ENGLAND'S 2012 - A YEAR IN ASIA

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!

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!

INDIA VS. REST OF THE WORLD

NOTE: All the information on the cases mentioned in this blog post (except for the last one) comes from a singular source - this page on the official website of the International Cricket Council (ICC). Thank you to @HomerTweets for tweeting this link.

NOTE AGAIN: I have just quoted whatever information I deemed was relevant from the above-mentioned webpage. Whatever comments I wanted to make have been made after all the cases have been quoted.

So here goes...

Case 1: South Africa v India, 3rd Test, January 5, 2011, Cape Town

"Sreesanth kicked the boundary kicked the boundary rope after his two LBW appeals were turned down in the previous over. A charge was brought by Ian Gould and Simon Taufel of the Emirates Elite panel of ICC Umpires, third umpire Brian Jerling and fourth umpire Shaun George. Action: Sreesanth pleaded guilty to contravening Level 1 offence (Section 2.1.2) of the ICC Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials which relates to "abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings". Sreesanth has been fined 10 per cent of his match fee.Sreesanth accepted the decision without contest, there was no need for a hearing."

Case 2: Australia v Zimbabwe, 21st Feb, Ahmedabad

"Roshan Mahanama of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Match Referees charged Australia captain Ricky Ponting after an incident was brought to the ICC's attention through the Board of Control for Cricket in India and the Gujarat Cricket Association. He was found to have breached clause 2.1.2 of the code which relates to "abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings during an international match". The charge was brought by the chairman of the Event Technical Committee David Richardson on behalf of the ICC Chief Executive, in accordance with the regulations. The incident occurred shortly after Ponting was run out in the match when he caused some damage to a television set in the team dressing room. The damage occurred when he threw down a piece of equipment which bounced off his kit bag and hit the corner of the television. Action: Ponting accepted the Level 1 charge and the proposed sanction. He was officially reprimanded. As Ponting accepted the offence and the proposed sanction, there was no need to convene a formal hearing. Level 1 offences carry penalties ranging from an official reprimand to 50 per cent of a player's match fee."

Case 3: India v England, 27th Feb, Bengaluru

"The incident took place on the last ball of the 49th over when Tim Bresnan, after he was clean bowled by Piyush Chawla, hit the stumps with his bat. Bresnan pleaded guilty to contravening Level 1 offence (Section 2.1.2) of the ICC Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials which relates to "abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings". The charge was brought by on-field umpires Billy Bowden and Marais Erasmus, third umpire Rod Tucker and fourth umpire Aleem Dar who are all from the Emirates Elite panel of ICC Umpires. Action: As Bresnan accepted the decision without contest, there was no need for a hearing. All Level 1 breaches carry a minimum penalty of an official reprimand and/or a maximum penalty of the imposition of a fine up to 50 per cent of a player's match fee."

Case 4: Bangladesh v England, 12th Mar, Chittagong

"England off-spinner Graeme Swann was charged with a Level 1 offence under article 2.1.4 of the code which relates to, 'Using language or a gesture that is obscene, offensive or insulting during an international match.' The charge was brought by on-field umpires Rod Tucker and Daryl Harper and third umpire Aleem Dar, all from the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Umpires. Action: Swann pleaded guilty to the charge and as such, under the provisions of the code, the matter was determined by Jeff Crowe of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Match Referees and so there was no requirement for a full hearing. Swann was charged with a Level 1 offence under article 2.1.4 of the code which relates to, 'Using language or a gesture that is obscene, offensive or insulting during an international match.' He was fined 10 per cent of his match fees."

Case 5: England v Sri Lanka, 2-6 June, Lord's

"England wicketkeeper Matt Prior was reprimanded for breaching the ICC Code of Conduct during his team's Test match against Sri Lanka at Lord's. He was found to have breached clause 2.1.2 of the code which relates to "abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings during an international match". The charge was brought by on-field umpires Billy Doctrove and Rod Tucker as well as third umpire Aleem Dar and fourth official Richard Illingworth. The incident occurred shortly after Prior was run out in the match when his actions caused the window to break. Action: Prior accepted the Level 1 charge and the proposed sanction from Javagal Srinath of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Match Referees after an incident where a window was broken in the England team dressingroom. As Prior accepted the offence and the proposed sanction, there was no need to convene a formal hearing. Level 1 offences carry penalties ranging from an official reprimand to 50 per cent of a player's match fee."

Case 6: West Indies v India, 20-24 June, Kingston, Jamaica

"India spinner Amit Mishra has been fined 10 per cent of his match fee for a Level 1 breach of the ICC Code of Conduct during his team's first Test against the West Indies in Jamaica. Mishra was found to have breached Article 2.1.3 of the code which relates to "showing dissent at an umpire's decision by action or verbal abuse". The charge was brought by on-field umpires Ian Gould and Daryl Harper as well as third umpire Norman Malcolm. Action: After play concluded on day two, the player accepted the proposed sanction offered to him by Jeff Crowe of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Match Referees. All Level 1 breaches carry a minimum penalty of an official reprimand and a maximum penalty of 50 per cent of a player's match fee."

Case 7: England v India, 29 July-2 August, Nottingham

"India bowler Praveen Kumar has been fined 20 per cent of his match fee after pleading guilty to a Level 1 breach of the ICC Code of Conduct during England's innings on the first day of the second Test at Trent Bridge, Nottingham. The charge related to an incident at the end of the 18th over of the day during which Kumar had an appeal for leg before wicket against England batsman Kevin Pietersen turned down and at the end of the over he then engaged in a debate with umpire Marais Erasmus about the decision. Action: Kumar was found to have breached Article 2.1.3 of the code which relates to arguing or entering into a prolonged discussion with the umpire about his decision. After play concluded for the day, the player admitted the offence and accepted the proposed sanction offered to him by Ranjan Madugalle the chief referee of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Match Referees. As such, there was no need for a formal hearing. The charge had been laid by the on-field umpires Asad Rauf and Marais Erasmus and third umpire Billy Bowden of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Umpires as well as fourth umpire Tim Robinson."

Case 8: England v India, 29 July-2 August, Nottingham (Source)

"Graeme Swann has been reprimanded for a level one breach of the ICC Code of Conduct during the second day of the second Test match between England and India at Trent Bridge. Swann was found to have breached Article 2.1.2 of the code which relates to abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings during an international match. After play concluded, the player admitted the offence and accepted the proposed sanction offered to him by Ranjan Madugalle, the chief referee of the Emirates elite panel of ICC match referees. As such, there was no need for a formal hearing. The charge had been laid by the on-field umpires, Asad Rauf and Marais Erasmus, as well as third umpire Billy Bowden, of the Emirates elite panel of ICC umpires, and fourth umpire Tim Robinson. The charge related to an incident at the end of the 80th over of the India innings when the England bowler kicked the stumps in frustration and dislodged the bails. He immediately apologised to the on-field umpires for his actions."

Now, here are a few points to note:

1. Sreesanth (Case 1), Ponting (Case 2), Bresnan (Case 3), Prior (Case 5) and Swann (Case 8) were all pulled up for the same offence, i.e. "abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings during an international match". Ponting, Bresnan, Prior and Swann were reprimanded. Sreesanth was fined 10% of his match fees. And though this isn't necessary, I should mention that kicking a boundary rope does not result in as much monetary damage as breaking a television or a window.

2. Mishra (Case 6) and Kumar (Case 7) were fined 10% and 20% of their match fees respectively for breaching Article 2.1.3. The Article 2.1.3 includes (pdf):

"(a) excessive, obvious disappointment with an Umpire’s decision; (b) an obvious delay in resuming play or leaving the wicket; (c) shaking the head; (d) pointing or looking at the inside edge when given out lbw; (e) pointing to the pad or rubbing the shoulder when caught behind; (f) snatching the cap from the Umpire; (g) requesting a referral to the TV Umpire (other than in the context of a legitimate request for a referral as may be permitted in such International Match); and (h) arguing or entering into a prolonged discussion with the Umpire about his decision. It shall not be a defence to any charge brought under this Article to show that the Umpire might have, or in fact did, get any decision wrong."

Given what Stuart Broad did on Day 5 of the 1st Test of this series at Lord's, I wonder why that was not classified in clauses (a) and (h) of the above-mentioned Article. Sitting on haunches after an appeal is turned down should easily classify as "excessive, obvious disappointment with an Umpire’s decision" and slipping in a word to the umpire at the end of that over / start of next over about that decision should classify as "arguing or entering into a prolonged discussion with the Umpire about his decision". Broad might want to argue that it was not an argument or a prolonged discussion, but if he is talking more than the umpire (for his lips seemed to move more than Billy Bowden's), it is "arguing"; and if that discussion continues at the end of the over, it is a "prolonged discussion".

3. As per Article 7.3 of the ICC Code of Conduct (pdf), if a Level 1 Offence is committed for the second time within a span of 12 months, then the penalty shall be "the imposition of a fine of between 50-100% of the applicable Match Fee and/or two (2) Suspension Points."

Swann was charged of a Level 1 offence (Case 4) on 12th March 2011. Only 4 months and 18 days have passed since that occasion and Swann has been charged with another Level 1 offence (Case 8). So why was he just reprimanded and not fined 50% of his match fees, which is the minimum penalty to be imposed.

And if my aforesaid argument of Broad's behaviour in the 1st Test holds good, then he too should have faced strict sanctions since he has already been pulled up and fined 50% of his match fees for a Level 2 offence on 1st July 2011, merely 29 days ago! Given that the earlier offence was Level 2, I daresay that he should have missed the current Test match at Nottingham!

2000, 2001, 2003 AND 2004

Four Test matches between the No. 1 and No. 3 Test playing teams in the world. The prospect is exciting as it is, but the romance is magnified when you consider the number 2000!

Test cricket will grow up to become 2000 matches old in a little more than 12 and a half hours from now. The Anglo-Indian Test rivalry (never as highly celebrated and talked of as it has been over the last two weeks) will grow up to become 100 matches old. Indian coach Duncan Fletcher will attend his 100th Test match as a Head Coach... 96 of which were in the role of the English Cricket Team Coach!

And then there is the anticipation of Sachin Tendulkar's 100th international century - a remarkable achievement when it comes (though 99 is no less remarkable on its own either)! However, this post is a preview to the England v. India Test series that begins at Lord's, London tomorrow (which is why the title of the post extends till 2004, and does not stop at 2000; by the way, Test no. 2002 will be between Zimbabwe and Bangladesh in early August)... so I will keep the anticipation of this landmark out of it from hereon.

The teams first -

The hosts are fairly decided on their combination for the game tomorrow. The only spot up for grabs is of the third pacer... and the fight is between the off-colour Stuart Broad and the coming-back-from-an-injury-break Tim Bresnan. Out of the two, I am fairly certain that Stuart Broad is going to feature tomorrow, simply because of the talks of continuity in England's high cricketing circles as well as Broad's leadership role in the team. Add to it the fact that Bresnan is returning from an injury lay-off, I think the English team management would prefer to go for Broad rather than the former.

As far as the visitors are concerned, there are a few small question marks. The biggest one (relatively speaking) of these is the spot of the third pacer (just like the hosts). Some people are suggesting Sreesanth will be picked to accompany Zaheer Khan and Ishant Sharma, others say (with reason) that Praveen Kumar would be a better choice.

Putting it simply, Praveen Kumar can be looked upon as a slower and more-controlled version of Sreesanth. While Praveen Kumar can generate similarly prodigious swing and with greater consistency and control than Sreesanth, it is also quite clear that he will never be able to produce balls such as the one that accounted for Kallis (yes, that snorter) in the Boxing Day Test at Durban 2010! Sometimes, if the game is tight and drifting away, those one-off plays decide the outcome! Nevertheless, if I were asked to pick my squad, Praveen Kumar might just marginally win the race for me. I would not want to gamble... atleast not in the 1st Test, which has always been India's Achilles heal. After Lord's, maybe I could reconsider.

The second question, the answer to which has been all but found, is the spot of India's No. 6 batsman. Raina has his problems against short balls and is almost devoid of backfoot play. England know that and will be ready to unleash Tremlett and Broad / Bresnan when he arrives to the crease. But what counts in favour of Raina is that in recent times, he has shown fight! Be it the crucial knock against Australia in the quarter-finals of the World Cup or through out the West Indies tour, Raina has impressed most observers. My respect for him has never been as high as it is at this moment in time. All in all, it means that Yuvraj Singh might just have to wait in the wings for some more time!

However, the third question, based on a slightly far-fetched idea, might reduce Yuvraj Singh's wait! There has been some talk of not using Abhinav Mukund as the opener and asking Rahul Dravid to open instead. In such a scenario, Yuvraj Singh can be accommodated at No. 5 / No. 6. I have a couple of issues with this idea. One, this would put two of India's main middle order batsmen in an uncomfortable situation - Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman (who will have to bat at No. 3). Yes, Dravid has opened before and might well have to come in at 10 for 1, but asking him to open will put him in a zone of discomfort. He prefers being at No. 3 rather than No. 1 or No. 2, and I would rather have him continue at that place. Laxman too has played well at No. 3 (where he scored that 281), but to push him up there at such short notice would be sacrilege. Two, India has tried this ploy of opening with Dravid to accommodate Yuvraj once before - Australia tour of 2007/08. It was a dismal failure. For me, it's now a case of once bitten twice shy!

Comparing the two teams, they look very similar on paper. The element that could have separated the two teams is nursing a shoulder injury and will not be available for a minimum of 2 Tests. I do not want to talk about how India will miss Sehwag, because everyone has talked about it, every knows about it, everyone has an opinion about it, and for once, hardly anyone has an opinion contrary to the popular one!

As a result, England gain significant advantage in the opening combination. Strauss may have been out of form in recent times, but his contribution has been more than made up for by his vice-captain and opening partner Alastair Cook. He is having the time of his life, and will be India's biggest threat at the top. As for India, Gautam Gambhir (returning from an injury himself) will now have to show the true worth of his leadership role in the team by guiding a young Abhinav Mukund at this big stage. Though Gambhir has moved on to captaining India in some ODIs, he has never commanded a big leadership role in the Test side, mainly due to the presence of some high-profile seniors. Now is the time to take on that role more seriously, and bring out his best... because in England, there is no doubt that he will be tested.

While the Indian middle order looks more impressive on paper, the English middle order is about on par when it comes to form. Trott is in a small lean phase, but he has been a run machine. Pietersen seems to be coming out of his lean phase that he encountered a year or so ago. Bell is in tremendous form himself, and Morgan is ready too. For India, Dravid is showing positive signs again and though Sachin is making a comeback to cricket after some break, he is expected to continue his golden run of 2010. Laxman is playing as well as he ever has and Raina, as I have mentioned, is showing the fight in him. In the keeper-batsman's role, Prior trumps Dhoni. The latter has not been able to play a Test innings of great significance for quite some time now (about 5 Tests).

As we come to the bowling, it gets interesting. Anderson and Zaheer are the main men and leaders of the attack. Skill-wise, they are similar. Zaheer is slightly more experienced of the two, but his fitness will be in question. Tremlett and Ishant Sharma are similar back-of-the-length bowlers who get good bounce due to their height. Both have shown a lot of promise in the recent past. Broad / Bresnan make the English pace attack a tad bit uni-dimensional... all right arm pacers - one swing bowler and two hit-the-deck-hard bowlers. With Praveen / Sreesanth, India's attack has more variety - one left arm swing bowler, one right arm swing bowler and one hit-the-deck-hard bowler. The attack is completed by off-spinners. Swann is currently the best spinner is the world, but he will be up against batsmen who play spin better than any other middle order in any team, arguably in any era! Harbhajan has, in recent times, been subject to immense criticism, but to his advantage will be the fact that he will be bowling to batsmen who are not entirely comfortable against spin.

There are shower forecasts on all five days of the Lord's Test. So even if they are scattered showers, I think it will be safe to assume a draw would be the most probable outcome there, unless we witness a batting collapse. India, slow starters on away tours, will have to guard against such a collapse.

The second Test is to be played at Trent Bridge, Nottingham. This was where India sealed the only result of their previous tour to win the series 1-0. A result is expected here too... and though most people think that the bowlers will decide the result here, I believe the contrary. In my opinion, the batsmen who guard their wicket the best will win here. The bowlers will have help almost all through. So the onus will be on the batting units to do that extra bit.

Before the Third Test at Edgbaston, India will play a two-day practice match against Northamptonshire. It will give a chance for reassessment of strategies, testing bench strength and recovering niggles. Therefore, I expect the best contest of this series to take place at Edgbaston, Birmingham (the 2003rd Test match, all the hype around the 2000th notwithstanding)... and yes, I expect a result here too.

A lot of people, including some English cricket followers, say that The Oval Test will result in a draw, making it two out of two draws in London. However, if Sehwag gets into the team and acclimatises himself by then, I wouldn't be surprised to see a result there too. With Sehwag's inclusion, the 'time factor' in a Test match has a different context attached to it, whether or not he clicks. If you don't believe me, ask Graeme Smith in the context of Cape Town 2011!

Now don't ask me to predict a series result. Since I have predicted three match results, the most likely scenario would be 2-1 either way. I would be very surprised if it goes 3-0 one way or the other!

In the build-up to this series, I have been surprised by the fact that there has been very little comparison drawn to this tour with the South African tour late last year. Or maybe there have been enough parallels drawn, but I expected more!

For one, both series' have put India's title as No. 1 Test team in the world on line. After all, a 2-0 or a 3-1 win for England will propel them to the top! Apart from that, India goes in to the First Tests not well acclimatised, though we did have the luxury of a tour match this time round! India will yet again be facing a bowling attack that can be considered superior to theirs in conditions of the hosts. The batting units of both the hosts are similar and in form too. Both hosts want to test the Indian batting of fast surfaces. And as if all this were not enough, the captains of both the hosts are left-handed openers, whom Zaheer Khan would love to bowl at!

However, unlike the result in South Africa, I am hoping for an Indian victory over here. I don't know how many will agree, but I think the English in England are a slightly easier prospect than the South Africans in South Africa! The added experience of having won the Test series on their previous tour here should help the Indians along. England, on the other hand, have not beaten India in a Test series since 1996 - the same series where Ganguly and Dravid famously debuted together.

So as the Test match no. 2000 descends upon us tomorrow, with an equally-enticing prospect of Tests no. 2001, 2003 and 2004, I am just delighted to be amongst those who will have the privilege of watching it live. I may well get the chance to watch the 3000th and maybe even the 4000th, but the first milestone is always the most special one. And given the surroundings and the setup of the 2000th, it will be hard for the future 1000s to beat this one. Lord's, we are waiting...

FINALLY, AN ICC DECISION WORTH APPRECIATION

For a good part of last two months, I have been getting more and more incensed by some of the decisions taken by ICC. The 10-team World Cup for 2015, defending Billy Bowden's decision of Bell non-LBW, then changing the UDRS rules again, reprimanding William Porterfield for public criticism and not acting against Graeme Swann for his share of public criticism after he had already been fined for swearing at the umpire!

But finally, ICC has taken a decision that I can support. They have decided to drop Ashoka de Silva as an umpire for some of the crucial matches coming up, and relocated him to the dead rubbers remaining. So whereas earlier he was scheduled to stand in England v. West Indies and sit as a third umpire in India v. West Indies matches, he will now stand in the Zimbabwe v. Kenya match and be the fourth official during Ireland v. Netherlands game. (Report)

Ashoka de Silva has given some shockers in this World Cup, and though some of them have been corrected by UDRS, that did not stop him from giving a howler even with the help of UDRS. I have already stated that I consider him the least elite of ICC's Elite Panel of Umpires and frankly, do not find him competent enough to be a part of it.

However, wrapped in this news was something unusual. In that news report, ICC has listed a certain Tyron Wijewardene as the third umpire for the Australia v. Pakistan match. I wonder how does he end up having this job without having officiated in a single match so far in this World Cup. We are coming to the end of league stages and an umpire who has not yet been a part of the World Cup will be officiating as a third umpire in a match between two heavyweights that would potentially decide the group toppers! WEIRD!

Oh well, I am again coming to terms with the fact that there is hardly going to be a single decision taken by the ICC that I will completely agree to! Maybe, I should run it one day... at least, that would help me avoid disagreements with myself!

ODI TEAM OF THE YEAR 2010

Here's my pick for the ODI team for the year 2010...


01. Hasim Amla (1058 runs in 15 matches @ Avg 75.57 and SR 104.23, 100s-5, 50s-4) - SA
02. Tillakaratne Dilshan (921 runs in 20 matches @ Avg 51.16 and SR 988.82, 100s-3, 50s-4) - SL
03. Virat Kohli (995 runs in 25 matches @ Avg 47.38 and SR 85.11, 100s-3, 50s-7) - Ind
04. AB De Villiers (964 runs in 16 matches @ Avg 80.33 and SR 102.11, 100s-5, 50s-4) - SA
05. Kumar Sangakkara (726 runs in 17 matches @ Avg 48.40 and SR 84.41, 100s-0, 50s-7, Cat-27, St-4) (c)(wk) - SL
06. Michael Hussey (825 runs in 24 matches @ Avg 45.83 and SR 91.56, 100s-0, 50s-6) - Aus
07. Shakib Al Hasan (27 matches, 787 runs @ Avg 32.79, SR 80.14, 100s-1, 50s-5, 46 wkts @ Avg 26.00, ER 4.80) - Ban
08. Graeme Swann (28 wkts in 14 matches @ Avg 18.67 and ER 4.25) - Eng
09. Stuart Broad (30 wkts in 16 matches @ Avg 24.86 and ER 5.21) - Eng
10. Ryan Harris (40 wkts in 16 matches @ Avg 15.17 and ER 4.63) - Aus
11. Doug Bollinger (28 wkts in 19 matches @ Avg 23.39 and ER 4.36) - Aus

TEST TEAM OF THE YEAR 2010

I have donned the selector's hat... and here's my pick for the Test Team of the Year 2010:

OPENERS:

Alastair Cook (1287 runs in 14 matches @ Avg 58.50 and SR 54.76, 100s-5, 50s-4)
Virendra Sehwag (1422 runs in 14 matches @ Avg 61.82 and SR 90.80, 100s-5, 50s-8)

The young and promising Alastair Cook and the belligerent Virendra Sehwag should make a great opening pair for the Test Team of the year. Tamim Iqbal and Graeme Smith did make their cases strong, but they couldn't beat the sheer consistency of this pair.

MIDDLE ORDER:

Hashim Amla (1249 runs in 11 matches @ Avg 78.06 and SR 53.05, 100s-5, 50s-4)
Sachin Tendulkar (1562 runs in 14 matches @ Avg 78.10 and SR 55.90, 100s-7, 50s-5)
Johnathan Trott (1325 runs in 14 matches @ Avg 66.25 and SR 49.44, 100s-4, 50s-4)
Jacques Kallis (1198 runs in 11 matches @ Avg 79.86 and SR 54.01, 100s-6, 50s-2)

These four members picked themselves... but the difficult question was whom to accommodate at their usual No. 3 and No. 4 positions, and whom to push down to No. 5 and No. 6.

Eventually, Amla beat Trott to No. 3 because Amla's runs have come against more difficult oppositions. Trott scored 805 runs against Bangladesh and Pakistan whereas Amla scored 386 runs against West Indies and Pakistan. This, and slightly superior strike rate, sealed the No. 3 spot for Amla.

For the No. 4 spot, Tendulkar scored 390 runs against Bangladesh and New Zealand whereas Kallis scored 606 runs against West Indies and Pakistan. So the No. 4 spot went to Tendulkar.

It is sad that AB De Villiers, Kumar Sangakkara and VVS Laxman had to miss out... but there just isn't any more space left in the team.

WICKETKEEPER:

MS Dhoni (749 runs in 13 Tests @ Avg 41.61 and SR 55.48, 100s-1, 50s-4, Cat-41, St-7)

Sangakkara averaged 99.28 for the year but did not keep wickets even once through the year. AB De Villiers scored 996 runs but kept wickets only once. Matthew Prior had 8 more dismissals than Dhoni, but scored 640 runs at an average of 40.00. Brendon McCullum was also considered, but was not the ideal choice. So despite having not-too-impressive batting figures, Dhoni forms a part of the Test Team for the Year 2010 and in an obvious choice, takes the captaincy of the team.

BOWLERS:

Graeme Swann (64 wkts in 14 matches @ Avg 25.96, ER 2.88 and SR 54.0)
Dale Steyn (60 wkts in 11 matches @ Avg 21.41, ER 3.29 and SR 39.0)
Zaheer Khan (47 wkts in 9 matches @ Avg 21.97, ER 3.31 and SR 39.8)
James Anderson (57 wkts in 12 matches @ Avg 22.96, ER 2.82 and SR 48.7)

The three pacers in prime form, with the best spinner in the world to accompany them, forms a potent bowling unit. The irrepressible Jacques Kallis can lend good support and Virendra Sehwag's off spin can be called for when the chips are down.

Morne Morkel performed brilliantly through the year, but despite his 49 wickets, there is no one amongst the 4 listed above whom one would want to see out to accommodate Morkel. Steven Finn was also good through the year, but not enough to make the team.

FINAL TEAM:

A Cook (Eng), V Sehwag (Ind), H Amla (SA), S Tendulkar (Ind), J Trott (Eng), J Kallis (SA), MS Dhoni (Ind) (c)(wk), G Swann (Eng), D Steyn (SA), Z Khan (Ind), J Anderson (Eng).

WHAT EXACTLY IS THAT?

Did Andy Flower choreograph this?

THE BRISBANE TEST - FROM THE NEUTRAL EYE

How quickly fortune can change! Three days into the first Ashes Test, Australia was right on top... leading England by more than 200 runs, having gotten 10 first-innings English wickets without even letting the second new ball become due, centuries for batsmen who had had question marks over their places in the squad and there seemed to exist a tremendous amount of optimism in the media all over the island nation.

Two days later, the tables have as upside down as upside down can be! Whereas less than 77 overs were needed to take the first 10 English wickets, Australia couldn't prise out more than 1 over almost double the number of overs in the second innings. The captain led from the front, then the vice-captain overtook him and went further ahead... and meanwhile, the South African born No. 3 continued his dream run against the Aussies.

Since England won the final 2 days of the drawn Gabba Test, there is naturally a lot of optimism now in the English media and there are talks about momentum and psychological advantage... But putting all this aside, what else can be deduced from this match?

England batted for a total of 228.5 overs and scored 777 runs for the loss of 11 wickets at 3.40 runs per over. Australia, on the other hand, batted for a total of 184.4 overs and scored 588 runs for the loss of 11 wickets at 3.18 runs per over. Given that 302 of England's runs were scored by Alastair Cook (that's 38.88%) and 136 of Australia's runs were scored by Brad Haddin (that's 23.13%), it is surprising to see England scoring a good 0.22 runs per over more than Australia over the duration of the match.

So the numbers too, prima facie, showcase England as the better side over the Test match. But the catch is, they were just slightly better. 'Slightly better' will not be good enough to win the urn, maybe just good enough to retain it.

Australia's problems are being talked of loudly and clearly all over the cricketing world at the moment. But England should realise that they have problems of their own. Australia, even at their worst, can put up a huge fight. England's worst fear right now would be a scenario where Ben Hilfenhaus finds his rhythm (which he is soon bound to), Mitchell Johnson producing one of his once-in-10-Tests brilliant efforts, Doug Bollinger returning to the squad with decent match practice (sorry Peter Siddle, but you are not going to be getting hat-tricks everyday... everyday's not your birthday), Marcus North finding grip and turn with his off breaks and the English batting having its once-in-10-Tests batting collapse... all in the same Test.

But then, England will also be cheered up by the fact that the above scenario is unlikely to occur in the 2nd Test... since it is at Adelaide. So what I am left wondering about now is that if Brisbane has produced only 22 wickets over 5 days (10 of which fell under a cloudy Day 1), what is going to happen at Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne? The flip side is that these venues might just provide the impetus needed to spur a certain Graeme Swann back into the thick of things.

Frankly, the first Test was a let down from what I expected. I hope Adelaide delivers a better show...

54 YEARS IN WAITING

Greame Swann has become the first English off-spinner since the great Jim Laker to take a 10-wicket haul in a Test match against Bangladesh today.

Incidentally, Laker's last 10-for was his famous 19 for 90 in the Ashes Test at Old Trafford, Manchester in 1956. It has taken almost 54 years since then and a sub - continental pitch at Chittagong for another English off-spinner to come along and grab a 10-for.

England's troubles at producing quality spinners have been well documented through history. Many have regarded this inability as also one of the reasons why their batsmen are inept at playing quality spin bowling. So it was hardly surprising that the wait for the next genuinely good English off-spinner lasted more than 4 decades.

SWANN'S ART VS. BHAJJI'S DART

Right now, Greame Swann is ranked 5th and Harbhajan Singh is ranked 8th in the Reliance Mobile ICC Player Rankings in Test Cricket. Fourteen months back, when Swann made his debut against India at Chennai (days after the 26/11 terrorist attacks in Mumbai), Bhajji had already played 72 Tests and taken 306 wickets for India. He had also scored a healthy 1334 runs as a handy lower order batsman.

Swann grabbed an in-form Gautam Gambhir and an out-of-form Rahul Dravid as his first 2 wickets in his very first over in Test cricket. Since that Chennai Test, Swann has taken 69 wickets in 16 Tests as against Bhajji's 39 in 9 Tests. Both have taken 4.3 wickets per Test, but Bhajji played 6 out of his 9 Tests in the sub-continent whereas Swann has played only 2 Tests in the sub-continent. Swann's figures don't tell the entire story. He has not only closed the door on Monty Panesar by becoming the first choice spinner, but also become a certainty in the first eleven, even if the pitch is sure to be unresponsive. That is unheard of in the recent history of English spinners. To add to all this, Swann (like Harbhajan) is also a very handy batsman. Considering how much England rely on their lower order (sometimes last wicket pairs also), he has a bright future ahead of him.

Despite, averaging same number of wickets per Test, why is Swann's success looked at with greater respect than that of Harbhajan? The reason is very simple: Swann is making the most of the abilities he possesses. He does not possess the variety of Harbhajan Singh, but he makes up for it with his courage. His courage to flight the ball, his unruffled attitude when batsmen take him on and his consistent lengths have helped him garner his success.

Swann, alongwith Nathan Hauritz from Australia, has reignited the dying flames of the ART of off spin bowling. Whereas Harbhajan has lost his sense of art, and has continued to bowl his DARTS. Harbhajan's inexplicable tendencies of firing the ball into the pads and bowling defensive lengths despite attacking field settings have hampered his wicket taking abilities in the recent past. I know many people who would be happy to see him dropped against South Africa. Zaheer and Nehra have become transformed bowlers after their comebacks. Is it time that Harbhajan Singh is put through the same exile?