INDIAN TEAM SHOULD HAVE WATCHED THE DJOKOVIC - NADAL FINAL

That's just 7 minutes short of a normal day of Test cricket!

World No. 1 and Defending Champion Novak Djokovic from Serbia and World No. 2 Rafael Nadal from Spain fought an epic 5 hour and 53 minutes long battle for the title of Australian Open Men's Singles title. It was the Serb who triumphed with a 5-7, 6-4, 6-2, 6-7 (5), 7-5 win against the Spaniard, in what turned out to be their first ever 5-setter in their 30th match against each other.

The first Men's Singles semi-final between Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer had been a brilliant one to watch over four sets... the second semi-final between Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray went longer and was an exhilarating five-setter. Expectations were high from the finals, and though the quality of the tennis was not great in the first two sets with plenty of errors committed by both men, the finish more than made up for it... and elevated this match to the status of a true 'epic'.

The end of the fourth set and the fifth set were amazing rides - a great spectacle for every viewer who had the privilege of watching it unfold! Novak Djokovic was on cruise control mode, and soon he had three break points on Rafael Nadal's serve at 3-4 in the 4th set. Djokovic would have served for the Championship, had he been able to seal the break there. He did not... and Rafael Nadal played some wonderful points, and there seemed a palpable shift in momentum, aided by the chants from the crowd of 'Rafa! Rafa!' and some adrenaline-inspired fist-pumping from Nadal himself.

In a frenzy of the next few games and the tie breaker to follow, wherein the play was even halted once to close the roof due to rain, Rafael Nadal elevated his game and broke Djokovic's serve once, got broken back, allowed Djokovic to gather a good lead in the tie-break, before fighting back and sealing the win when Djokovic hit wide a backhand down the line on his own serve.

The fifth set saw some stunning rallies from the two men. They were exhausted, no doubt - with Djokovic showing his exhaustion more than Nadal - but when they committed to those rallies, there were no half-measures. Nadal broke Djokovic, Djokovic broke him back immediately, and then made another crucial break at 5-5, before serving out for a win (not without defending a break point of his own)!

There was a point in the 5th set where they had a 31-shot rally, which was a spectacular display of baseline tennis. But what made that point even more incredible was the fact that it came just 5 minutes after they had played a 25-shot rally, at about the 5 hour, 15 minutes mark on the clock! They might have just been athletes competing on the Rod Laver Arena... but for a good 6 hours, they elevated themselves to the status of superhumans.

But now, why do I say that the Indian cricket team should have watched this match? What lesson could have been learnt from watching this match that could be applied to cricket, or any other sport for that matter? It's a simple answer - the FIGHT!

The two men fought like gladiators, and in the last two sets in particular, virtually every point was a FIGHT or a FIGHTBACK! Both men, and Nadal in particular, chased down every shot hit by the opponent, defended what would have been sure winners, stayed in the point when the opponent was dominating the rallies, and did it again even if the previous time that they had done it had not resulted in a point for them!

Over the two tours of England and Australia, a lot of people have commented about the lack of FIGHT in the Indian cricket team. I do not know how to define this term FIGHT, but somehow, I do know that what I saw in the tennis match earlier today was definitely a FIGHT! The Indian team could do well to look at the determination of Djokovic and Nadal - to keep on carrying themselves for all of those 6 hours. After the end of the match, their legs refused to support them, and they had to be seated on chairs when the organisers were giving their speeches. But when they were in the game, and especially in a rally, their bodies did not dictate to them - they dictated to their bodies!

And there's another aspect to the story of Rafael Nadal in this match to be considered - an aspect which should interest the Indian cricket team! Nadal came into this match with a 0-6 record against Djokovic since the start of 2011. Over 2011, Nadal lost to Djokovic thrice of hard courts, twice on his favourite clay courts (both times in straight sets) and once on a grass court. Two of those losses relinquished his hold on Grand Slams (Wimbledon and US Open) and two other losses ended his reign as a Masters Champion in those tournaments (Rome and Madrid). The remaining two losses were also in the finals... and what could have been an incredible season for Rafael Nadal turned out to be just a 'good' one because of the unstoppable Serb.

Most people are of the opinion, I amongst them, that Djokovic's brilliant run of 2011, and his record against Nadal over the year in particular, has put some kind of a mental block in Nadal's head. He came into this match fighting not just his talented opponent, but also the demons in his own mind. When Nadal was looking down and out in the fourth set, I tweeted forlornly that the prospect of 0-7 against Djokovic in their last 7 meetings has a feeling as hollow as India's consecutive away Test losses in England and Australia.

But by the time they were finished with each other, the Djokovic-Nadal rivalry had been elevated to another level, and Nadal had not lost the smallest ion of respect for the 0-7 run! Despite the 0-6 and the mental block coming into the match, he gave it his everything and fought till the very last point. India had been in a 0-6 position going into Perth... desperate for positives and inspiration! What followed was a loss in 3 days, with India being bowled out for 161 and 171 in their two innings. Where Nadal fought with the inner demons and a champion opponent, the Indian cricket team did not fight! They capitulated!

Eventually Nadal did lose and the run now stands at 0-7... but one can rest assured that the next time he faces Djokovic, he will continue to fight for every point. Even if it does become a 0-8 then, that 0-8 will have a much better feel to it than the 0-8 of the Indian cricket team.

Djokovic and Nadal were an inspiration to me today... and I am sure they were a similar inspiration to many more viewers around the world! The Indian cricket team could do well with such an inspiration... and a lesson!

A NOT-SO-DRASTIC SUGGESTION FOR TEAM INDIA

As expected, a couple of losses have brought out the knives against Team India. The blame has been placed on batting, bowling, captaincy, lack of practice, disharmony in the team, and myriad other factors. Suggestions and advice have been pouring in from everywhere.

These suggestions involve simple things like dropping VVS Laxman for Rohit Sharma, to more radical ideas like R Ashwin opening the batting!

Since virtually everyone has jumped in on the bandwagon, I thought of joining in too. But my solution (or should I call it suggestion) to the Indian team is far less drastic.

I would like to see the Indian team go unchanged to Perth, with a small reshuffle in the batting order - Kohli at 5 and Laxman at 6. There are a number of reasons behind this line of thinking, and I'll state them thus:

A. Fours Bowlers vs. Five Bowlers

I don't see any reason to change the status quo unless we discover a new bowling all-rounder in the ranks. And while Ashwin's performances with the bat do show promise, it is far too early to call him an all-rounder already. The drubbing at SCG has made everyone cry hoarse about India's bowling resources, and it's been conveniently forgotten that at MCG, Sehwag had called this very same bowling unit the best that he had ever played with.

While I don't think it's the best ever of Sehwag's time, but I still do think that it is quite good. They took 20 Australian wickets at MCG, and if the WACA pitch offers assistance as is being claimed in the media, I think they are quite capable to picking 20 more there. They are well-rested now after having been in the field watching Australia score a mammoth score, and most importantly, there are no injury concerns (at the moment).

Zaheer Khan has been leading the attack well. Umesh Yadav has been inconsistent and a little wayward, but I think he can be relied upon to pitch the ball up. In the second innings at MCG, his lines were not that good, but he grabbed 4 wickets because of his length. Ishant Sharma is, in my opinion, the biggest concern because he finds it difficult to change his length, and at a venue like Perth, his natural short-of-a-length balls will seem a lot shorter than they do at other venues.

There are talks of dropping Ashwin and going for Ojha or a fourth seamer... but I don't think that is a very good idea. Maybe, Ojha for Ashwin is an option worth considering, but definitely not a fourth seamer! I don't think either Abhimanyu Mithun or Vinay Kumar will add a lot more value than R Ashwin in the team. As for Ojha, the main reason for considering him is that the Australian right-handers pose more of a threat than the left-handers. Zaheer Khan with the new ball is very potent against the left-handed top-3 of Australia. But with Michael Clarke hitting form and Ricky Ponting hitting a ton, a left-arm spinner might be of help more than an off-spinner.

B. Laxman At 6

Laxman's numbers at No. 5 are very similar to his numbers at No. 6. Averages of 49.00 at 5 and 50.18 at 6 show that he is quite comfortable at both these positions. However, from the team's perspective, I think it is beneficial to have him at 6 rather than 5.

There are a number of benefits of having him bat at 6. Firstly, it adds experience in the lower middle order of India's batting, which has been prone to collapsing even after being given a good platform by the top- and middle-order (read 1st innings at MCG). Secondly, it separates India's Big 3 - Rahul Dravid, Sachin Tendulkar and VVS Laxman. When they are bunched together at 3, 4 and 5, one bowler bowling a fiery spell with good rhythm can get rid of all of them. With Laxman at 6, it offers a break between India's 3 best batsmen's batting positions and protects them from one inspired spell of fast bowling.

C. Kohli At 5

Virat Kohli is young - in terms of both age and experience in Test cricket! Currently, when he comes out to bat, he comes with the knowledge that there is just a struggling MS Dhoni and the tail to follow him. With him at 5, he will know that there is an experienced batsman in the form of VVS Laxman to follow, and will allow him to play in slightly lesser pressure. At No. 5, he will almost invariably bat with one of the Big-3, and if he survives that partnership, he will get a chance to bat with another member of the Big-3. These experiences can only help to calm him and grow as a cricketer.

D. Kohli vs. Sharma

All those people calling for Rohit Sharma to replace Virat Kohli need to realise that Rohit Sharma is not a saviour sent from heaven for Indian team's cause. In shorter versions of cricket, Sharma has flattered to deceive in the past, and that is why Kohli got his chances in the first place. Since Kohli capitalised, it is fair that he be given his chances in Test cricket too... even if they are chances to fail!

The most baffling point is that I don't see any reason why Rohit Sharma can come into this lineup and do something that other batsmen cannot do! Sanjay Manjrekar says that this step makes "long term sense"... but right now, the team's goal is a very short-term one - i.e. to arrest this slide in Australia and put India's away Test cricket on surer footing. The time for long-term measures will start after this tour, when India will play at home for a long time. For the present short-term goal, lets stick to short-term solutions and show faith in these players!

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)!

PARALLEL REVIEWS OF DAY 1 AT PERTH AND CENTURION

Two pretty quick pitches, two captains winning the toss and inserting the opposition in to face the music, and two batting units failing. Eventually, the Australian lower order did enough to drag them up to a decent 268, but it would be an achievement if India even manages to touch 150.

Anderson, Tremlett, Steyn and Morkel were all brilliant. Finn, Swann and Kallis were decent. Tsotsobe was pathetic. Despite the large difference in scores, in my opinion, Australia should be just as disappointed as India. Because most of the Australians gave away their wickets, whereas the major Indian wickets were earned by some fine bowling.

Sehwag fell needlessly, and I have already expressed my disappointment with him over here. Ponting, Clarke, Gambhir and Raina fell due to their own tentativeness. Hughes, Hussey, Harris, Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman fell to good deliveries. But whereas a lot of assistance was expected and available to the quicker men at Centurion due to the overhead as well as pitch conditions, it wasn't quite the same case at Perth.

It was a pretty quick pitch at Perth (despite the fact that a few strokes went well in front of the wicket). Prior was regularly collecting balls with fingers pointed upwards. In fact, coming to think of it, there were just four balls that I can remember from the entire first innings (and I did watch the majority of it) where Prior collected the ball below his knees.

But despite its pace and the control that Anderson and Tremlett operated with, it wasn't quite as difficult to bat at Perth as it was at Centurion. This, though, is no excuse for the Indian batting collapse as 136 - 9 is not acceptable in any conditions for a batting lineup as good as any.

Both Australia and India should have done way better than they have done today. As a result of their lack of application, both these teams now face an upward task against English and South African teams on fire... buoyed by their own performances.

The chances of fightback look slim to me... for differing reasons. In case of the Perth Test, Australia just don't look strong enough to me to fight back and come storming back into the Test. They may win a session or two... but eventually, England will prove that they are a much better side. And in case of the Centurion Test, though India is a strong team, they are in a much bigger hole right now... and with a bowling attack without its leader, India might just find it beyond them to force their way back.

But then, I will hope, for the sake of the game of cricket that we see a bit of fight before these matches end.

YOU BEAUTY!

Collingwood leaps to catch an edge from Ponting during the Third Ashes Test at WACA, Perth

THE CENTURION TEST

The anticipation is almost palpable now. For both the Tests that start tomorrow... particularly South Africa v India at SuperSport Park, Centurion. I just hope that the Gods don't decide to pour water all over the show.

Since I have already done a preview (sort of) of the Perth Test, this one will focus on the Centurion one. The match starts on 16th December 2010. This day - the 16th of December - holds special memories for Indian Test cricket fans. Exactly 7 years ago, on 16th December 2003, India defeated a world-beating Steve Waugh-led Australia at Adelaide and announced to the world that lousy visitors we are no more!

It marked the start of a new era. Some may argue that this era began with the victory in England in 2002 itself... when we showed that we are capable of winning Tests in alien conditions as well. But the Adelaide win was way beyond just a win... it was a celebrated milestone, and India has not looked back since then.

Though there are question marks now over the spot of the chief architect of that win (viz. Rahul Dravid), there can be no denying that he would want to erase those question marks with a strong match and series winning performance in South Africa... along with his contemporaries Sachin Tendulkar and VVS Laxman. The desire is almost a desperation now... and when such stalwarts are desperate, you know that something's bound to give!

On the other hand, South Africa is also aware of the importance of this series... and they know that a series win against India is the biggest step (almost a leap) that they can take in their desire of regaining the mantle of No. 1 Test team in the world. If the ICC Rankings are disconsidered for a moment, then there are a lot of people in the world who hold the belief that the South Africans are the real No. 1 team in the Test world. But India has an opportunity to shake this belief... to destroy this notion and firmly establish themselves as the best cricket team in whites.

The weather has been very wet in this build up to the First Test. There are chances that a lot of play will be lost on most of the days. So whereas I was initially hoping that India should bat first (simply because Gambhir - Sehwag v Steyn - Morkel is THE BATTLE of the series), now I hope otherwise. Batting first under cloudy skies with wetness in the pitch will be extremely difficult against the South African pace attack... just as it will be difficult for Smith, Peterson, Amla, Kallis, De Villiers and Prince against the Indian pace attack minus Zaheer Khan.

Zaheer's loss may have a telling effect, but the best that India could have hoped for in Zaheer's absence was for helpful conditions to assist the likes of Sreesanth, Ishant Sharma and Unadkat / Yadav (I believe that it will be the former who makes the cut tomorrow). If India does bowl first under overcast skies, that should compensate well enough for Zaheer's absence.

Talking about Zaheer, its only apt that we drop a line of two about Zaheer's potential replacement for the match as well. I would like to see Jaidev Unadkat make his debut tomorrow... and given how this 19-year old had performed six months back in his first-class debut at Leicester with a 13-for, I will definitely be hoping for another impressive performance on his Test debut. He (or Umesh Yadav) will be the 267th Test player for India... but I guess Unadkat will be the first teammate of Sachin Tendulkar who would have been born after the master made his debut over 21 years ago (he has played AGAINST youngsters who were born after his debut... I can recall Mohammed Aamer during the ODI match against Pakistan during the Champions Trophy last year).

Sorry for digressing... but now that I have brought up the topic of Sachin Tendulkar, there has to be a mention of the eagerly-awaited 50th Test ton also. Another feather in that cap, which must weigh a ton now!

On that note, I end this preview... and lets hope that we witness a cracking start to the blockbuster contest tomorrow.

A LOOK AHEAD TO PERTH

And finally, it has happened! The selectors of the Australian National Cricket Team have finally realised that Marcus North needs to be dropped... and they have done just that!

Marcus North has had so many chances by now that I was almost starting to think of him as 'The Boy Who Lived'. But finally, he's been dropped from Australia's 12-man squad for the Third Ashes Test at WACA, Perth from the 16th of December 2010. Here's the 12-man squad:

Shane Watson, Phillip Hughes, Ricky Ponting (c), Michael Clarke, Michael Hussey, Brad Haddin (wk), Steven Smith, Mitchell Johnson, Ryan Harris, Peter Siddle, Michael Beer, Ben Hilfenhaus.

It is interesting to see just how important that one statement from Shane Warne has been for the selection of Michael Beer into the Australian Test squad. But frankly, I don't see how Beer is going to get into a final XI... it cannot happen.

For Beer to play in the final XI, Australia have to play either with 2 spinners, which is quite unthinkable from an Aussie side at Perth, OR play with 6 batsmen - 5 bowlers combination... which will not be that great an idea.

So assuming that Beer does become the 12th man, Australia will be going into the Perth Test against England with a 4-man pace attack, with a leg-spinner Steven Smith and a medium pacer Shane Watson to back them up.

This team definitely gives more options to Ricky Ponting as he tries to work out a way to get 20 English wickets. But what will be interesting to see is whether the 4 Aussie pacemen can generate enough quality to ensure that Ponting has a relatively easier time as a captain at Perth than he has had so far this Ashes?

Perth, as a venue, is known for its pace and bounce. Though the fieriness of the pitch has reduced over the years, it is still amongst the faster surfaces you will find around the world. However, this does not mean any advantage for Australia. Whereas once visiting teams were scared of what treatment will be meted out to them at Perth, the tables are now turning slowly but surely. The last 3 Tests played at Perth -

2009/10 Season - Australia v West Indies - Australia on by 35 runs
2008/09 Season - Australia v South Africa - South Africa won by 6 wickets
2007/08 Season - Australia v India - India won by 72 runs

West Indies almost managed to beat Australia chasing a stiff 359... and despite their loss, it must not be forgotten that with a batting lineup missing Shivnarine Chanderpaul, they managed to score 323. In 2008/09, South Africa chased down a historic 414, and in 2007/08, India bowled Australia out for 340 defending 413.

Not only this, even when England lost by 206 runs in 2006/07, they did manage 350 in the 4th innings and South Africa scored 287 for 5 in the 4th innings in 2005/06. What I am trying to suggest is that batting on Perth is not difficult... and scores of 300+ are a norm even in the 4th innings. Matches in Perth are lost only when a batting unit suffers a collapse, which is more often than not engineered by a quick bowler.

In such a scenario, I believe that Chris Tremlett will be the best replacement for the injured Stuart Broad. He may not be as good a batter as Broad, but with the batting unit functioning so well for England at the moment, they don't really need to worry about that.

It will also be interesting to see if the English pacers will attack the Aussie skipper with short stuff at Perth. It was on this ground last year when a young Kemar Roach stuck Ponting with a nasty lifter that forced him to retire hurt for the first time in his long Test career. It may also be recalled that later in the second innings, Roach had his man out caught at short leg fending to another nasty lifter. Ponting's troubles to short-pitched bowling have been well-documented ever since. Perth 2010 might just add another chapter to this story.

Perth usually guarantees a result in the match. And given how strong England are looking at the moment and how low the Australians are feeling, I suspect that England will be fancying their chances of retaining the Ashes at WACA itself... it would be fitting to do it at the ground where the Australians had regained the Ashes 4 years ago.

TIME ZONES

Of all the Australian cricket venues, Perth is my favourite... because if I am interested in following a good day of Test match cricket at Perth, I don't have to get up at an abnormally early hour of 05.00 a.m.

The 3rd Ashes Test will begin at Perth from 16th December 2010 from 08.00 a.m. Indian Standard Time. Assuming that the additional half hour available at the end of the day to cover up for slow over rates will be used up, the match will go on up to 03.30 p.m. However, at 02.00 p.m. IST on the same day, another Test match will begin... which promises better quality of cricket, a better contest and a mouth-watering prospect of watching the No. 1 team play against the No. 2 team for the second time this year (after February).

But in any case, I wouldn't want to miss a lot of action at Perth either. So it's going to be quite a task switching in between two channels to watch the action both at WACA, Perth and SuperSport Park, Centurion between South Africa and India simultaneously without wanting to miss out on any key moments of either match.

This problem will be solved when action moves back to the eastern part of Australia with the Boxing Day Test at MCG... but then again, it raises the problem of getting up at 05.00 a.m.!

RAHUL DRAVID PART 2... AB DE VILLIERS

Mark Boucher will not be keeping wickets for South Africa in the 2 Twenty20 matches and 5 ODIs on their ongoing tour of West Indies. AB De Villiers will be handed the gloves behind the wickets.

"AB will be starting with the gloves in the limited-overs matches," Smith said ahead of the first Twenty20 international in Antigua. "There is a new selection committee and a few new ideas. We only have something like 15 ODIs before we get to India for the World Cup, so we have to make every one of them count."

Recall something? About 8 years back, a certain Rahul Dravid had donned a similar role to create a better balance in the Indian side prior to the World Cup 2003 held in South Africa. India eventually ended up as the runners up of the tournament.

There are some extremely similar stats here. Before Dravid became a regular keeper for India from 29th May 2002, he had kept wickets in 9 matches for India. AB De Villiers has kept in 8 matches till now... the last one being the Perth ODI against Australia on 30th January 2009.

De Villiers has a brilliant batting record in his short wicketkeeping career in ODIs thus far... an average of 105.25 at a strike rate of 86.98. Dravid kept in 27 out of the 28 ODIs that India played from 29th May 2002 till the start of the World Cup 2003 campaign for India on 12th February 2003 against the Netherlands. De Villiers might get fewer chances than Dravid... but the athlete that he is... De Villiers should be able to hone his skills well.

This move by the South African team management is not a long-term move... but the World Cup 2011 is not too far away. Any short term measure that can be justified in the basis that it will help the team during the World Cup is a good one.

As much as I have liked Mark Boucher over the years, it is true that he is not getting any younger and his recent performances have forced this decision. It is time he takes a good look at his game. If he feels that he can come out of his current slump, he should continue... but if he has any doubts, he should hang up his boots respectfully. There is not a lot of time for the World Cup that is to start on 19th February 2011. He does deserve a respectful exit... that's for sure!