 more, he would have had 25 runs and been eligible for Strike Rate bonus. With 1 more run, his SR would have been 178.57, and I would have had a 50-point bonus for Strike Rate above 175. That means I lost out on another 51 potential points here.

So in effect, by the smallest of margins like 1 run or 1 ball, I have lost almost 100 points in the Sri Lanka v. Pakistan game. With these 100 points, I might well have been placed within the 5000th rank. This is so very frustrating. I just hope that over the next week of the tournament, more of my players win Man of the Match Awards (preferably captains) so that I can gain some ground on those (like Soulberry and Sehwagology) who have surged ahead of me. Beware friends, I'll bounce back!

(P.S. As on 1st March, after the Sri Lanka v. Kenya game, I have overtaken Soulberry and am not far behind Sehwagology... not only am I in top-5000 overall now, but I am in top-600!)

IT'S REVENGE TIME, FOLKS!

It's time to wipe those smiles off!

Virender Sehwag has already called it. The rest of the Indian team must be quietly admitting it. The opening match for India in their World Cup 2011 campaign against Bangladesh is no ordinary match... it is a 'revenge' match.

There was a time when such 'revenge' matches existed during the World Cup itself. During the 1983 and 1987 World Cups, each team played the others in their group twice. So if you were upset the first time round, you could seek revenge in the next match. In fact, in 1983, on the very first day of the World Cup campaign (June 9, 1983), West Indies and Australia were upset by India and Zimbabwe respectively.

But a week later, West Indies had their revenge on India on June 15... and Australia had their revenge on Zimbabwe on June 16. Eventually, this West Indian victory was lost in time because India managed to stun the defending champions in the finals at Lord's on June 25, 1983. It was a revenge for the revenge match!

Now at Mirpur, almost 28 years after that stunning victory, India seek to begin another World Cup campaign on a victorious note... against the hosts Bangladesh. While Bangladesh may be quietly confident of pulling off another win over their more-fancied neighbours to make in 2 out of 2 in World Cups, the Indians will be in no mood to let it happen.

A lot of members of the current Indian line up were also a part of that bitter defeat in their opening game of the previous World Cup... a defeat that threw their World Cup campaign completely off track! The other members, who were not a part of that team, must have certainly seen that match or followed it in some way or the other. All of them must have definitely felt the pain of that loss... either as players or as supporters!

The pain of a supporter is something I felt to a great degree. I was watching that match in a hostel... with a crowd of what must have been another 50 people. And what had started as a raucous day came to a very meek and silent end! I can still remember the people holding on to shreds of hope despite India being bundled out for a below-200 score. I can still remember the prayers that started getting louder and more desperate as Tamim Iqbal got Bangladesh off to a flying start. I can still remember those profanities that were being shouted at both the batsmen and the bowlers after every hit that reached the fence in the second innings.

Oh man, it was a heartbreak! There was anger in the eyes of whoever you met for a week after that loss and the loss later to Sri Lanka. Over time, in these intervening four years, that anger has subsided. Indian team won the Test Series in England, World Twenty20 Championship, the CB Series in Australia... then followed an unbeaten run in Test series' played at home and other wins as well like the Asia Cup and the Compaq Cup. There was also the rise to the World No. 1 in Tests and now, coming to the World Cup as genuine title contenders, the memories of that defeat against Bangladesh have subsided to a great extent.

But the feeling of hurt and humiliation that rose as a result of that loss always remained hidden at the back of everyone's heads. Now that the time has come to begin another World Cup campaign with a match against Bangladesh, the Indian team is expected to do nothing short of annihilate their neighbours. The expectations are huge and the pressure is enormous... but not without reason. The performances of the Indian team during these last 4 years have given the people a reason to expect... and a victory over Bangladesh in the opening encounter will be the beginning!

Sehwag termed Bangladesh as an "ordinary Test side" a little over a year ago... and now, he has termed this match as a "revenge match". I now hope that he does all he can as a part of his effort in this revenge (for more reasons than one - you see, he is also the captain of my Cricinfo Fantasy League team)! Come on now boys, ATTACK!

BATTLING THE BATTING POWERPLAY

The concept of Powerplays had come into existence prior to the World Cup 2007 in West Indies, but the upcoming World Cup 2011 in the sub-continent will be the first time that 'Batting Powerplays' will feature in a World Cup.

The use and misuse of the Batting Powerplay has given birth to a lot of opinions as to how they should be used. Fans of particular teams have devised, in their heads, strategies fit for that particular team in respect of optimal use of the Batting Powerplay.

We have seen in the past that Batting Powerplay is a double-edged sword. As much as it can destroy the bowling team if the batsmen get it right, it has also had the effect of completely annihilating the batting team also. It's weird then to think that it was brought into play to help the batting teams.

Batting powerplays were introduced to bring a bit of excitement in the middle overs of an ODI game, which sometimes tend to just drift along. However, they have been used, more often than not, towards the end overs of the batting team's innings. So the purpose for which they were introduced has not really been served. But irrespective of that fact, most people would agree that it has brought a different kind of excitement into the game.

Personally, I eagerly look forward to the batting powerplay every time in an ODI just to see how will the batting team use it. It is a potent weapon... of mass destruction as well as self destruction!

I searched a lot on Cricinfo and other cricket related websites, but I couldn't find a good database of Batting Powerplay scores till date. Batting Powerplays were first introduced in October 2008, and since then more than 250 ODIs have been contested. Even if we were to consider "non - no result" ODIs played between the top-8 sides only, there are still 171 ODIs to be considered. I really couldn't afford to create a database of my own for 171 matches!

So what I have done in order to analyse the Batting Powerplay is picked a few innings that I can remember at random. I know it is not a scientific method, but from memory, I have picked a four cases each of mass destruction and self destruction during the Batting Powerplay.

Click on the table to get an enlarged view

In three of the first four cases, India took the batting powerplay well before the 40th over. And in three of the last four cases, India (twice) and England (once) opted for it after or at the start of the 40th over. Though this does not prove anything, but I have often felt that the closer a team takes the batting powerplay to the close of the innings, the greater are their chances of causing self destruction.

There is another reason why I think that batting powerplay is better off taken before the 'slog overs' commence. If it is taken during the slog overs, the batting team is enabling the main of bowlers of the bowling team to bowl in the batting powerplay as well as the slog overs. When it is taken earlier, the main bowlers will be forced to come into the attack earlier and as a result, they will have lesser number of overs available to bowl at the death. So even if the batting team manages just about 35 - 40 runs during the batting powerplay taken at the mandatory ball change but keep their wickets intact, they are giving themselves a chance to attack the lesser bowlers when they come on to bowl later.

Moving on, I think it would be right to recognise Case A and Case H as exceptions. In respect of Case A, Albie Morkel is a rare talent... and that was a rare innings at the MCG even in respect of a rare talent! As for Case H, choking is a complex phenomenon to explain... and that particular night, South Africa redefined the word 'inexplicable'!

Here is another piece of observation... the average strike rate of batsmen in the first four cases is 109.28, while the average strike rate of batsmen in the last four cases is 70.38. Again this does not prove anything... but it does strengthen a belief that I have held for long. I have been of an opinion that where the batsmen have been consolidating an innings, they should play a few shots and gain a bit of momentum before opting for the batting powerplay. I believe that batting powerplay should not be looked at as a tool of completely changing the game's momentum... rather, it should be considered a tool of increasing the momentum that the team has already gained!

In each of the cases B, C and D, the batsmen at crease have hit a combined total of more than 10 boundary shots at least (19. 14 and 17 respectively) in their innings up until then. Whereas in cases E, F and G, these figures stand at 4, 4 and 2. This reiterates my opinion that a bit of momentum should be in hand before one goes for a batting powerplay.

Some may say that this is not a question of momentum, but a question of being set at the crease. But I believe that even a set batsman can get out during the batting powerplay if he goes for something too drastic. Just as warm up exercises are necessary before a strenuous workout, the same principle applies in respect of gathering a bit of momentum before going for a blast.

A lot of times we have seen batsmen going at run rates of 4 or 5 (Cases F, G, H) before they take batting powerplay. Suddenly then they look to score 40 - 50 runs in their next 5 overs by playing a few airy hits. If they don't come off, they get out or the ball ends up being a dot. Somehow, dot balls in batting powerplay overs put more pressure on batsmen than dot balls in regular overs. And once the pressure is built, there is bound to be an explosion - one way or the other!

It would be interesting to get you opinions in this regard, because batting powerplays make for an interesting case study. Please do comment about your conclusion, opinions, other matches and incidents that you may recall and if you have any statistics, please do let me know from where can I get them. If I have a good statistical database of batting powerplay data, then I might be able to do a more detailed study and analysis of this concept in future.

POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAPE TOWN TEST

And so it's set to begin tomorrow... The hosts and 2nd ranked South Africa will take on the visiting team and top-ranked India in the deciding Third Test at Newlands, Cape Town. It has been an amazing series so far... and I hope it continues that way in the shadow of the Table Mountain from tomorrow.

Like I wrote in an earlier blog, India has not won two consecutive away Tests in the same series against a top-8 Test team for about 2 and a half decades. Now the challenge for them is to tame the No. 2 side in the world.

IF INDIA WIN

If India do manage to pull out a series win at Cape Town, the world will be a lot closer to acknowledging India's rank as No. 1 Test team. The English might still say that India needs to beat them later this year... and they would have a point there. England did not manage to beat South Africa last time they visited the Rainbow Nation, so India will be able to boast of a series win there... but the English will remind India that they just beat Australia in Australia... something that India has not quite managed for a number of years now. South Africa's claim to the No. 1 spot will be a lot subdued and India's tour of England might become another tussle for the No. 1 spot that India will have to win to justify the ranking.

IF SOUTH AFRICA WIN

If South Africa beat India at Newlands, be assured that they will claim themselves to be the 'unofficial' No. 1 Test team in the world. India's No. 1 ranking will then be referred to as just a piece of paper with some calculations. And then even if India beat England later in July - August, this defeat will keep on souring the taste of the No. 1 spot that they will in most likelihood maintain. With a win at Cape Town, South Africa, alongside England, will start thinking of themselves as the best in Tests... and India's tour to England will further complicate matters then. An Indian win will again make it a three-horse boasting race whereas an English win will intensify the two-horse race between South Africa and England.

(Note: No matter what South Africans would like to claim, the fact that there are a number of South African-born players in the English team shall not be considered as a point in their favour.)

IF IT IS A DRAW

Well, a draw at Newlands would keep the status quo. India will continue to call themselves as No. 1 (both officially and unofficially). South Africa will not be able to boast of the fact that they are the only team over the last 6 and a half years to have scraped through with a draw on tour of India... twice! Because a draw would mean that India has done the same. England's chants would continue and India's tour of England would be a decisive moment. If India draw the Test series with England as well, though the No. 1 ranking will still be in the bag, the team will be criticised for not being ruthless enough to finish teams off.

FINAL ANALYSIS

So if we really want an 'undisputed' No. 1 to emerge by the year end, the best we can hope for is an Indian win at Cape Town. I would certainly be hoping for that... though sadly, except for Day 1, I would not be able to follow the rest of it properly. I will have to be relying on Cricinfo commentary, SMS updates from friends and whenever possible, I will try and catch up a bit on the TV. I will be on the road for the about 10 days, which would mean that I would also miss another rendition of the 'Sprinkler Dance' (it it happens) at Sydney.

I hope that the four teams play out two cracking New Year Tests to kick of a year, which I hope will be another brilliant one for Test cricket.

ALL TIME WORLD XI

The Cricinfo jurors have completed their exercise of selecting the All-Time World XI squad. And it looks a good one too (as it was bound to)! Here's a look at it:

Now, 7 of my XI that I had chosen here have been selected in the First XI by the Cricinfo jury. 2 find a place in the Second XI... and 1 finds himself in the Third XI, which was not officially selected but was mentioned here.

The 1 player in my XI to miss out completely was Ken Barrington, which is a shame really. A man with a batting average of 58.67 with 20 tons during the 1950s and 60s missing out... well, one cannot help it when spoiled for riches!

I was surprised to see Wasim Akram in the First XI... not that I think he was not good enough! I was expecting Wasim Akram in the Second XI definitely though.

I was disappointed to see Virender Sehwag absent from the First XI as well as the Second XI. Ian Chappell mentions in his interview that his choice had been Sehwag for opening... and he has a very sound logic too. You select teams to win matches... and with Sehwag taking on bowlers right at the top with consistency unmatched in modern day cricket, you had a guy who can win matches on his own.

I have always believed that bowlers win you Test matches. The same can be said about very few batsmen. Virender Sehwag, in my opinion, is one of them.

Otherwise, the team looks awesome. In respect of the Readers' XI, it is obvious that the team has been voted for by readers who have not bothered to consider cricket played before 1970s. Only Sir Don Bradman from that team played exclusively before the 1970s, and Sir Garry Sobers played before and through the 1970s.

One last word... the biggest surprise, disappointment and shock was to see that Jacques Kallis is missing from the First XI, the Second XI as well as the Third XI. An all rounder of his capability... one I regard as equal to Garry Sobers amongst the best batting all rounders of all time... if he's missing from such a list, it's more than just a shame... it's a tragedy! If such an exercise of picking the All-Time XI were to be repeated in a few years' time (after Kallis' retirement), I wouldn't at all be surprised to see him even replacing Sobers in the First XI, because a guy as good as him with the bat and the ball, you just cannot ignore!

PONTING'S PULL

43.6

Harbhajan Singh to Ponting, FOUR, 82.0 kph, Almost holed out at deep backward square-leg Zaheer Khan simply didn't pick it. He was too late in moving. Harbhajan isn't amused. Zaheer has been pretty poor in the field right from the start. This was a slightly short one, Ponting went back to pull but top-edged it. Zaheer should have started to move at this point but he froze. He then moved but by then he couldn't reach it.

The last thing Ponting would have wanted is to start getting out in the process of pulling the spinners... as if the pacers are not enough!

ALL TIME WORLD XI - FINAL TEAM WITH A CAPTAIN

Over four posts on this blog, I have analysed and selected my team for the Cricinfo’s All-Time World XI Test team. Here is a look at the entire team: 

1. Sir Jack Hobbs (England)
2. Virender Sehwag (India)
3. Sir Donald Bradman (Australia)
4. Sachin Tendulkar (India)
5. Ken Barrington (England)
6. Jacques Kallis (South Africa)
7. Adam Gilchrist (Australia)
8. Imran Khan (Pakistan)
9. Shane Warne (Australia)
10. Muttiah Muralitharan (Sri Lanka)
11. Malcolm Marshall (West Indies)

Looks a formidable side, doesn’t it? However, when I was discussing this side with a friend, he told me that it is indeed a very strong side, but it really does not have a feel of being the ALL-TIME XI. And so I took another searching look at it.

And I thought that he had a point. The names in the side are big champions in their own right, but does this resemble what an ALL-TIME XI should be like? He told me that I should consider removing either Jacques Kallis or Muttiah Muralitharan, and consider putting in a fast bowler like Dennis Lilllee or Michael Holding or Fred Trueman or Allan Donald or even Curtly Ambrose or Waqar Younis or Wasim Akram.

He was of the opinion that of all the great, fiery and devastating fast bowlers that have ruled our game, it is quite meek that my ALL-TIME WORLD XI’s new ball attack be headed by just Malcolm Marshall and Imran Khan, with Jacques Kallis as the first change pacer. In my post about the bowlers, Elegantstroke had a similar comment about the new ball attack.

And so I made two changes. I replaced Jacques Kallis with Sir Garfield Sobers and then replaced Muttiah Muralitharan with Fred Trueman. Two contemporary greats replaced by two past greats. The rationale behind this is simple: Sir Garry Sobers is another batting all rounder like Jacques Kallis, but he is a spinning all rounder rather than a medium pace one. Having made this change, I could then omit Murali from the team (rather painfully… you see, 800 wickets is quite a loss) and bring in lightening speed and fire in the form of Fred Trueman. With a strike rate of a wicket in a little of every 8 overs, I have ensured that on an average day, my new ball attack will bring me 2 wickets by the end of their first spell.

So here’s the look at my new bowling unit: Malcolm Marshall, Fred Trueman, Imran Khan, Shane Warne and Sir Garfield Sobers. Does this sound better than the previous one… I think so!

So my final team for the Cricinfo ALL-TIME WORLD XI in is:

1. Sir Jack Hobbs (England)
2. Virender Sehwag (India)
3. Sir Donald Bradman (Australia)
4. Sachin Tendulkar (India)
5. Ken Barrington (England)
6. Sir Garfield Sobers (West Indies)
7. Adam Gilchrist (Australia)
8. Imran Khan (Pakistan)
9. Shane Warne (Australia)
10. Malcolm Marshall (West Indies)
11. Fred Trueman (Australia)

And now comes the question of captaincy… there are only three reasonable contenders for this job – Sir Donald Bradman, Sir Garry Sobers and Imran Khan. Here are their records as captains:

• Sir Donald Bradman: M 24 W 15 D 6 L 3, and his batting average improved to 101.51 from a career average of 99.94
• Sir Garfield Sobers: M 39 W 9 D 20 L 10, and his batting as well as bowing averages were almost identical to his career averages
• Imran Khan: M 48 W 14 D 26 L 8, and his batting average improved to 52.34 from 37.69 and his bowling average improved to 20.26 from 22.81 

So it was a fight between Imran Khan and Sir Don Bradman. Though Imran’s feats are prima facie relatively more impressive, I would still go for Sir Don Bradman. I know Imran Khan had to lead a Pakistani side, which is always more difficult than Sir Don’s Australia… but the captaincy of ALL-TIME WORLD XI is not only a recognition of their abilities, but also an honour. And no one deserves this honour more than Sir Donald Bradman.