A roller coaster fortnight.

Cricket is unpredictable. We've seen that time and time again. The sport that we've dubbed the gentleman's game is in reality, a game made of paranoid schizophrenics, who can alter a game just like that *snaps a finger*. The last fortnight has seen that there is as much of madness off the field than there is on it.
Whether I should start writing about the madness off the field or the madness on it is debatable, but my love for the game prompts me to write about the on field antics.

First: test cricket could never have been more awesome. The first test between Australia and South Africa defined madness. Mayhem, chaos, clutter, crash, boom, bang, wallop and then suddenly like nothing, South Africa won by 8 wickets in the fourth innings, chasing 230-odd. It was like the reverse pitch effect. 1st day played like a 5th day and third day, the wicket had eased out. Imagine what would have happened had the match lasted five days. Either team would have chased 500-odd runs.

What still baffles me is that this is a two-match series. Quite tragic, in my opinion. However, given the way Australia is playing, I think that they're glad that it's a two-match series. Although I like the look of Patrick Cummins. He's young, he's raw and he's fast. India, beware. He's going to come at you and how.

-0-0-

Speaking of Indian cricket, following the claims made by Lord Paul Codon about every team being involved in match fixing, Vinod Kambli decided to open his mouth and claim that there was something 'suspicious' about Mohammad Azharuddin opting to field in the semi-finals against Sri Lanka during the 1996 World Cup. 

Azhar, naturally, denied the rumours and all of us on Twitter, along with some of his teammates backed him and his decision to field. 

However, with Sharad Powar coming into the picture and criticising Kambli, I have some reservations about the match. Having said that, Vinod Kambli is an idiot. He wanted his five minutes of fame. Like a friend told me, he would probably have been broke and wanted some money for that sex change he so desperately needs. He got some money during Sach Ka Saamna, but maybe sex changes are way too expensive nowadays. 

Having said that, it will be interesting to see what the High Court decides regarding Azhar's alleged involvement. The majority believes that he's guilty, but we can only wait for the result to come out. 

-0-0-0-0

And now for the general belief that cricket is a boring sport. One of the guys that lived up to the sentiment, Basil D'Oliveira died at 80. I've never seen him play, but my sister has. She described his batting as 'more boring than paint drying up.' However, that kind of pissing off batting ensured that England didn't lose too many test matches. D'Oliveira was gutsy and had balls of steel, just like Peter Roebuck.

Roebuck's death saddened me. The allegations of sexual harassment pissed me off even more. Let's face it, a 26-year-old guy claiming that a 50-plus man forcefully buggered him makes no sense at all. It's like Arnold Schwarzenegger claiming that he got buggered by Hornswoggle

So my theory is that like Vinod Kambli, this guy wants his five minutes of fame as well. Maybe he can fund Kambli's sex change and both of them can live happily ever after. 

-0-0-0-0-

And it's also Ranji Trophy time. I'm glad that Irfan is getting wickets and Harbhajan is not. Sadly, however, Harbhajan will go to Australia because they need someone with 'experience.' It doesn't matter if he bowls shit, but the experience matters. Personally, my 16-man squad for the side will include: Gambhir, Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Kohli, Ranane, Dhoni (wk), Patel (wk), Ashwin, Ojha, Rohit Sharma, Yadav, Zaheer, Ishant and Irfan. 

Who will you pick? 

Nonsense and Non-sensibility: The tale of the commentator

I read this brilliant piece today. It was a column written by Avirook Sen in Saturday's edition of DNA on the Indian commentator and their attempt at being funny. It's quite a torture for the viewer when they're on the receiving end of Sidhus, Shastris and Gavaskar giving their expert opinion of a game. Some times, I cringe in embarassment and wonder if my dream of becoming a cricket writer would mean interacting with people like these. But then I remember that everything has a good and bad, so I look at the brighter side, which is the game, and keep dreaming.

Navjot Singh Sidhu, Ravi Shastri and Sunil Gavaskar are slightly refined versions of Arun Lal, Charu Sharma and Kishore Bhimani. Now that doesn't do justice to anyone. I remember watching India's 1997 tour of South Africa. The series was covered on Star Sports with everyone of the above people except Sidhu (who was playing international cricket at that time) as part of the commentary team. Star Sports and ESPN were two different entities at that time and Harsha Bhogle was part of ESPN. The match was the second test at Durban where Sachin Tendulkar and Mohammad Azharuddin had that great partnership. There was one ball I remember which was bowled by Allan Donald. Sachin was on strike and Charu Sharma was in the commentary box. The ball was short and Sachin pulled it for four. Charu says, "He's pulled. Ah! He connected well! Four runs to midwicket. Great stroke." Now Charu might have thought that what he said made perfect sense, but I still laugh because it sounded daft then when I was in Class 9. It sounds funnier even now.

In his article, Mr. Sen speaks about how unfunny the Indian commentator is. He has made jabs at Sunil Gavaskar and Navjot Singh Sidhu, but I feel Mr. Sen has left Shastri out. The trio of Sidhu, Shastri and Sunil are full of Shit and unfortunately, we're on the receiving end of it. The channels may argue that it's good for the show. The advertiser may say, "But you remember what they said so it works." I'm sure that it does and there are people laughing, but like Mr. Sen said, these experts, especially Sidhu has this habit of inturrupting someone when they're talking sense. For the true cricket lover, that's the piss off.

Sidhu, Shastri and Gavaskar aren't the only problems in the commentary box. I have some serious issues with the likes of Tony Greig and Danny Morrison, who again have their own style of bad humour. In the 1998 Sharjah Series, popularly known as Sachin's Desert Storm, Sachin had hit Tom Moody back over his head for six. Tony Greig in the commentary box says, "The little man has hit the big man for a six. He's half is size." Now, if that isn't a Sidhu, I don't know what is.

Danny Morrison also tries really hard to be funny. He repeatedly says "Gee, Whiz!" like an 80s hero and tries to be the standup comic in the commentary box. Rarely it's funny. Most times it's not.

From the funny commentators, we have really boring commentators. The Pommie Mbwangas, the Saurav Gangulys, the Russel Arnolds fall into this category. In Ganguly's defence, however, he's a much better panel expert because he knows the game and makes a lot of sense while talking, if only Sidhu didn't interrupt him ever time he opened his mouth.

Then you have the really good commentators. Benaud, Holding, Chappell, Lawry and more recently David Lloyd, Mark Taylor, Michael Atherton and Nasser Hussain. They talk sense and only talk when they need to. The good thing is that they're still a large number, even if the crap is significantly larger.

Richie Benaud is still the best commentator today

But with the good, you also have the really bad. The class of commentators I mentioned at the beginning are in the elite company of Wasim Akram, Ramiz Raja, Athar Ali Khan and Sanjay Manjrekar. It's a pity about Manjrekar, though. He started off really well and now he just talks rubbish. It's the Shastri effect, I guess.

As for Harsha Bhogle, he's more of a cricket presenter than a commentator. Someone at work sent me something someone she knows wrote about him. This is what it said:

HB is a self styled PR man of SRT and has built his career around eulogising him . while this article is justified , there have been many cases during his career where he has chosen to ignore all the failings of the man , he sees only one side of the SRT

These days i take HBs view with a bagful of salt . That said he was a fabulous commentrator on Radio when he made his debut in australia 90-91 series ( incidently SRTs first Aussie tour and that where he displayed glimses of his impending greatness ) . He was outstanding there and a couple of other times he was on radio . once the TV bug bit him , it has been a huge letdown . These days just cant stand him on TV

All IMO please . no offence meant to anybody.

I still like Harsha. In my view, he's been a Sachin loyalist, yes, but there's no denying that he's still very passionate about the game. If his commentary has gone down, it's probably because of his colleagues who are crap.

Worst case scenario, if we're in need for commentary, we can always watch a match through Twitter or tune into a podcast like TestMatchSofa. Hopefully someday, we cricket lovers will be part of the sofa rahter than inside a studio listening to Sidhu opening his mouth.

Rankings and rants

The Dambulla stadium is Sri Lanka's Sharjah

Before the Asia Cup began, Aakash Chopra said that India will be playing Sri Lanka for the millionth time this year. It was casually mentioned on Twitter, but I think it was retweeted several times. And why not?
Right now, I'm bored of watching the Tri-Series. I follow the game on CricInfo, but that is also limited. I'd rather follow the score for the England-Pakistan test match, which looks to be another good game of cricket.
Dambulla has become the Sharjah of Sri Lankan cricket. Every limited over or T20 game played in Sri Lanka seems to be in Dambulla. Again...it's understandable, as it is probably the only sporty wicket Sri Lanka has, considering their rubbish test match wickets.
So how do two teams deal with strategy when they meet each other so often in a year? It eventually comes down to luck on who wins the toss in the shorter version of the game. In the longer version, especially in the subcontinent, you need to bat first, put up a total of 600-plus and play out a draw. Unless of course, you're Virender Sehwag, who decides to make 288 in a day.
The boards need to be criticized for this. They schedule so many matches with the same side during the year, that most of the players find it hard to adjust to alien conditions when they play in countries like Australia and South Africa. India's record abroad has improved over the last few years, but it's still a long way from giving us the Number 1 test ranking. We're good, I agree, but we need to be more consistent.
I tend to agree with Kumara Sangakkara about the ICC rankings. If we play in subcontinent-like conditions throughout the year, barring a series abroad, then on what basis are we judged? India has been doing well in tests, but its ODI and T-20 (which I don't even count as proper cricket), haven't been the best in a while. Yet we're number 2 in the ODI rankings. The biggest tournament that we won in the last three years is the VB Series in Australia, which was three years ago. We haven't reached the semi-final of any major tournament involving all the cricket playing nations in the last two years.
My only theory is that since we play so much cricket, the probability of us winning more matches is greater. It's probably why the BCCI decided to work on the test itinerary for 2010, fearing that India would lose the Number 1 ranking. More matches played means the probability of more wins. Thus the ranking. If that is the case, then the ICC has some serious rethinking and restructuring to do.

Muralitharan End of an era

My parents tell me an interesting tale. When I was a kid, my father worked for the State Trading Corporation (STC). During his stint with STC, he (which means him and the family) were transferred to the UK. We stayed there between 1986 and 1989. We came back when I was six years old.

We stayed in an area called Corinium Close in London. From what I remember, there were seven large houses and each of them was occupied by someone from the subcontinent. We had these immediate neighbours, who were from Sri Lanka. But at that time, I didn’t even know what Sri Lanka was. Only recently, when I was having a chat with my father, did he tell me that they were from Eelam.

Recently I read an essay by historian and cricket lover Ramachandra Guha about the Eelam struggle going to western Europe and how several refugees over there had played an important role in trying to attain ‘freedom’ from Sri Lanka. Guha then spoke about V Prabhakaran the founder of the LTTE and the reasons why several Sri Lankan Tamils joined his cause, which at the end of the day, after nearly 25-30 years of rebelling, has proved to be futile. Prabhakaran died last year and Sri Lanka can only worry about local leaders and the opposition for the time being.

In the late 90s and for the much of the earlier part of the 21st century another Sri Lankan Tamil gained a lot of fame. Unlike Prabhakaran, who resorted to killing and blasting people, this man destroyed batsmen with his guile. He never spoke much, but let his talent and hard work do most of the talking. It is this dedication to the game of cricket that has made Muttaiah Muralitharan the greatest off-spinner in the modern era. People will question his action and whether it was legitimate or not, but there’s no question that Sri Lanka will never find a better ambassador than Murali.

Murali is a once in a lifetime cricketer. Never again, I believe, will you find a guy who uses his wrist to bowl off-spin. As Harsha Bhogle put it in his tribute to Murali, “If it was the action alone, a clone would have produced at least 300 by now, there would have been kids in the streets bowling like him. Surely they must have tried; that they couldn't is a tribute to his uniqueness.”

I do a parallel comparison between Prabhakaran and Muralitharan and when you read this piece you’ll understand why. Both Sri Lankan Tamils, but one’s choice made his country proud and the other’s made him a wanted man.  Murali never spoke of the Tamil Tigers and what his opinion was about the liberation. He just went on doing what he was supposed to do and that was take wickets for his country. He never said anything when people questioned his action. He just went through a biomechanic test to prove that it wasn’t illegal.

He’ll be playing his last test match against India soon and the tributes have come from all over. And at the end of the day, whether you like him or hate him, you can’t question his commitment to the game. He probably has a better average than Shane Warne because of the number of test matches he’s played against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, but they’re wickets nonetheless. He’s taken criticism well (except when Bishan Singh Bedi called him a dacoit, which was completely uncalled for). Most of all, he’s taken Sri Lankan cricket to an all-new high. Without him, the side will miss a match winner.

For someone, who has loved watching the game, irrespective of the opposition, Murali is one guy I will miss. The action, the wide eyes and the smile of a silent assassin will slowly go away from the cricketing world. And nobody like him will appear for the next 100 years

A must read

I'm currently reading A Corner Of A Foreign Field by Ramachandra Guha. This is also the first time I'm incorporating an image into this blog and it's not a photo blog, which makes this post all the more significant, although the layout might look crap by the time I'm done with this.

But that's not the point.

While I'm not done with the book entirely, I'm not in a place to do an overall review of it, which is why I'm just raising a few issues regarding the way the game was played then and how it is now.

If you read the book, barring technology and the use of protective gear, the game hasn't changed. 

In fact, it has gone back to it's original form, with a few tweaks here and there. 

For example, the type of umpiring then. If a decision was given against an Englishman, he had the right to appeal against it. However, it wasn't the same for the local players, but despite that they wouldn't fare so badly. There was an instance of a match an English batsman, refusing to walk claiming that the wicketkeeper had dislodged the bails when he was actually bowled. Harris was declared out, but the media particularly the Times of India, which was owned by the English at that time criticized the local umpires and claimed that only the English could umpire the matches. 

Eventually in the quadrangular, there were neutral umpires for each game i.e. a Muslim would officiate a game between the English and the Hindus and the English and Parsis; Hindus would officiate games between the English and the Muslims and the English and Paris and so on. The ICC eventually changed the rule of one local umpires in a test match early this century, which is quite bizarre, considering that the Raj was okay with it in the early 20th century.

The book, however, mainly speaks on the Palwankars, probably the first great cricketing family led by Palwankar Baloo, India's first great cricketer. People of course speak of KS Ranjitsinhji as India's first great cricketer, but Ranji himself played for England and had always felt that the Indian style of playing the game was not the right way, in terms of technique. This is probably why Guha narrowed down on Baloo while writing the book.
The book on the whole is more caste and history that went around the game. There are no scorecards or statistics, except for Baloo's and probably CK Nayudu's. It's an evolution of the game to the religion it has become in India. Guha doesn't disappoint again, which is why I recommend the book to both cricket and non-cricket lovers

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.

Previews and predictions

So it's a T20 Ashes tomorrow.
Both teams despite being juggernauts in the tournament, have had their obstacles.
In a group match, England struggled against Ireland.
And in the semis, it was only thanks to Hussey that Australia reached the finals.
England's had a dream run up to now and Australia were slightly jolted on Friday. So knowing them, they'll raise their game in this match.
It doesn't help England's cause that it's a final, but in their defense, they have been playing some fantastic cricket off late. And as Uncle JRod said, KP is donning the role of the elder statesman. For England's sake, I hope that he doesn't become the retarded batsman that he usually is.
The bowlers are bowling well and Swann is their trump card tomorrow.
For Australia, it's about Shane Watson. He's always been a big match player and I feel that tomorrow will be no different. Hussey can't repeat his heroics. That freak of nature happens once in a lifetime. It's like the Hrishikesh Kanitkar four in the Independence Cup at Dhaka in 1998, or (although I hate to mention it) Javed Miandad hitting Chetan Sharma for a last ball six at Sharjah in 1985 (Chetan should be shot for that one. Who the hell told him to bowl Miandad a full toss)
At the end of it, I want England to win this one (that in itself is a first for me), but I feel that the Aussies will take another title home.  After all, they wanted to prove to the world that they have cracked this form of the game at last
For the sake of all of us, I just hope that it isn't a one-sided final. That will be really pissing off.

Mr. Cricket is the man

Ten minutes ago, when Saeed Ajmal took Steve Smith's wicket, I thought that Australia was out of the T20 world cup.
Hell, Pakistan batted like a dream, took out both Australian openers early, had a small fright from Cameron White, but didn't look like they would lose this match.
Michael Hussey had different ideas.
He was batting at a steady pace and before the last over had scored 38 in 20 balls when the 20th over was about to be bowled.
In T20, 38 in 20 is good. Not great, but good.
What the world didn't know was that he would score 22 runs in the next four balls he faced, and won the match for Australia in the process.
When you see a guy bat like that, you just wonder what on earth the Australian selectors were doing by picking him so late in his career.
In my praise for Hussey, I do feel for Pakistan and Ajmal in particular. They tried and almost won.
They probably would have had it not been for Mr. Cricket.
Australia didn't beat Pakistan. Micheal Hussey did

Azharuddin speaks of Team India fiasco

So, after he received a life ban, this is the first time Mohammad Azharuddin has spoken to a cricket website.
"Obviously if you stay up the whole night, it would affect you. Players should be responsible enough. The game is more important than the parties. Excuses like these cannot be given after you lose. For a player, cricket should come first and everything else is secondary."
Mohammad Azharuddin is appalled by Dhoni citing the hectic IPL schedules, on and off the field, as an excuse for the side's performance.
It's funny. This is from the same guy, who was banned for life for fixing matches that involved his country.
It doesn't matter whether he's guilty or not. It does matter that he was banned and disgraced from the game.
Then he decided to enter politics and stood for elections using a Congress ticket.
Suddenly, without realizing it, he won and became a member of the Lok Sabha. 
Ideally, he should have become union sports minister and legalized betting in all games. At least, we'd know that the IPL and professional wrestling would mean the same thing. 
Now, the media wants his expert opinion on the game and how things are in it. 
Considering his oratory skills, I'm sure that he would be as clear as the Great Khali. At least in Khali's case, we know 100 per cent that he fixes matches. It's his job to do so.
Personally, I blame the media as well for interviewing Azhar. They have no right in doing so.

Is the IPL to blame?

India lost because they were crap.
In the first year of the T20 cup, India and Pakistan were unstoppable because they were the only two teams that understood the T20 format.
Yuvraj smashed Broad for 36 in an over; Sreesanth was actually bowling maiden overs and RP was the next big thing.
Similarly for Pakistan, Umar Gul was their bowling sensation and carried forward that form to the following World Cup, which Pakistan won. Also, Misbah-Ul-Haq invented the scoop shot that gave him a lot of runs and India the first World Cup.
Then came the IPL. In IPL I and II, since Pakistani players were selected, they got better international exposure and capitalized on it to take the next World Cup.
Meanwhile, England, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and the West Indies were slowly getting the hang of playing the shortest form of the game.
Australia, however, were getting raped, which is why they have come back with a vengeance this year.
This year, IPL 3 saw no Pakistani players. There were more Caucasians than there were in the previous two tournaments. Hell, even Jacques Kallis was selected to represent South Africa for the T20 this year because of his IPL form.
India had just finished off two seasons - one with South Africa and earlier to Bangladesh - before IPL began.
The players felt that money was more important that resting their bodies.
The effect was disaster.
On the other hand, Pakistan hasn't played too much cricket are probably taking the same plane as India is.
So, is the IPL to blame totally? I'd ask Lalit, but he's got his own issues to deal with at the moment