It's been a while since I've written anything.
During this period, Murali took his 800th, Pakistan managed to finally beat Australia, Sachin and Uncle J-Rod have plans to release books filled with blood and semen and Mohammad Azharuddin is reportedly banging some badminton player who is half his age.
Suddenly cricket seems more interesting than the football world cup
Now, I wrote my last piece a few days before the first test match and since then, so much has happened, which makes the cricketing world chaotic once again.
In two weeks of cricket, despite having so much chaos, there is one thing that has been consistent.
That is India's fast bowling problem.
We have two guys: one a relatively new guy and the other, who is bowling shit. The rest of the crop are injured or learning how to bowl.
How on earth can a country, whose general population multiply like rabbits, not produce a single fast bowler, who can consistently bowl fast without getting injured?
The fastest bowler we've had till date is Srinath and he has bowled at 90 mph on a consistent basis.
The guys today find it difficult to touch 85 mph.
Okay, speed isn't everything, but these guys are bowling like a bunch of retards. It's like Intakab Alam's comments should be used on the Indian bowlers, now that Pakistan has beaten Australia
And we're the number 1 side in the world?
I agree with Sangakkara and Harsha Bhogle. What do we have to show to be the best side in the world. For a better part of the 90s, we depended on one guy. In the early part of the 21st century we depended on 2 guys batting well abroad and one guy bowling well at home.
If we win this match, it'll be a miracle. The best we can do is draw it, unless Sehwag does something maniacal like he did in the Mumbai test match and win it for us.
That will bring some chaos to a pretty consistent performance by India.
Showing posts with label Sachin Tendulkar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sachin Tendulkar. Show all posts
Monday, July 26, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
India says no to Asian Games
Now here's the surprise of the century.
The BCCI has said no to India playing the Asian games.
I think I have a fair idea why they have said no.
It's simple, actually. When cricket was introduced into the Commonwealth Games at the end of 1998-99 (correct me if I've gotten the year wrong), India had Sachin, Jadeja and a third guy I can't remember as part of the India XI.
The rest of the side was in Toronto losing to Pakistan. They lost 4-1, if my memory serves me right, with Sachin flying for the last game and making 77.
He batted awesome in that match.
But he played shit in the Commonwealth, like the rest of the Indian side.
Come to think of it, India lost everything in that tournament or the matches were abandoned due to rain.
So the BCCI, according to that logic, doesn't want to look like a bunch of cunts if India loses to Nepal, Japan or China.
It'll make the loss to Zimbabwe more believable.
The BCCI has said no to India playing the Asian games.
I think I have a fair idea why they have said no.
It's simple, actually. When cricket was introduced into the Commonwealth Games at the end of 1998-99 (correct me if I've gotten the year wrong), India had Sachin, Jadeja and a third guy I can't remember as part of the India XI.
The rest of the side was in Toronto losing to Pakistan. They lost 4-1, if my memory serves me right, with Sachin flying for the last game and making 77.
He batted awesome in that match.
But he played shit in the Commonwealth, like the rest of the Indian side.
Come to think of it, India lost everything in that tournament or the matches were abandoned due to rain.
So the BCCI, according to that logic, doesn't want to look like a bunch of cunts if India loses to Nepal, Japan or China.
It'll make the loss to Zimbabwe more believable.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
The older man syndrome in Indian cricket
I have a theory.
I could be perfectly wrong, but nonetheless it's a theory and theories are meant to be proved otherwise.
Why did Sachin Tendulkar fail as the captain of India?
I wouldn't call him a bad leader. He did quite well in the recently concluded IPL - both as a leader and as a batsman. When he led the Indian side, he led from the front. He scored 1,000 test runs in a calendar year during his first stint, despite critics saying that he was out of form.
He bowled a last over against Australia to secure India a place in the finals of the Titan Cup, thereby saving Robin Singh's career.
I don't blame his captaincy when India lost 3-0 against Australia. Even Wasim Akram, who captained Pakistan quite brilliantly in the series before, fell short.
We keep saying that India and Pakistan played crap. India probably did, but at that time, the Australians were invincible.
So why criticize Tendulkar's captaincy?
The same can be said of Dravid's captaincy.
He started off well, but then Greg Chappell came.
Now, I'm sure that Chappell is a great coach, but he would work for a team like Australia.
For India, it's a big no-no.
My thing about Tendulkar and Dravid's captaincy is that they are ahead of their times, when it comes to Indian cricket.
So was Anil Kumble.
All three players are thorough professionals, but what worked for Kumble that didn't work for Tendulkar and Dravid is that Kumble was the oldest member in the team.
The subcontinent has a tradition of 'respecting their elders.' Kumble was no exception, which is why making him captain late in his career is probably the smartest thing that the BCCI has ever done. Sri Lanka had that with Ranatunga and Pakistan had that with Imran Khan. India had it with Kumble
Had he been captain earlier, he would have never played for India again, had the team done badly.
It's what has happened to Rahul Dravid. And Dravid has always been a bigger role model than Kumble, although I believe that both are in the same slot when it comes to being professional.
During phase I as captain, Sachin was the youngest member in the team and during Phase II, India was a shit team, with players woefully out of form.
When Dravid was captain, he couldn't transfer his professional attitude to the rest of the players. Dravid that way is very Australian in his approach to the game. There is a lot of hard work put in and the results show.
I'm not discrediting MSD's captaincy here, don't get me wrong. Nor am I criticizing Ganguly's type of leadership. Dhoni is street smart, while Ganguly was so self-absorbed that the team doing badly meant that he was doing badly.
It's also the same reason why their team does well.
I'm not going to blame the IPL for India's poor performance. I'm going to blame it on overall lack of discipline
But again, that's the problem with us as a nation as a whole. We're okay with being mediocre. We have a very talented side, but they are inconsistent and not very hard working. Dravid and Kumble were probably less talented than most of the guys in our team, but their hard work and perseverance paid off and they are respected the world over. Vinod Kambli, people say was more talented than Tendulkar, but Tendulkar's hard work paid off. The talent was there, yes. But so was hard work.
It's the same reason why he's been in the team for 20 years and players come and go.
So, like I said in my previous blog post, if India needs to achieve the same level of proficiency and consistency like an Australia, South Africa or New Zealand (I mention NZ because despite them having a shitty side, they are always competitive), the BCCI and the players need to seriously rethink their sole purpose of being involved in the game.
I could be perfectly wrong, but nonetheless it's a theory and theories are meant to be proved otherwise.
Why did Sachin Tendulkar fail as the captain of India?
I wouldn't call him a bad leader. He did quite well in the recently concluded IPL - both as a leader and as a batsman. When he led the Indian side, he led from the front. He scored 1,000 test runs in a calendar year during his first stint, despite critics saying that he was out of form.
He bowled a last over against Australia to secure India a place in the finals of the Titan Cup, thereby saving Robin Singh's career.
I don't blame his captaincy when India lost 3-0 against Australia. Even Wasim Akram, who captained Pakistan quite brilliantly in the series before, fell short.
We keep saying that India and Pakistan played crap. India probably did, but at that time, the Australians were invincible.
So why criticize Tendulkar's captaincy?
The same can be said of Dravid's captaincy.
He started off well, but then Greg Chappell came.
Now, I'm sure that Chappell is a great coach, but he would work for a team like Australia.
For India, it's a big no-no.
My thing about Tendulkar and Dravid's captaincy is that they are ahead of their times, when it comes to Indian cricket.
So was Anil Kumble.
All three players are thorough professionals, but what worked for Kumble that didn't work for Tendulkar and Dravid is that Kumble was the oldest member in the team.
The subcontinent has a tradition of 'respecting their elders.' Kumble was no exception, which is why making him captain late in his career is probably the smartest thing that the BCCI has ever done. Sri Lanka had that with Ranatunga and Pakistan had that with Imran Khan. India had it with Kumble
Had he been captain earlier, he would have never played for India again, had the team done badly.
It's what has happened to Rahul Dravid. And Dravid has always been a bigger role model than Kumble, although I believe that both are in the same slot when it comes to being professional.
During phase I as captain, Sachin was the youngest member in the team and during Phase II, India was a shit team, with players woefully out of form.
When Dravid was captain, he couldn't transfer his professional attitude to the rest of the players. Dravid that way is very Australian in his approach to the game. There is a lot of hard work put in and the results show.
I'm not discrediting MSD's captaincy here, don't get me wrong. Nor am I criticizing Ganguly's type of leadership. Dhoni is street smart, while Ganguly was so self-absorbed that the team doing badly meant that he was doing badly.
It's also the same reason why their team does well.
I'm not going to blame the IPL for India's poor performance. I'm going to blame it on overall lack of discipline
But again, that's the problem with us as a nation as a whole. We're okay with being mediocre. We have a very talented side, but they are inconsistent and not very hard working. Dravid and Kumble were probably less talented than most of the guys in our team, but their hard work and perseverance paid off and they are respected the world over. Vinod Kambli, people say was more talented than Tendulkar, but Tendulkar's hard work paid off. The talent was there, yes. But so was hard work.
It's the same reason why he's been in the team for 20 years and players come and go.
So, like I said in my previous blog post, if India needs to achieve the same level of proficiency and consistency like an Australia, South Africa or New Zealand (I mention NZ because despite them having a shitty side, they are always competitive), the BCCI and the players need to seriously rethink their sole purpose of being involved in the game.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Indians and fast bowling
I'll agree that India as a team played like shit at the T20 World Cup.
Dhoni's remarks stating that the IPL parties were responsible for the poor performance will raise questions about his sincerity as a player and a captain, and the team's discipline as a whole. The media being the way it is will use this as a tool to try and finish him off, unless he proves them wrong in the next series we play
If that wasn't bad enough, Yuvraj and Nehra have been involved in an altercation at some pub in the West Indies. They will obviously deny the charges made against them.
Ridiculous, I say.
However, this piece isn't about the partying scenario and the fact that Team India lacks discipline and consistency to make winning a habit. This is a piece about India and the players' inability to play fast and short pitched bowling. And here, I'm going to do a test match analysis, because it is in that format where a bowler can take advantage of the fact that he can bowl fast and short and get away with aiming the ball at the batsman's head rather than the stumps.
For the last 50 years, the cricketing world has always criticized Indian batsmen and their inability to play fast bowling. Fred Trueman during his career best of 8/31 in his post match interview said that the Indian batsmen were scared. And yes, at that time there were. Here, you have a guy bowling at over 90 mph and your head and the only thing you think of is your life, as the concept of helmets and protective gear hadn't come out then.
But since then, things have changed.
Today, batsmen around the world, despite the protective gear available to them, suffer against genuinely quick and quality fast bowling. If I'm not convincing enough, let's look at statistics
Shoaib Akhtar, regarded as the world's fastest bowler averages 34.50 against India. He averages 24 against South Africa and 5 against New Zealand. Now it will be unfair to New Zealand because Akhtar has played only two test matches against them. But against South Africa, he has played five test matches and 10 against India.
But then, Shoaib would be considered inconsistent by cricketing pundits.
So let's take an example of Curtly Ambrose. Ambrose averages 20.99 in tests, which is a phenomenal record in itself. But he averages an unenviable 38.26 against India.
By showing these numbers, I'm not saying that Indian players are fantastic players of fast bowling. Alan Donald, in his career, averaged 17.31 against the Indians. Malcolm Marshall was consistent against all the sides he bowled against and Shane Bond has done phenomenally well against the subcontinent, except Sri Lanka.
Now, why does everyone criticize India and its inability to play quick bowling? Aakash Chopra has been tweeting about how we need to produce fast bowling wickets in India. While I don't disagree with him, Sri Lanka need to do the same thing. For the last 10 years, they have produced wickets to give Muralitharan his wickets. No offence to Murali, though. The man has taken wickets all over the world. The wickets in Pakistan are practically dead.
I think there are a couple of reasons why India is always criticized about their inability
1) India has never produced a quality fast bowler. We've had several fast medium guys. Srinath was genuinely quick towards the end of his career, but that's about it. Ishant was labelled as the next big thing, but he's been bowling like a cunt of late
2) Most Indian batsmen, who have done well against quick bowlers have been smug about it. Funnily though, four of India's greatest players against fast bowling - Gavaskar, Vishwanath, Tendulkar and Dravid have never bragged about their ability. The others, however, look so smug and arrogant that it probably pisses a bowler off. Malcolm Marshall in his autobiography stated the reasons why he disliked Dilip Vensarkar and how he would enjoy bowling fast to him because of his pissing-off attitude.
So, if Indian players need to stop getting targeted, then they need to produce good wickets in India and stop acting like a bunch of pompous idiots. While this will not happen overnight, hopefully in time things will change. Otherwise, teams the world over will try and do their best against India
Dhoni's remarks stating that the IPL parties were responsible for the poor performance will raise questions about his sincerity as a player and a captain, and the team's discipline as a whole. The media being the way it is will use this as a tool to try and finish him off, unless he proves them wrong in the next series we play
If that wasn't bad enough, Yuvraj and Nehra have been involved in an altercation at some pub in the West Indies. They will obviously deny the charges made against them.
Ridiculous, I say.
However, this piece isn't about the partying scenario and the fact that Team India lacks discipline and consistency to make winning a habit. This is a piece about India and the players' inability to play fast and short pitched bowling. And here, I'm going to do a test match analysis, because it is in that format where a bowler can take advantage of the fact that he can bowl fast and short and get away with aiming the ball at the batsman's head rather than the stumps.
For the last 50 years, the cricketing world has always criticized Indian batsmen and their inability to play fast bowling. Fred Trueman during his career best of 8/31 in his post match interview said that the Indian batsmen were scared. And yes, at that time there were. Here, you have a guy bowling at over 90 mph and your head and the only thing you think of is your life, as the concept of helmets and protective gear hadn't come out then.
But since then, things have changed.
Today, batsmen around the world, despite the protective gear available to them, suffer against genuinely quick and quality fast bowling. If I'm not convincing enough, let's look at statistics
Shoaib Akhtar, regarded as the world's fastest bowler averages 34.50 against India. He averages 24 against South Africa and 5 against New Zealand. Now it will be unfair to New Zealand because Akhtar has played only two test matches against them. But against South Africa, he has played five test matches and 10 against India.
But then, Shoaib would be considered inconsistent by cricketing pundits.
So let's take an example of Curtly Ambrose. Ambrose averages 20.99 in tests, which is a phenomenal record in itself. But he averages an unenviable 38.26 against India.
By showing these numbers, I'm not saying that Indian players are fantastic players of fast bowling. Alan Donald, in his career, averaged 17.31 against the Indians. Malcolm Marshall was consistent against all the sides he bowled against and Shane Bond has done phenomenally well against the subcontinent, except Sri Lanka.
Now, why does everyone criticize India and its inability to play quick bowling? Aakash Chopra has been tweeting about how we need to produce fast bowling wickets in India. While I don't disagree with him, Sri Lanka need to do the same thing. For the last 10 years, they have produced wickets to give Muralitharan his wickets. No offence to Murali, though. The man has taken wickets all over the world. The wickets in Pakistan are practically dead.
I think there are a couple of reasons why India is always criticized about their inability
1) India has never produced a quality fast bowler. We've had several fast medium guys. Srinath was genuinely quick towards the end of his career, but that's about it. Ishant was labelled as the next big thing, but he's been bowling like a cunt of late
2) Most Indian batsmen, who have done well against quick bowlers have been smug about it. Funnily though, four of India's greatest players against fast bowling - Gavaskar, Vishwanath, Tendulkar and Dravid have never bragged about their ability. The others, however, look so smug and arrogant that it probably pisses a bowler off. Malcolm Marshall in his autobiography stated the reasons why he disliked Dilip Vensarkar and how he would enjoy bowling fast to him because of his pissing-off attitude.
So, if Indian players need to stop getting targeted, then they need to produce good wickets in India and stop acting like a bunch of pompous idiots. While this will not happen overnight, hopefully in time things will change. Otherwise, teams the world over will try and do their best against India
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)