skip to main |
skip to sidebar
India, the World No. 1 Test team, is very likely to relinquish the ranking very soon to the rampaging English team. It's been frustrating and embarrassing to witness this Test series for an Indian fan. It was a tad bit embarrassing to see our famed middle order, known for its prowess against spin bowling of all kinds, catapult against Mendis in Sri Lanka 2008. It was embarrassing also to watch a virtually limp Indian team surrender to Australia 3-0 back in 1999-2000. But none of those experiences come close to what I have seen over the last 3 weeks in England.
After the ultimate high of World Cup win, I am feeling a bottomless low even before this series has ended. The Indian supporter in me shall never die, but I pray that it never has to face this kind of embarrassment ever again!
But why has Team India reached this position in the Test series against England? Last time that India toured England in 2007, we won the series 1-0 with a similar Indian line-up against a similar English line-up. What has changed? Both the teams have gotten better since then for sure, even though the scoreline suggests that only one team has gotten better, and the other has gone down to pits!
Why are we performing so badly then? Many people have come up with different reasons and explanations. The primary reason for me is not something new and unknown... but I will come to that later. First, I want refute another view.
Sanjay Manjrekar thinks that our bowling attack lacks ability. Maybe, it does. But India beat Sri Lanka in Colombo with an attack of Ishant Sharma, Abhimanyu Mithun, Amit Mishra and Pragyan Ojha. India beat Australia in Perth with an attack of Irfan Pathan, RP Singh, Ishant Sharma and the great Anil Kumble. The current bowling attack of Praveen Kumar, Ishant Sharma, S Sreesanth and Harbhajan Singh / Amit Mishra is not much worse from those attacks. Both Sri Lanka and Australia were in-form teams at those times playing on their home grounds with a series lead in hand, very similar to England here!
Admittedly, this attack has misfired, and apart from Praveen Kumar, no one has been able to maintain consistency that demands respect from the batsmen... but is that the primary reason? Often in the past, our bowling attack has been helped by a scoreboard cushion provided by the batsmen, something that has not occurred this time.
This is the other reason that a lot of people have agreed on (and I agree too) - the failure to fire of our batting line-up. It has been somewhat surprising to see this line-up misfire so spectacularly. I still have no doubt that India's is the best batting line-up in the world in Test cricket. In the last five years, whenever our bowlers have managed to pick 20 opposition wickets, our batsmen have almost always ensured that they put enough runs on the board to beat the opponent. The only exceptions to this rule have been Lord's 2007 (draw), Cape Town 2011 (draw), Dominica 2011 (draw) and Nottingham 2011 (loss).
In fact, the last time (before Trent Bridge) that we lost a Test match despite our bowlers having taken 20 wickets was Mumbai 2006 against England. 5 years and a few months since then, there have only been those 4 aforementioned instances where the bowlers have done the job, and the batsmen have not capitalised. Worryingly, 3 of those incidents have come in a span of 7 months in 2011 while holding the No. 1 rank!
So if we agree that our batting failures is the single biggest cause of this situation in the series (and even if we do not agree, this question is still important), then the question that arises is how did it come to this! Why is the best batting line-up in the world misfiring so badly?
In the 1st Test, lack of acclimatisation could have been used as an excuse. But it's been 5 Test innings and 2 and a half practice match innings through this tour now, and we have not had a single collective batting performance to rejoice. Rahul Dravid has scored 2 hundreds, and there have been a few fifties to assuage some pride, but where is the good old Indian way of applying scoreboard pressure gone?
In my humble opinion, the failures have been caused not by the lack of acclimatisation, but by the lack of preparation. The English cricket team had their eyes set on an Ashes triumph in Australia, and so they prepared for it diligently and well in advance. They planned well, had contingency options ready, and when the time came, they delivered. They then had a new goal to aim for - the No. 1 ranking in Test cricket. They knew they would have to beat India at home quite comprehensively to attain that. So they prepared again, planned again, and seem to be delivering again!
It's not that the Indian team and its management is incapable of such planning. Our triumph at the World Cup 2011 is a prime example of how we planned for a campaign that was very precious and dear to us. Players have talked about how their mental preparation started a year before the World Cup in Dambulla. They have talked about how they worked at their fitness to be in the best shape during the final stages of the campaign. They have talked about how they wanted to peak at the right time. And they delivered!
So was it a case of not having planned and prepared well to take on England in England? Was there a bit of complacency after having creditably earned a draw away at South Africa just a few months ago? As a fan, I think that even I am a little guilty of having underestimated England a little bit before the series began.
But my assessment of England before the series was based on an English attack containing a misfiring Stuart Broad. But the Stuart Broad playing in this series is a different one from the one that played earlier against Sri Lanka and Australia in the Ashes!
Stuart Broad's new avatar has ensured that the English pace attack has been able to apply relentless pressure on the ill-prepared Indian batting line-up. In South Africa, after the pressure from Steyn and Morkel was over, India could play a few release shots against Tsotsobe, Kallis and Harris. Similarly, against all other attacks, our batsmen have always had at least 2 bowlers who could be attacked for pressure-release!
However, on the evidence of the cricket that has been played on this tour thus far, India's only hope for release in pressure has been in the form of Graeme Swann. The difficulty for the Indians has arisen because Strauss has rotated and managed his fast bowlers so well that Indians have not faced too much from Swann! Instead, it has been steady and relentless pressure and testing from a highly-skilled English pace attack!
When India's No. 1 ranking used to come under fire by people who used to say that they are not like the dominant West Indies and Australia of the past, I always defended India by saying that No. 1 ranking suggests that we are the best of the current lot. That ranking does not imply that the team owning it will be one of the all-time greats like those West Indian and Australian teams!
So going by the same logic, if and when England get to that ranking, I will accept their position there. However, to be dominant like West Indies and Australia, they will need to beat South Africa (home and away) as well as India (away). Nevertheless, if they get that No. 1 ranking, then No. 1 they will be, and deservedly so! As for India, I know that I will (like a lot of others) continue the support despite this nightmare. They may have been badly exposed this time in England, but the lessons will be learnt, and we will see better cricket from this team!
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!
There are rumours that Praveen Kumar may not recover in time for the World Cup. It was reported in the Times of India that Praveen will be flying to the UK for further treatment.
I can already see Sreesanth waiting in eager anticipation of the diagnosis. But from the team point-of-view, it will be a major setback to India. Praveen Kumar can swing the ball with good control when it is new, but the most impressive thing that I find in him is that pressure does not get on to him. It almost seems to me that he is impervious to it. If the batsmen attack him, he gets back to his mark with just a shrug of his shoulders.
Sreesanth is also a swing bowler and can get wickets with the new ball, but he does not offer good control. He may vary from exceptional to horrible! Sreesanth's career economy rate is 6.01 as compared to a 5.07 for Praveen Kumar. That will be India's biggest loss if Praveen were to be ruled out.
India may then well have to employ the services of Munaf Patel in the XI, who offers an even better career economy rate of 4.78, but is a liability on the field and no good with the bat. "No good with the bat" is the point I was going to come to next.
Praveen is a very handy character with the bat. He almost carried India to win in that Hyderabad ODI where Sachin scored that 175. He batted very well in that series. It was because he got run out that Australia were able to seal the game! He has opened in First Class cricket for Uttar Pradesh and his batting is clearly a cut above Munaf's and Sreesanth's.
The reason why I am placing so much of importance of Praveen's batting is that India may well be fielding a 6 batsman - 5 bowler combination sometime during this World Cup (even though I am dead against it). Nothing else explains Piyush Chawla's inclusion in the 15! If India does play 5 bowlers, Praveen Kumar's and Harbhajan Singh's batting becomes very crucial at No. 7 and No. 8, because both of them are way better with the bat than Piyush Chawla, especially when it is time to go for the big hits. I have already mentioned it earlier on this blog that I don't think Chawla has it in him to be able to attack the faster bowlers in front of the wicket. The best he can do is guide the ball behind the wickets, but if he doesn't find the gaps, it will just result in singles.
Harbhajan and Praveen, on the other hand, can hit even the faster bowlers in front of the wicket on the up. Even Zaheer Khan can do that better than Piyush Chawla, which is why it is very important for India to beef up the lower order batting if indeed the 5-bowler strategy is going to be used.
I just hope that Praveen Kumar recovers well in time for the World Cup... he definitely is an essential cog in India's cricket team.
The player retention rules for the fourth edition of the Indian Premier League are out. So after weeks of speculation, here they are:
A. The maximum number of players that can be retained are 4.
B. The maximum number of Indian players amongst those retained can be 3, and the maximum number of Foreign Players amongst those retained can be 2.
C. Irrespective of what fee is paid to the retained players, the deduction from the total salary budget of US$ 9 million will be in the following format:
1 Player(s) Retained - US$ 1.8 million
2 Player(s) Retained - US$ 1.3 million
3 Player(s) Retained - US$ 0.9 million
4 Player(s) Retained - US$ 0.5 million
So lets say that a franchisee retains just 1 player, then irrespective of what they pay him, they can spend upto US$ 7.2 million at the auction. If they retain 2 players, their spending power will be US$ 5.9 million. It will be US$ 5.0 million if they retain 3 and US$ 4.5 million if they retain 4 players.
So what will be retaining strategy be like? In this post, I will try and look at it purely from the finance point of view (with a little bit of a reference to cricket).
The first major question that will need to be answered is that whether the player who is to be retained is really worth the amount that will be deducted from the team's budget... or whether all the players to be retained collectively are worth the total amount that will be reduced from their spending budget at the auction.
For example, Mumbai Indians should not hesitate in retaining Sachin Tendulkar and Kieron Pollard, for together they are easily worth US$ 3.1 million (if not a lot more). Chennai Super Kings have a similar state as far as the duo of MS Dhoni and Suresh Raina is concerned. Well, frankly, I am not a big fan of Dhoni and don't think he is worth much... but there is not doubt that he will be retained for his Brand Value. The entire brand marketing of Chennai's franchisee has been done around Dhoni. He is the poster boy of their team. Therefore, he will definitely be retained.
The problem will occur for the likes of Rajasthan Royals and Kings XI Punjab... I don't think anyone on their present team is worth US$ 1.8 million. Maybe Yuvraj Singh is, but then he does not want to stay at Mohali (from what has been reported).
The second consideration is that even if the teams do not retain players, they will have to spend upwards of US$ 1 million each in buying at least 2 big names that can benefit their team... maybe, even upwards of US$ 1.5 million. So it might be ideal to retain the old ones as one does not really know how high the valuation for the new ones will be, whether they will be worth it.
For example, Praveen Kumar may not justify a price tag of US$ 1.8 or 1.3 million, but it may be wiser to retain him as his price may well exceed US$ 1 million when 10 owners sit together for the bid - and - buy auction process.
The third major question, as I have already talked of in one of the examples above, is the brand-building. Chennai Super Kings have their entire brand name built around the image of Mahendra Singh Dhoni. There is no way they can let him go. No other cricketer in the league is has his brand so closely associated with that of the franchise as the Indian skipper.
And yes, finally there is the question of whether the entire team can be bought in US$ 4.5 million if a team decides to retain 4 men. We must remember that in the first ever auction, the limit for spending was up to US$ 5 million only. So there is no reason why an entire team cannot be bought for US$ 4.5 million, especially considering that in doing so the teams will be retaining their 4 main old men in their squad.
It would be interesting to see the auction process when it does take place. For the sake of the existing fans, I hope that there is not much of a reshuffle so that fan loyalties towards a particular player can be maintained. And for the sake of the fans of the two new teams, I hope they do get a chance to net in some big names who will perform for them well in the tournament.
India has used 27 players in One Day Internationals in the year 2010. And with the World Cup less than 200 days away now, the ODI unit is looking in deep trouble. Just a few spots are cemented... so one can safely say that a lot of construction work will need to be undertaken.
Lets look at the men who have their places reserved in the team sheet (assuming no injury concerns in February 2011):
Openers: Virendra Sehwag, Sachin Tendulkar, Gautam Gambhir (I know GG is not in the best of nicks right now... but he is a virtual certainty for me as he can rotate the strike very well and knows how to build an innings)
Middle Order: Suresh Raina, MS Dhoni (That's it! From the best middle order in the world in Tests to no middle order at all in limited overs format)
Bowlers: Ashish Nehra, Zaheer Khan, Harbhajan Singh (I put in a lot of thought before typing down Bhajji's name... and yes, both the pacers here are very injury prone)
That leaves three in the first XI and seven more in the XV. I guess Praveen Kumar should be the first of the three vacancies to be filled up - his numbers in ODIs in 2010 read 12 wickets in 7 matches at an average of 22.50, economy of 4.82 and strike rate of 28.00. He is India's third highest wicket taker in ODIs in 2010.
The next vacancy that needs to be filled is in the middle order... where once upon a time, Yuvraj Singh was a certainty! However, his numbers in 2010 make an abysmal reading for a man of his talents. He has 101 runs from 6 ODI outings at an average of 20.20 and a strike rate of just 68.24. He faces stiff competition from Virat Kohli and Rohit Sharma. One might want to add Dinesh Karthik's name here... but I am not one of his fans.
Now, like Harsha Bhogle has suggested in his latest article, if Ravindra Jadeja or Yusuf Pathan do not perform well in the ODIs that India has in the lead up to the World Cup and we do not find suitable replacements... then we might well have to use two of the three names above (Yuvraj Singh, Virat Kohli and Rohit Sharma) in the middle order.
India will have to use its part-time spinners to fill up the fifth bowler's quota of ten overs... something not very unfamiliar for the team. Who are these part-timers? There is Sehwag and Raina amongst the certainties. With Tendulkar not bowling any more and Gambhir playing as a specialist batsman, the selection of the last two middle order spots might well be on the basis of the bowling abilities... and not batting.
If this is the case, then Yuvraj Singh gets a direct entry (not that he shouldn't... but he still needs to answer a lot of questions about his batting form and commitment to the team)! The other spot might go to Rohit Sharma... not that his bowling is great, but he has bowled more often than Virat Kohli (who is far away from Chris Harris' wicket taking record for New Zealand despite having a duplicate bowling action)!
The four reserves are easy to pick: Kohli gets one spot, Dinesh Karthik will get another (how I wish India should try some other keeper over these next few months just to see if there is a better option available). Going by the current investments, I guess Jadeja will make it to the fifteen and the last available spot might go to Pragyan Ojha or another seamer given the injury prone nature of our two frontline seamers.
But still, this team leaves a lot to be desired. It still does not feel like a 'World Championship' material team on current form and performance. A lot can change over the next 6 months... a lot will need to be changed!
A flight from Kuala Lumpur to New Delhi takes about five and a half hours. Dr. Vijay Mallya said in his interview during the last match that he will reach New Delhi to catch RCB's match against DD.
The Formula One race at Sepang starts at 1330 IST. Considering that the race will take about 2 hours, and another half an hour for Dr. Mallya to take his leave and reach the Kuala Lumpur International Airport (just 10 mins from Sepang race circuit), he will not be able to leave before 1600 hrs. That means he will reach New Delhi only by 2130 hrs IST and reach the Kotla some time after that, maybe when the match is in its finishing stages.
But why am I trying to decipher Dr. Mallya's schedule? A very stupid reason, actually! The only other time that RCB played a match this season on a Formula One weekend (their first match against KKR), they lost it. When, they won the next few matches on a trot, I thought at that time that maybe, Dr. Mallaya is the lucky charm for the RCB side. His presence in the stadium inspired an RCB win.
Yes, RCB has lost two other matches after that, which were not held on Formula One weekends! But after 2008 season, RCB has not won a single match that was played on a Formula One Sunday. They lost 3 matches in South Africa 2009 that were held on the same Sundays as the Bahrain, Spanish and Monaco Grand Prix (the last one was the IPL 2009 Finals). They have already lost the match held on the day of this year's Bahrain Grand Prix.
So I have my prediction ready for the result of today's DD v RCB match to be held on the Malaysian Grand Prix Sunday: a win for Delhi Daredevils.
Apart from the very stupid reason stated above, I also feel that Viru is going to click today. Somehow, I also feel that RCB's bowling attack will be exactly what Viru will want in his search for a good form. Praveen Kumar and R Vinay Kumar, though extremely intelligent bowlers, might just provide Viru with the pace and length he would like to feed on. And apart from the bouncers from Steyn and Kallis, I do not feel much else will be a problem for him. He should be able to manage Anil Kumble as long as he keeps his cool.
Lets wait and see... we'll know by 11.30 pm tonight if Dr. Vijay Mallya is indeed RCB's lucky mascot!
Exactly one month from today, two teams will walk out on 25th April at Dr. D.Y. Patil Sports Academy Stadium in the finals of the Indian Premier League 2010. And there is a big chance that both those teams are amongst the ones playing today.
The Royal Challengers Bangalore are currently struggling in their chase of Delhi Daredevils' 183. However, there is no doubt in most people's minds that they are one of the two strongest teams in this tounament - the other one being Mumbai Indians.
Mumbai Indians will take on Chennai Super Kings in about an hour from now, hoping to get another win and take another step towards the semi-finals.
Both these teams, RCB and MI, have certain similarities - which might well be called the keys to their success thus far in this tournament.
1. Both these teams have relied on strong solid starts consistently, with two batsmen in the top-5 runs scorers list (Kallis and Tendulkar).
2. Both have a strong opening bowling combination (Zaheer + Malinga and Praveen + Steyn).
3. Both these teams have bowlers who bowl to pick up wickets in the middle overs as well, not just for containing the batsmen (R Vinay Kumar and Dwayne Bravo).
The fact that these teams have concentrated on strengthening their bowling department (an often neglected affair in this format) is paying dividends now. Lets hope we get to see India's highest run-scorer captain his side against the side of India's highest wicket-taker - that would truly be a final of the Indian Premier League.
The penultimate legal ball of the match. 7 to win. Number 11 on strike. He pulls towards deep square leg, and the ball looks on course to reach the ropes. A 36-year old body flies across. The ball is pulled back, but no one is really certain whether it was a four or not.
Third umpire under pressure. After endlessly watching replays that revealed nothing of help, the benefit of doubt was given to the fielder, Sachin Tendulkar. While Kallis and the South African camp seemed angry, the Indian camp also looked uncertain. The batsmen had run 3, and on strike now would be Wayne Parnell (48* of 46 balls then). He was the visitors' best hope for a win. 4 needed off the last ball.
Praveen Kumar runs in and bowls one wide of the off stump. Parnell has a swing. Does not connect. Dhoni celebrates. The South African dressing room signals a wide. When umpire Tarapore does the same, that dressing room celebrates almost as if they have won it. Replays suggested that even this one was a tight call.
When the replays were being shown of Sachin Tendulkar diving and saving a run, the South Africans must have been wondering if they could get a 4 and still have Parnell on strike. Eventually, that is exactly how it turned out. One tight call went in favour of India, the next one in favour of South Africa. Poetic justice, was it?
But irrespective of the result, in a match where both the teams underperformed to produce a thriller, one man's performance stood out. Ravindra Jadeja churned out a spell of 10-2-29-2. An economy rate of 2.9 by a slow left arm bowler on a batting beauty with the threat of dew around in a match where runs were scored at 5.95. Phenomenal! Not to forget, he had also made 22 runs of 20 balls earlier in the day to help India score 298.
Jadeja produced a performance to be proud of at a time when he must have been feeling low due to the IPL fiasco. Here is a promising youngster who has been banned from a big-buck tournament that would have given him some more experience of playing with and against top international players. Why? Because he was searching for a franchise that would pay him something worth his skills. If recent performances are anything to go by, he deserves more than US$ 0.95 million. Confused? That is the value of Ishant Sharma's contract. Jadeja certainly deserves better than Sharma.
Jayaditya Gupta, in an article on the Cricinfo Magazine, talking about the Jadeja - IPL fiaso, asks a question about the young and promising cricketers on the fringes: "Who's in charge of these cricketers outside the six-week tournament?"
IPL has promised counselling for youngsters who have suddenly tasted wealth. They have promised financial counselling even for parents. But what about caring for players when the IPL is not bothered?
Jadeja, in the recent past, has been reliable and impressive with his bowling. Though not very potent a batsman, he can be depended on to rotate the strike and allow the bigger bullies in the Indian batting line up express themselves. Is it right that a player as promising as this one has been hurled into such a controversy at the age of 21 years? Couldn't he have been let off with a warning and some counselling? After all, his record thus far in his fledgling career is completely clean.
Jadeja is entitled to an appeal against the IPL decision and Niranjan Shah is supposedly going to plead his case. The members of the IPL Governing Council is the guards of this tournament. But such controversies throw up one big unanswered question: "WHO WILL GUARD THE GUARDS?"
