Monthly Archives: July 2010

Jul 31 2010
10 Comments
Australia, Cricket, Dhoni, Indian Players, Rahul Dravid, Rohit Sharma, Sachin Tendulkar, Test Match

The New-Look India Test Team

The Old Batsman wonders what the Australian team will look like if they planned a bit more for the future (or if they want to beat England this summer).  I wonder the same thing for the Indian national team, whose Test side has remained largely stable while the ODI team has changed immensely in the last few years.

So what would they look like sans Tendulkar, Laxman, and Dravid? Gambhir and Sehwag stay as openers, but a team with both Raina and Yuvraj makes me shudder (besides, I think Yuvraj at this point may need to look at the writing on the wall and focus on ODIs and T20s, where he is most needed). Let’s pick Raina ahead (for now), and bring in M. Vijay (who really impresses me, though I’d like to see him play outside India more), and S. Badrinath (whose relative experience at the first-class level might be a virtue).  That leaves one more spot — but for who? Rohit Sharma (too inconsistent)?  Virat Kohli (too much of a one-day player)? Manoj Tiwary? I see there’s a Twitter campaign to bring in C. Pujara.

So: Gambhir, Sehwag,  Badrinath, Vijay, Raina, Dhoni — how do we feel about that line-up? Are there other top-runners you think should be included?

Jul 31 2010
Leave a comment
Cricket, England, Pakistan, Test Match

Bring Back Mohammed Yousuf?

On Twitter (my new obsession), there was speculation the Pakistan Cricket Board would quickly panic if the national team’s batting failed again in the Test match against England. Mohammad Yousuf, by far Pakistan’s best batsman of the past few years, would be shipped off on a first-class plane to save the team.

I’m opposed to the move. Generally, I don’t like mid-tour replacements; they tend to be rash and unproductive. (I still remember the Indian team drafting in V.V.S. Laxman during their disastrous ODI campaign in South Africa. Laxman, only hours off the plane, didn’t hit double digits.) Selected players feel resentful — and rightly so — since they were not given the chance to prove themselves.

In this case, it would be particularly bad because, according to all the leaked information, Yousuf is a very weird and angry man. Even if you don’t believe the revelations that emerged during the Australia investigation, his calculated decision to retire (for now) and then, less than a few months later, make himself available again, reveal just a tad what this guy is like. So what do you do: pick talent over your team? Because adding Yousuf to this team might be just enough to send it completely down the drain.

I say, leave him out of it. You picked a young team, and even if they can’t handle Jimmy Anderson on his birthday, show some faith. And teach Yousuf a much-needed lesson in humility — or, at least, what the word “retirement” means.

Jul 30 2010
3 Comments
Australia, Commentary, Cricket, England, Pakistan, Shane Warne, Test Match

Shane Warne Liked To Win

The Old Batsman and I had some fun at Shane Warne’s expense when we mocked his “match awareness” commentary. But he’s actually really quite good in that he never ceases looking for ways bowlers or batsmen can gain the advantage in a game. It’s no wonder the Australians keep winning, sometimes even from seemingly impossible situations, when they have this kind of ethos ingrained in the team.

During the England v. Pakistan match, for example, Warne noticed Umar Gul stuttering at the start of his run-up. He said Andrew Strauss, then on strike, should take advantage and put Gul even more off-rhythm. Before that, he said Mohammed Aamer should set up Jonathan Trott with a quick, in-swinging yorker. Sure, some of it can be silly and unrealistic, but Warne basically asks the questions each player should in cricket: why am I here? What do I do with this ball (or bat), and how do I gain the upper hand?

Jul 29 2010
Leave a comment
Andrew Flintoff, Cricket, England

Potential Meteorite Lands Near Cricket Pitch

In another episode of Nature’s Backlash Against Cricket (see, for e.g, the swarm of bees that attacked a Sri Lanka cricket pitch), a strange black rock fell from the sky onto an English pitch:

The rock, a few inches long and believed to be up to 4.5 billion years old, broke in two when it hit the ground in front of them close to the pitch. [...]

Mr Marszel, an IT consultant, said: “We were sitting at the boundary edge when all of a sudden, out of a blue sky, we saw this small dark object hurtling towards us.

Now, it may turn out to be your run-of-the-mill rock, and not one with space origins. Or it may be the ‘bullet’ Andrew Flintoff thought he was shot with while touring in India. Pitches are made to be invaded.

Jul 27 2010
1 Comment
Bowlers, Cricket, Harbhajan Singh, Indian Players, Ishant Sharma, Sri Lanka, Test Match

Lay Off The Indian Bowlers Just A Little Bit

I noticed a full onslaught from my Twitter friends about India’s insipid bowling on Day 1 against the Sri Lankans. To which I offer this as a defense: 1) Yes, the bowling has been a tad “toothless,” as Cricinfo says, but it wasn’t the bowling attack we wanted. Zaheer Khan should have been there, but he’s not. Injuries take tolls.

2) Perhaps so, detractors may respond, but India should never be in a position to rely solely on one person. Hasn’t Ishant Sharma grown enough in the past few years that he could improve his seam position? Yes, but at the same time, we have to recognize the conditions these guys are bowling in. If India had won the toss, we’d likely be pleased as punch right now that the Sri Lankans were on the receiving end (and I have little doubt they would have been — though perhaps that’s just naivete). But this is how things work in Sri Lanka: the team that wins the toss bats first, takes advantage of a belter of a pitch, and then pressures the other team with 500+ runs in the board.

Again, I don’t like this bowling attack any more than the rest of you. Still, this is history we’re talking about — this is how it’s always been. So let’s just wait for that declaration, shall we?

Jul 26 2010
Leave a comment
Cricket, Indian Players, Rahul Dravid, Sachin Tendulkar, Test Match

The Case For V.V.S. Laxman

Confessions Of A Forced Spectator digs through the statistics and columns and figures and comes out with a surprising conclusion about V.V.S. Laxman. Usually, commentators talk about Laxman’s Hyderabadi style (“My, what gorgeous wrists you have!”), but he’s also the mainstay of the India’s lower-middle batting line-up. And, judging from the numbers, he’s been getting better and better of late:-

Tendulkar leads the team when it comes to away performance while Laxman is a close second. Sehwag is third but his average and percentage of 50+ scores drop considerably when he plays away from home. One thing these stats don’t tell you is that Laxman has been better than Tendulkar if you exclude performances against Bangladesh. In fact, his average drops to 44 if you take out that opposition. Laxman, though, has maintained his performance by averaging 50.52 if you exclude his innings against Bangladesh. He’s also more consistent than Tendulkar, going past 50 in 42% of his innings while Tendulkar has done it in just 34% of his innings. There is definitely a case for Laxman being the most reliable middle order batsman in the side.

India’s batting line-up works because it has a great opening pair (Sehwag being the potential match-winner); an unbelievable No. 3 (who may or may not be slipping of late); and then one of the best batsmen of all time. This means you give little thought to Laxman (Fives never get as much as respect as they should, no?), but I’ve seen enough matches when the top-order fails to know not to give up until Laxman is done.

Jul 26 2010
2 Comments
Cricket, Test Match, Umpires

The Hawk-Eye Scandal

A Cricketing View posted this wonderful post on Hawkeye over the weekend, and I don’t think it’s got the attention it deserves. There are somewhat explosive new details about the Hawkeye technology contained. Take, for e.g., this e-mail from Paul Hawkins of Hawk-Eye Innovations:

We have proposed on a number of occasions the idea of presenting an “uncertainty ellipse” around the ball, but all broadcasters have rejected the idea for a number of reasons:

1) Almost all commentators are ex cricketers, and generally not that scientifically bright. They would have no ability to explain what an uncertainty ellipse is

2) Broadcasters prefer a “definitive” where was the ball going – some commentators are then good at interpreting that information saying something like: “Hawk-Eye shows it just clipping leg stump, so a good decision to give the benefit to the batsman”

3) If the uncertainty ellipse is supposed to reflect Hawk-Eye error, then the ellipse would be so small around the ball that you would not see it around the ball

In the heated comments section in the post, Kartikeya rightly points that this isn’t just about the merits of the URDS system (though it is, partially). It’s also about how the truth is “socially produced” — we have been told, again and again, that technology and science will lead to precise measurements that will displace human error. But the new technologies in place include their own mistakes (witness cameras’ complete inability so far to tell us whether or not a fielder took a clean catch, e.g. Michael Hussey v. Kamran Akmal, Headingley).

When commentators look at Hawkeye projections after an appeal, they usually tend to give them full credence, as if they are the last word on the subject (X was unlucky; Y was not). But it’s important to realize that even though those bails fall off then the computer’s ball hits the stumps, there is a margin of error — and no matter how small, should, in the interests and spirit of science, be mentioned or credited.

(For the record, I’m not as uncompromising a Luddite as I may sound. If we had to introduce more technology into the game, I’d be happier if any initiative to review came from the umpire, and not the players themselves. Briefly, I argue this because I believe the umpire is a much more crucial figure in the game than we let on (I don’t buy into the notion that we only come to “watch me bat, not you umpire”). If umpires have questions about a particular appeal, let them question the third umpire about it on their own.)

Jul 24 2010
1 Comment
Uncategorized

DuckingBeamers On Twitter

I’ve caved into yet another social media outlet. Don’t know how regularly I will tweet, not having a friendly mobile phone, but I’m happy to get into scraps there. Join me at: https://twitter.com/duckingbeamers

Jul 24 2010
2 Comments
Cricket, Pakistan

In Defense Of Younis Khan

I’m not quick to disagree with Q (over at Well Pitched) about Pakistani cricket. The man knows his stuff. This post, in part about Pakistan’s long history of captaincy troubles, shows off his knowledge (who knew Javed Miandad had trouble with his young ‘uns?).

But I don’t think the post’s larger argument — that Younis Khan set off this latest bout of problems when he refused the captaincy — makes much sense. Yes, I agree, Khan would have made an excellent captain, or at least had the most compelling prospects for a compelling captaincy. At the same time, however, Q indulges a logical fallacy known as Post hoc, ergo propter hoc — ‘After, therefore because of’. (You can find President Bartlett on The West Wing apply it in another good example here. Yes, I’m a nerd.) My thoughts:

1) Given Pakistan’s tumultuous record, it’s highly dubious Khan’s captaincy would have been spared the drama we’ve come to expect from its team. Q lists all Pakistan’s disputes (stretching back to the 1980s!), but then strangely thinks that Younis Khan would have been an exception. Why? It’s just as likely some other sort of rebellion would have cropped up at some point during his captaincy, leading selectors to pick someone else (and so on).

2) Q argues Khan sparked more problems when he resigned the T20 captaincy. Maybe, but I don’t fault a 33-year-old for putting the reins down in that format.  Ponting, Tendulkar/Dravid, Jayawardene, Strauss (for a time) — all were more than happy to avoid leading their T20 sides. It’s not their generation’s chosen format.

3) Therefore: just because the Malik/Yousuf/Afridi/Butt/Australia troubles came after Khan, it’s not conclusive Khan created them. More likely, it’s the Pakistani team’s strange penchant for revolts and rebellions. I don’t know why this happens among teams, just as I don’t know why the Australians like having captains that outlast English prime ministers. Business executives talk about the need to create a proper management culture, which often takes its cues from decisions made and structures built long before any member of the present generation joins the fray. But somewhere along the line, this sort of behavior became accepted.

So ease up on Khan, Q. In a team that has so many spoiling to be captain, it’s not easy for me to fault the one man who didn’t.

Jul 23 2010
1 Comment
Cricket, Kumar Sangakarra, Sri Lanka, Test Match

Kumar Sangakarra Knows Things

Kumar Sangakarra trained to be a lawyer, and judging from this quote about the Future Tours Program, he’s done well with the logic part of the examination:

“Rankings need to be fairly done. A fair FTP is the first step towards having proper rankings. Once every two years each side should play each other at least once, home or away. That’s how you get a fair deal when it comes to Test cricket.”

I agree. The rankings are silly, but more importantly, so is the ridiculous way we schedule Tests. If we’re serious about broadening cricket’s base, we need to do more than simply focus on India, Australia and England. Yes, New Zealand v. India in India isn’t too exciting, but this is how rivalries and histories build up: you have to play each other first.

← Older posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 759 other followers