skip to main |
skip to sidebar
After my previous post on The Dravid Selection Debate, this one is now on the 2nd innings dismissal of Rahul Dravid during the 4th Test at the Oval. It looks like Dravid debates are the fashion for this season! Already, this dismissal has been discussed and dissected all over Twitter and other cricket forums on the internet. Here are my thoughts for what they are worth!
First, let me state very clearly that I did not see the dismissal live and did not even manage to catch a replay till well after the end of day's play. When I did see the replay, I already knew that Dravid had admitted to have edged it. So whether I think there was an edge or not does not matter, because my eyes were always going to be prejudiced after that admission by Dravid. But here's what I do know:
1. Most English commentators and tweeters were of the opinion that they saw a slight deflection from a certain angle, and so Steve Davis was justified in ruling Dravid out.
2. Most Indian commentators and tweeters were of the opinion that they saw no conclusive evidence for Steve Davis to overrule the on-field decision. Since DRS over-ruling works on the basis of conclusive evidence, Davis was not justified.
3. Amongst the neutral, I don't recall many opinions. But I do recall Mike Haysman tweeting that he didn't think there was any conclusive evidence to rule Dravid out.
I think that based on these statements, we can assume that it was a marginal call either way.
Now what I am going to state here has been stated so often already that it's sounding more and more like a cliché, but it has to be mentioned nevertheless. So here it goes again - the DRS was meant to eliminate howlers, and not rule on marginal calls. Where marginal calls are involved, the ground umpire's decision should be taken as the final one. Only when there is overwhelming evidence against the ground umpire's ruling should that decision be overturned.
But while I state all this, lets not forget that the primary aim of the judiciary (and this includes the umpires as well as the technology that has been provided for their aid) is to come to the right decision. And in Dravid's case, the right decision was indeed reached, even though in a wrong way! I remember once an umpire (I think it was Simon Taufel, but I'm not sure!) stated that they would not want their walkie-talkie conversations ever recorded, because often they reach the right decisions in very wrong ways!
So what to make of this debate? Now that we have the benefit of hindsight, in my opinion and strictly in my opinion, I think that the right decision was made and Steve Davis was good to have spotted that faint edge and deviation. In his mind, he was must have been reasonably sure that the edge had been taken, however thin it may have been, and he relayed that decision back to the ground umpire. That's it!
But that's not the end of the story! What I have trouble comprehending is that why are umpires inconsistent in this matter. Some like Billy Bowden prefer to go exactly by the rule book and rule Ian Bell not out in the World Cup match against India even though the evidence overwhelmingly suggested that he should have been Yuvraj Singh's victim! And some like Steve Davis decide to use their initiative and overrule the foundation on which the DRS is based - i.e. the foundation of overwhelming evidence!
I know that the "Ian Bell - Yuvraj Singh - Billy Bowden" example is not quite an exact parallel to this one. And to be honest, I couldn't find any exact parallel. So I will give you the best I could find...
The following video shows the wickets and close calls during the Canada vs. Kenya match in the World Cup 2011. Watch this video from 5:02 onwards - the batsman is Kenyan Steve Tikolo, and the bowler is Canadian Rizwan Cheema.
Now, from what I see here, I think that the edge was clearer here on Steve Tikolo's bat than it was in case of Rahul Dravid at The Oval. I know that it may be a futile exercise to compare, since the situations were different and the umpires involved were different (Bruce Oxenford was the third umpire in the Steve Tikolo case). But the point I'm trying to make is that Oxenford saw it was a marginal call, and though some angles suggested an inside edge, he decided to rule it in favour of the on-field umpire's call. He saw no overwhelming evidence to overrule!
Here, I am not trying to blame Steve Davis in any way. I have already stated that with the benefit of hindsight, we can all agree that the correct decision was made. But the blame lies entirely with ICC's pathetic implementation of the DRS, and its use for marginal calls.
I understand that Bruce Oxenford may not have been as convinced as Steve Davis was to overrule the on-field call, but if I am allowed to judge the third umpires here, I am sure that neither Oxenford nor Davis could have been 100% sure about the edges. Even if Steve Davis was reasonably certain about the edge, I am prepared to bet that he could not have been a 100% confident about his call... simply because it indeed was a very marginal call and the replays could not have been deemed to be 100% conclusive. The varied opinions all over Twitter suggest nothing else.
So what does the ICC have to state? Are the on-field calls to be over-ruled where the third umpires are just reasonably sure about the evidence on offer? Or are they to be over-ruled only when the third umpires are a 100% certain about the error in the on-field decision? Till the ICC does not answer this question clearly and decisively, we will continue to have such vagaries in decision-making even in the future. How this decision might affect the result of this match will be known only tomorrow (and even then, just speculatively), but what it did was that it ended a marathon effort by India's best batsman on this tour on a very sour note!
Well played, Rahul Dravid! Much respect!
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!
Clutching the back of his right thigh before limping off to the dressing room, Zaheer Khan has ensured that more prayers by Indian cricket fans will revolve around the recovery of his hamstring strain than the prospect of Sachin Tendulkar reaching his 100th ton!
Words will never be able to describe fully the kind of loss that Zaheer's injury has imposed on India. It would be futile for me to even try! I'm hoping that his injury is not a very serious one. If the weather forecasts for the Lord's Test hold good, then India should be able to draw this Test even without Zaheer's services. In the mean time, I desperately hope that Zaheer will regain full fitness and be ready for the Tests at Trent Bridge, Edgbaston and The Oval.
Not only would his absence dent India's chances severely, but an unfit Zaheer Khan would take a lot of sheen of this contest. As far as I am concerned, Zaheer Khan is the most skillful bowler involved in this series, and as much as English fans would like to think that James Anderson is better, I still think that Anderson needs another 2-3 years of experience to get to the level that Zaheer bowls at these days!
Here's hoping for a quick recovery for the leader of India's bowling attack!
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...
I have been away from blogosphere for about a week now. The Champions League Twenty20 has started and is midway through. And sadly, another round of fixing allegations are coming through.
There are allegations being made about the 3rd England - Pakistan ODI at The Oval, London... something about scoring patterns over different periods during Pakistan's batting innings.
I really hope that these allegations are not some cock-n-bull stories cooked up by certain fragments in the media to target Pakistan cricket and gain visibility as a result of it. After the revelations by the British tabloid News of the World (NOTW) during the England - Pakistan Test match at Lord's, I guess many other media and news agencies are vying to be the ones to release the next big breaking news.
When NOTW laid their allegations against certain players from the Pakistan team, they based it on evidences in the form of video footages that convinced more than half the world of the guilt of those accused. Sure, the investigations are still on and there will be more of bureaucracy involved as this matter progresses further. But what NOTW did was bring out their evidence into the open and put it in front of the world... so that maybe, when the investigations begin, the process would be a little more transparent than it usually is in such cases.
Compare to the new allegations coming through at the moment... about the run-scoring patterns. These allegations have not been based on anything that will classify as evidence in a court of law (unless ofcourse, such evidence has not been revealed publicly). In fact, the words used in the news articles describing such allegations is 'suspicious'. They are talking about suspicious run-scoring patterns, suspicious periods of play and more such things.
Now really, this sounds story in itself sounds suspicious to me. I may be completely wrong in my assessment if the allegations are proven to be true. But till then, I will say only this: the media must be responsible in breaking out their stories. By laying such allegations, they have tarnished what was a brilliant victory for the Pakistan cricket team and their hope of revival. This win could have helped them in a huge way to pick themselves up from this bottomless abyss. But now, not even a win for Pakistan will be looked at with any respectability.
Based on factors like pitch, conditions, bowler, batsmen involved, situation of play, etc, even I can predict the number of runs that will be scored in a particular over in most Limited Over matches. Does that mean that a media news agency should report a "Breaking News" because a cricket follower is claiming to make predictions over his blog? If the predictions are correct, will it be a case of "suspicious scoring patterns" for these media groups?
I am not very fond of media in any case and find them a very irresponsible segment of our society. And I do believe that whenever a news agency makes such allegations, they should be held responsible for their views.
 |
| (c) Getty Images |
Mohammed Yousuf, on his return game from his 'temporary' retirement, scored a calm half-century and helped Pakistan score their first 300+ score of this series as they built up a 75-run lead over the hosts England at The Oval.
As it stands now, England have fought back (the score currently reads 151 for 2, with the back-in-nick Alastair Cook unbeaten on 108). But to watch Pakistan's batting yesterday after having watched them collapse on other occasions in this English summer was to know and realise why we love Test cricket so much and why we hold the masters in this game in such high regard!
Yousuf's inclusion was debated heatedly... but I was always of the opinion that Pakistan needed him in their batting unit desperately. The calm he brought to their game yesterday was a treat to watch. Azhar Ali, who had collected two ducks in this series before yesterday, grew more and more confident batting alongside Yousuf.
In the first two Tests, the only member in Pakistan's batting unit whom one could look up to as one having 'character' for Test cricket was their captain Salman Butt. But there is no denying the fact that he is woefully out of form at the moment! This automatically gave England an edge... their bowlers were a lot more confident bowling to this young side with virtually no Test experience. But with the inclusion of Yousuf, the mindset of the English team also changed immediately. The fields became defensive a lot earlier than what we have seen so far this summer. This in turn, also helped Azhar Ali.
At the time when Yousuf was drafted into the side just before the Second Test, a lot of people said that drafting in a 35-year old is a step backwards. What trash! So what is a step forward then? Allowing four boys in their early 20s to make up a middle order in the swing friendly English conditions? And then fault them for nor making big scores?
A year ago, the likes of Azhar Ali, Umar Akmal and Umar Amin had never encountered such conditions in their cricket careers. They had never seen anyone negotiate such conditions... and had no one to guide them on how to do it themselves. So they tried their ultra-aggressive and / or ultra-cautious ways to get through the tricky periods. Invariably, they failed and their failure reflected in the 3-1 scoreline that they have managed so far in England.
This scoreline is a very bad reflection on that bowling unit, which is arguably the best of the three teams that have played Test cricket in England this summer. But the bowlers couldn't do it all on their own. They needed assistance from their batsmen... and now, they have hope that they might get it! Because Mohammed Yousuf is listed in the Pakistan team sheet!
Australia have managed a decent 290 - 5 in their 50 overs in the dead rubber (oh sorry, what was it... "playing for pride") 4th ODI at The Kennington Oval, London. Just a little less than 6 miles to the south west, Roger Federer has just been handed his 2nd straight Quarter Final exit from a Tennis Grand Slam event at the Wimbledon by Czech Tomas Berdych 6-4, 3-6, 6-1, 6-4.
It just rings a bell in my head. Two champions... both losing their aura... both signalling the end of an era! Australia dominated cricket through the 1990s and the 2000s. The decade to come looks like a different story! England have been consistently performing well in the longer version of the game and have shown good form over the last 2 years in the shorter versions as well. India have been consistent, ranked No. 1 and 2 in Tests and ODIs respectively. And then there is South Africa, who play well throughout the year except for the business end of ICC tournaments.
In case of Roger Federer... he reached the semi-finals of 23 straight Grand Slam events. With the highest number of Men's Singles Grand Slam titles ever and numerous other records in his bag, he is widely acknowledged as the best Men's Tennis player ever. Through the later part of his career, his one biggest challenge was Spaniard Rafael Nadal. However, now he has been challenged by others as well... Serbian Novak Djokovic (Australian Open 2008), Argentine Juan Martin Del Potro (US Open 2009), Swede Robin Soderling (French Open 2010) and now Czech Tomas Berdych (Wimbledon 2010).
This does mean that the two sports should now become more interesting as the teams / players are more evenly matched and no particular team / player radiates an aura of invincibility. Waiting to see how my prediction pans out...
