ODI Series and Bilateral series a dead concept

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

You'd have to say these days that cricket series of one-day internationals represent 'dead rubber.' Of course, Test cricket is not considered part of this comparison and retains its place in the annals of the game. So, driving public demand are tournaments and leagues instead.

Maybe that's the future of cricket. And why not if TRPs , read - accurate readings of the television audience at a given moment, demand a peek into that conscience?

'Public interest' back 1912
So, public interest may be causing the most popular form of cricket, unarguably between ODI and Twenty20, to veer away to a many splendoured form, with many teams involved at the same time. However, history will peculiarly reveal that it was public interest that caused the demise of the first attempt of a tournament, back in 1912 when England, Australia and South Africa played each other in Tests.

Cricket authorities decided that henceforth they would play more series, but perhaps fine tuning that to say it'd be bilateral series, to balance it out in the end - the logic being that once a series concluded, with the obvious assumption that the host team would have had some home advantage, a return series as soon as feasible in the cricket calendar, where the visitors would now become the hosts, would even it out for both the teams.

Well, coming back to the public interest failure of cricket's first tournament that was a failure in 1912, England, Australia and South Africa played each other. The failure of the tournament did not seem surprising because only 12 years prior, the Olympic Committee felt cricket's inclusion in the 1900 Olympics was as a failure and cancelled the sport from the august Games? Or maybe they weren't impressed that Great Britain beat only France by 158 - akin to the joke in the commentary box when Botham analysed all the fast bowlers' highest batting scores and asked Michael Holding if his "58 was against Iceland in the World Cup Qualifiers!"

Public Interest Again Post 2000 CE
Funnily it is 'public interest' that is initiating a shyly unstated preference for a tournament (the World Cup, Champions Trophy, tri-series) or a league (IPL). Simply, the pundits will analyze if the TV audience is that much more for a tournament vis a vis a regular of one-day internationals and presume that they can have a better revenue sharing model for all. So, will we soon see a day that series (one-day internationals) will rarely take place? Where will be the time in the calendar to accommodate them, even if they're relegated to practice matches where youngsters can be groomed?

Test Cricket Still Genuine for the Cricketers
Test cricket will stay clear of this path-breaking change. A test series was tried out over a decade go, although at different national venues, but was not considered a great success. Moreover, the opinions of all top cricketers has consistently been that Test cricket is real cricket, so it will stay not out of sheer tradition but out of a genuine need of the practitioners.

Rocket launcher Raina fails in more ways than one

Our penchant for records and heros in India will do us in and the culprits of a lost cricket match will get away because they have played to supposed potential, and with the comforting thought that the roll of the die merely meant Indian could not scamper home to victory in the fifth ODI against Australia yesterday.

Too much ebullence

I switched off the TV after Suresh Raina got out, but that was because an early night was badly needed and also the conviction that my prediction would come true - About an over or two before the UP-left-hander's dismissal he launched into a big six, thus making the statement that he can match the ebullient veteran Sachin Tendulkar's strokes. Many wizened men in cricket would have also thought that if the ball was there to be hit, might as well have boundaries and sixes from both ends, than from Tendulkar alone, who had taken centre stage in at least the 10 overs before that.

The quiet death knell

I differed. Raina had looked not his technical-best in recent matches, but leave that aside. He seemed to miss too often when attempting big shots, than the master Tendulkar on the day seemed to have done. It seemed inevitable that the left-hander would fall soon, but worse still the scenario would emerge that the run-a-ball required equation would get difficult because a wicket having fallen would mean the run rate would slow down and undoubtedly, Tendulkar would not be launching into sixes as he so effortlessly had been to the spinners up and until that point. He would then need to play out some balls to 'pick up' that rhythm again, in the company of Harbhajan, or whoever was to follow, therefore making the task difficult for India who would be 5 wickets down at the stage. From there, India would either lose the match or make things difficult from a point of relative ease.

The Vertical Rocket

And so, it was. Suresh Raina soon launched into a rocket, but not one that soared out of the stadium. Instead it was a vertical one that was safely pouched by an Australian fielder. And then the end came to the Indian chase, which I didn't witness.

Heros and Gods

Trouble is that Raina thought he'd done his job of 60 odd runs in a lesser number of balls and his place would be safe. Also, our Indian fans would look back and say he didn't do anything wrong but contributed handsome runs but perished when trying with his partner Tendulkar to keep the required run run rate down to what it was.

Judge them differently

This is the problem with complacency. We must now judge our stars not for their records and their less-than a ball contribution for each run, we must judge them from how they perform in pressure situations and whether they throw away wickets and matches from wanting to gloriously finish off things.

To me, what's important in a chase is not the guy hitting the odd sixes and boundaries (that was Tendulkar) but the other one, who's rotating the strike with singles. The bowling side actually loses rythm when they see that one batter is not out to hit them out of the ground. Why do you think Ponting had his spinners on? To buy wickets for runs and attempted ground-clearing strokes. When both batsmen are hitting, the bowling side feel they have a chance, and actually slip into a rythm. But when one batter is eschewing belligerence, their line and length is not in control, moreover they are in a brain fog.

Suresh Raina lost a good chance to prove he can actually be a good finisher. His running between the wickets seemed also to defy commonsense principles of whose call it is and taking a start. He looked quite out of sorts. He doesn't look like India's find for the future. It's all in the temperament.

Of course, hats off to Tendulkar for a great knock. These knocks must be justified with commonsense thinking from his teammates.

India Lacking Big Tournament Capabilities

30 September 2009

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

Saurav Ganguly has aptly summed up the hyped-up Indian team's situation today in saying they don't show big-tournament temperament. It's true that most articles in newspapers analyse why or how the world's top or second best ODI team is failing. Otherwise, they're on about what India should do to reach the Number 1 status.

Is this our way of giving us a second chance to be world champions? Really, this excessively company-sponsored rating system and its awards are making our players lax. It's simple that a defending champion is the world's number 1. You do that by winning the World Cup in the 50-over format. The Champions Trophy being played currently is as near to that format as it gets. Of course, threatening its glamour is the 20-20 World Cup now being held at an alarming 1-year gap.

Victory or Loss - Under Dhoni it's Fine

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

27 September, 2009

What is the Indian cricket fan currently thinking or saying after yesterday's loss to Pakistan? It's not as if this scenario is new. At other times, Dhoni has especially revelled in a Pakistan game and turned things around with either his batting (who can forget his 2004 arrival in big cricket) or captaincy.

Truth is while we all want victories, especially against our arch rivals Pakistan, the Indian fan now can't seem wash the team's dirty linen in public. It's like they've acccepted that in a game, someone's got to lose and they seem fine knowing that it's happening under a capable head like Dhoni's. Look back over ten years and somehow it seems there had been troubled postings by Indian fans when the team underperformed under Sachin or Rahul or Azhar. Talk shows on TV, seemed to have so much to discuss or criticise.

Under Dhoni, the Indian team fan has known true . His abilities have also been appreciated in the IPL where his Chennai team were pipped to second position by a mere whisker in 2008.

The Indian fan's larger acquiscence is also probably from statements by Ajit Wadekar that "Dhoni is the best captain India ever had." The average Indian fan, like that in neighbouring Pakistan may be a fanatic in blinders but the audience tends to listen to a doyen of a captain like that. A more informed cricket follower would also know that Bombay cricketer may praise some skills in players from other states but has rarely gone all out.

Undoubtedly, it would have seemed until that point Bombayite would have conceded only two skills as better among an outside state - pace bowling, exemplified by the hardy jaat Kapil Dev and his Haryana (read northern) tribe, and spin, craftsmen of which hailed largely from the southern states of Karnataka. But many of them are now conceding batting, and even captaincy skills.

Coming back to Dhoni and the after match effects, although at press conferences the captain offers an explanation, as he is bound to, and the press colours things as "mistakes that shouldn't have been committed," the public knows that victories cannot come all the time. Failings are better acceptable if one has tried one's best.

Right now, there's good sense prevailing among the Indian fans at large. People must go back to their nine-to-five jobs Monday to Friday and let India Inc jog along. For would we be in this era of cricket professionalism if it wasn't for India Inc which garnered in all these software imports and pumped in the money? That money funded our 'professional cricket' (read a structure that allows individuals to play cricket for a living through the year).

So, if anybody questions my writing this article on the Indian cricket 'fan,' as opposed to the afficiandos, or those like Gavaskar, Amarnath, Srikanth whose say matters to the team, the answer is that the fan funds 'India Inc' which is indirectly funding our cricket team. Their mood needs to be captured. For now, the Indian fan seems to be saying "Let it be. Let's hope for things to be better."

Sachin's Suggestion

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

27th September 2009

The Champions Trophy brought the focus back on audience participation in a 'long' 100-over affair and opinions on how to tinker with it. Master Blaster Tendulkar has not been shy over the last three years in expressing his opinion on various matters. This one was no exception and from his larger suggestion of breaking it up into a two-innings-of 20-overs-each affair, he probably was keener on 'off-setting' the toss advantage.


Batting where the ball really 'comes on'

Coming to yesterday's lost game to Pakistan where the arch rivals played to a deserved victory, pundits will tend to attribute it to the toss. Negating the toss is favourable this this critic, indeed even dichotomous as a solution. Ordinarily, the word 'negate' means the disadvantaged side will be equally favoured. However, not many think of it as an equal fillip for the toss winning side.

Would a critic, say a Pakistani in this instance actually feel the sheen in the victory has been taken away because anyway the toss gave the advantage? Would this critic rather that the men in green be given credit for the way they played or would have played in a more 'equal' scenario?

There was no doubt the toss winner yesterday would bat first as even the pitch analysts and commentators were saying. Younis Khan's 'bowling' side preferred to 'bat.' The ball really came on and their batters were advantaged. You might argue that the advantage can also 'pass on' to the side batting second (the toss-losing side) how many times have we seen a pitch remain consistent? It's usually broken up or played different. In any case, at the time of the toss, nobody can be sure. This doesn't end here.

In an era when cricket represents psychological battles, the side batting second truly comes under 'true' pressure from the start thus starting the whispers in the crowd of 'unfair disadvantage.' As a case in point, as the innings progresses, many newspapers write so called analytical articles with headlines like "Dravid, Raina exploits fail to match Mohammed Yousuf and Shoaib Malik's" but of course forget that the former two are playing a different role. They're chasing (under pressure) while Yousuf and Malik were picking the loose ball with abandon but didn't need to head to a specific target. Not to mention a 'different surface.' Now, purely as a devil's advocate, I say, "Can this battle be made any more unfair?"

'True victory'
If toss-advantage negation as a theory advances, take the 'triumph' for the winning side. Sachin's suggestion, while maintaining the spectator's interest might bring in the element of a 'true triumph' if the toss-winning side were to win the match.

I think the 'toss' method is really a hangover of an older era when its winning would give a 'marginal' advantage. With cricket teams as grooved as today and an ever present spectator expectation, thought needs to be given to even out advantages that don't represent playing 'on the same surface.' Cricket bigwigs must not be shy to take Sachin's suggestion or for that matter any that represent this end.

Another revolutionary solution, which does away with the toss entirely is to award the 'choosing rights' (of batting or bowling first) based on immediate previous performances. It sounds better than to have 'luck' favour a captain when the coin is tossed up.

Piledrivers not working

Netherlands Vs Pakistan, 9th June 2009, T20 World Cup England

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

One wonders if Netherlands lost the match in basic strategy, at the interim of about 9 overs while chasing. They should have been realistically chasing 151, which by net run rate would have qualified them for the next round, whereas they looked like committting harakiri.

Why the piledriver?
At 49 for 4 in the ninth over, de Groothe tried to hit Shahid Afridi out of the attack and then what followed was stumpings or bowled dismissals involving batsmen stepping out. What if they'd scratched around instead? Eight runs per over from the next seven overs, giving them a total of 106 odd for maybe 6 or 7 wickets, by the end of the 16th?

Eight runs an over tough?

Perhaps the question of how you get eight runs an over between over numbers 10 and 16. Four singles in each and two possible twos = 8 runs. Mind you, the field was defensive, allowing for more twos. With about 45 to get in 24 balls (3 overs), what're the chances they may have succeeded with some lusty hitting?

Chasing the wrong total?

Looks like the Dutch preferred chasing 175. Well played in the tournament anyway.

Where's the 'Momentum' guys?

Deccan Charges Vs Delhi Dardevils, 13 May 2009, IPL-2

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

Deccan Chargers throwing away their match against the Delhi Daredevils was pathos personified. No, it wasn't bad luck or nerves. Probably an outdated team strategy.

The issues this article will address are. 1) Is it necessary to narrow down the run-ball equation to a run a ball to give your team the best chance? 2) Is it pandemic of an Indian side, domestic or otherwise (with a minority of foreign professionals) to destroy effort of a top order batsman?

Labour lost

Adam Gilchrist's towering hitting was put to nought by his lower order. The same way that Chennai put to nought another Aussie, another left-hander and another opening bat's great starts earlier in the tournament. Fortunately Chennai have re-grouped and are looking better. But will the Deccan Chargers?

Are we all thinking?

To be fair, it was no individual's fault, nor I would imagine a team's. The blame if any would probably rest with the think tank and in no small way in the way everybody views 20-20 cricket. There is a mindset prevalent among all - cricketers, commentators, cricket gurus that if your team needs about 29 runs off 25 balls, you must strike from both ends to narrow that down to a run a ball. Quite rusty.

Where's the fulcrum?

Yesterday's Deccan Chargers - Delhi Daredevils match had exactly such an equation but instead of T Ravi assuming the fulcrum role to allow Andrew Symonds to attack, the lad chose to display heroics and pushed his luck too far with a backward glide. It points to a fundamental lack of thinking on the team's part, not to give him clearer or a different set of instructions - to stay put and get ones and twos where possible. The less said of his predecessor Suman the better. He too had departed 'heroically' trying to match Gilchrist's (of all the people!) pace.

'Momentum'

Hey, hasn't it been established that Twenty-Twenty is not a bang at both ends affair? We know that one partner, especially when the other is scoring, should play the anchor. The analysts have come up with the word 'momentum' as if exactly identifying the lacuna in batting during a 20-overs game. So, what's the confusion? Is it impetuous youth or a lack of good communication to these young guns, or their ability to understand the communication. Otherwise, it must be said team strategy is totally wrong.

The Equation

Let's address that run-ball equation. It is archaic thinking that with seven wickets in hand, you have to address a target of 29 more runs (25 balls) with suicidal hitting. Won't the odd boundary come within the next over and a half to narrow it down? Isn't Symonds capable of it? T Ravi started experimenting with strokes that take the ball over the wicket-keepers head or to some no-man's land, using the pace of the bowler. At least his judgement should have told him that he is not middling it today so better let senior partner Andrew do it. But he chose the gallant path to heaven. What was he thinking? "Now's my chance to show the world I'm as good as Symonds?" And seven overs earlier, Suman was probably thinking the same thing? And at a time that Gilly was launching balls to the moon. Guys, when there is no need, why err on the side of risk? Why not take a lesson from the Twenty-Twenty cricket that you've see so far?

It's not what, it's how

Deccan Chargers will be hugely upset, not for their loss, but to use that cliched expression, "from where they threw it away." Oh, how about another cliche since we love flogging dead horses - "Snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."

The architects

To be fair to Gilly and Symonds, they did not commit great errors in their own dismissals. Only those they were allowed after hoisting the team on their shoulders.

Chargers, now charge back and learn from those mistakes.

Minimal is best

Royal Challengers Vs Kolkata Knightriders, 12 May 2009, IPL-2

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

Ross Taylor may have played another 'cameo' like modernists say, to help beat KKR. Again, commentators and pundits are drawn to the run-ball comparison so they cough up his stats of 80 runs off 33 balls. Rameez Raja is obsessed with the run-rate and even with six runs required off five balls, felt it necessary to say "See, the dot ball automatically ups the scoring rate." Can't experts look beyond stats which were a 1980s thing?

Crowe's Clone

Anyway, veering away, few would have noticed that Ross Taylor is a clone of fellow countryman Martin Crowe. And like you give Saqlain and Ajanta and Waqar credit for the doosra, the flipper and the reverse swinger respectively, one must Crowe (and Ross) for the minimal backlift. Yes folks, welcome to another innovation of the Kiwis. Crowe invented it and Ross is adapting it completely while a global audience watches.

Long back swing yes, not pickup

Most feel that graceful and powerful batsman have long bat swings and therefore high backlifts. Much poetry has been written on Brian Lara's backlift. Agreed. But all mortals cannot emulate this. A high backlift is the bane of junior cricketers and has crushed talented young careers without their even realising it. When a junior cricketer graduates to even a slighter senior level, his high backlift causes his undoing. If it hasn't already at junior level. The correct backlift to coach therefore is a short or minimal backlift. Coming back to Lara, remember he showed vulnerability to the yorker. Wasim Akram's painful toe-crusher in the '92 world cup and an embarassing bowled dismissal by Waqar in '98 when Lara fell to the ground are clear examples.

Two parts to the Backlift

Let's get slightly technical and break up the "backlift' into two parts:

• bat pickup
• back swing

You could say these two put together constitute the 'backlift.' Now we're more specifically concerned with the bat pickup. This is the element that Ross Taylor and Martin Crowe underscore. With a minimal bat pickup, you don't commit yourself to any particular stroke nor expose yourself to the deadly yorker.

Don't commit

The back swing, yes, has to be long for an attacking short and short for a defensive one. If you control your pickup, then you give yourself the option of a long or short back swing, depending on the ball and therefore the shot to play. However, if your pickup is long to start with, you're committed to a long back swing (because your bat is too high already) and there start the problems for a yorker, or a ball that is not hittable.

So, now you know another reason Ross may have got a chanceless 80 off about 35 balls? He never committed to an attacking stroke early on. Only when the ball was there to be hit. Bravo Crowe and bravo Ross!

Why are they 'backlift' Gods?

Martin Crowe was by no means a defensive bat. Rather was a feared attacker. Yet he had a small, almost absent back pickup? It quashes the myth that attackers need large backlifts whereas defensive ones can afford to have small ones. Rather the opposite - that if you have a controlled bat pickup, you can choose which balls to fashion the long back swing. And end up scoring more whence all else were dismissed!

Sachin too a practitioneer

Our own God of batting, Sachin Tendulkar heeded this component in his batting from his formative days. Watch all videos of Sachin from 1989 and you'll see the close attention he paid to keeping his backlift, or bat pickup under control. There was just one instance on the 1989 tour of New Zealand when a commentator commented on the yet unknown prodigy's 'high backlift' but that was when the Bombay blaster was in an attacking mood. And we may be confusing the intent of his large back swing with his pickup.

Absent backlift

We'll use that metaphor 'backlift' again in putting Crowe and Ross a level above all other cricketers. They have almost 'absent' back lifts, that is, bat pickups. And yet they execute strokes with such elan. Well, again, it's difficult to expect other mortals to have an 'absent' bat pickup. But yes, if you'd have to raise the bar, then a young player will have to fashion an 'absent bat pickup.' That's probably asking for too much, besides it must suit your style also!

All you young ones, keep the backlift low at least!

When in doubt, swing the bat

12 May 2009, Kings XI Punjab Vs Mumbai Indians, IPL-2

By Vikram A

Is it really "Wow, Sohal," or "Heck , Sohal!" The Punjab opener Sunny Sohal sent a few balls into the galleries and had the commentators in raptures like "How do you do that," with his 20-odd ball 43, the top score. However, is he really convincing? The finger grips the bat in an innocent thumb and forefinger grip unlike the modern 'well round the handle.' Sunny somehow seems immobilized when the bowler delivers the ball as if unable to read all those bowling . Does he sniff the ball? Probably not. Aw, c'mon this is the 20-20 game. Not time for those Bradsmaneque traditions, a pyjama cricketer would say!

Fine, but my point is that unlike most batsman whose body language shows some indication of computing the ball's flight and tragectory, right or wrong, here's one who makes no calculations. He'd therefore rather just decide on a shuffle and a stroke with no background information. Using of course a somewhat two-dimensional view of the ball.

Hence, we saw him mostly shuffle away to off and glide away balls or when given width, dispatch sixes over the cover and extra cover area. It's a foregone conclusion that any batsman, given width will hit a six these days. So, the point here is, are all those backward-of-square glides, most pre-meditated, the sign of a batsman not sizing up to the ball, sniff or not? In other words guesswork.

The reason poor young Sunny is being made the villain of the piece here is, his getting Irfan Pathan run out and then himself too in a manner not deserving of professional cricketers. It points to a lack of cricketing sense. And that is perhaps just as absent in his strokemaking.

If your position is the opening batsman's, you'll find two advantages that simple spur the ball to the boundary or over it - the ball is hard and the field, even if not in powerplay is relatively attacking. So, it should come as no surprise that a batsman, even if he's nervous or unable to read the bowler's hand, will try to create width or play shots with positive results. Which is what Sunny did yesterday.

Not to discourage the youngster but maybe the lens with which we view a shot-maker is a little too wide. Maybe we label him as good without looking close enough and taking into account some factors.

Chennai Super Kings culprits

IPL-2, 23rd April 2009, Chennai Super Kings Vs Delhi Daredevils

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

Luck of the Devil
Call it luck or some failed moves, brilliant Dhoni's side are having close brushes with victory but not getting there. What's frustrating for the die hard Chennai fan is that herculean efforts, this time from Matt Hayden, are not being vindicated. It's a tragedy that the rest of the team can't remember that whether they flourish or falter.

Culprits
One can't help feel the Super Kings will bounce back learning from all those mistakes like the Mumbai Indians in last years edition, however, here are some culprits of their essay.

Raina:
His flabby old self is back. How well he'd trimmed himself in the last six months where we saw his make his comeback. Now he's back with extra ounces, noticeable around the obliques (side stomach muscles). Why this introspection... because there seemed to be a distinct lack of leverage or strength or balance, call it what you will, in his on-side shots.

Look at the one he finally got out to - a heave to the long-on boundary was well justified, but watch him swing that bat and you'll realize the torso is just not as operational as the earlier super-fit Raina's. You don't need to be a pundit to guess the shot would have carried through over the ropes. So this is not a criticism of his shot selection, rather of being tournament-prepared. If there is a good excuse for not being his muscular and trimmest best, then one would have to blame shot selection. After all he was in for a long time and played several such shots, so he might have needed to be a better judge of his limited abilities on the day.

Andrew Flintoff:
No doubt, a throwing-the-match-away-situation was developing with Raina's dismissal, not least its manner, Flinters should have totally eschewed belligerence after having got a good feel of the pitch and of course knowing the developing situation. Folks, it's not a question of many wickets being in hand to justify some dangerous shots. One must realise that in the super-edited version of the game, everything works in a spiral - a wicket fall leads to several wickets falling. The old colonels of the game must read that and fetch runs in the correct way.

Albie Morkel:
The quick eyed would immediately have noticed when Manpreet Goni was run out that the two runners lost a second and a half in an averted collision with each other. Otherwise, everybody knows that Goni was sure to save the day with his lusty hitting, not least with a partner on par or better. What was non-striker Morkel doing running so close to him?

Fine, he was wide of the pitch area, but commonsense has to prevail and the non-striker should allow for the fact that the stroke the striker plays will make him run on the same side of the pitch as he. And you can't ask a striker to correct his running path especially when the need for him is to regain momentum fast to match the non-striker.

Don't forget the non-striker has a 'mile's' advantage these days to back up even before the bowler bowls. Also, Goni was on the backfoot for his stroke so spare the poor guy the blame of aligning himself to a 'safe' path during running. So, Albie Morket should have been standing wider of the stumps or at least deviated wider much earlier upon sighting Goni's running path.

Team Strategy for the last over:
This is a debatable one - yes the old logic says get as many runs as you can, as a single run can account for the match. However, isn't a 'horses for courses policy good.' The extra could have been avoided when Joginder Sharma drove and together with his partner Morkel extracted two runs, which unfortunately brought him back on strike.

We all know what a good Morkel is, leave alone innovative and destructive. Could either the pair of them or the team think tank have devised the plan to get Morkel on strike? Misbah-ul-Haq in the 20-20 World Cup in 2007 gave a display of that on more than one occasion. Of course Misbah's a great power hitter but I'm not inclined to think Morkel is not on par with him.

Maybe a correct assessment of Joginder's batting abilities is due yet, although no doubt he would give his best. He's considered a batsman who can hit a six, as many tailenders are in the ultra modern . However, that doesn't mean he can judge a ball as correctly as a batter or a bowling allrounder like say, Agarkar or the proven Harbhajan.

Badrinath:
Badri should have been a better judge of his abilities when trying to clear the long off fielder where he holed out. Just looking like trying ain't gonna defend your status. Badri had better pull out a superior performance soon to show he really matters.

Anyway, we hope this dust clears and the Chennai Super Kings justify their team and bench strength. In the meantime, kudos to the Delhi Daredevils.

Leg spinning winning

22 April, Aus-Pak one-dayer, Abu Dhabi

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

It's happening in Abu Dhabi
All the cricket action is not parked in South Africa with the Indian Premier League. Folks, connoisseurs and discerning viewers will tune in to the Aus-Pak one-dayers in Abu Dhabi. Why not, after all if there is a cricket style that can challenge the systems approach of Anglo Saxon Australian teams, it is the Asiatic, with Pakistan no lesser than the other subcontinent 'brothers.'

Sizzling Shahid
Shahid Afridi bowled a dazzling spell, for those who didn't tune in to Ten Sports, taking six huge wickets to restrict the Kangaroos to 130-40 odd. Now, a comparison must happen with Kumble who's bowling equally well in another part of the world, what with figures of 5 for 5 in the IPL. They're both tall bowlers and distinctively deprived of the good old loop (modern dayers say it's now the 'curve' because there is no scope to flight a ball ten storeys high). They render themselves near trundlers (medium pacers). While Anil is closer to that description, Afridi is nearer the spinner mould.

Bowling wider of the stumps
I must say that all successful leg spinners have bowled from close to the stumps (when bowling over the wicket) with the exception of Warne whose prodigious turn needed to be reduced, hence bowling wider. Afridi is no square turner of the ball, probably only as much as Anil, but it was breathtaking to see him get classical leg spinner dismissals : batsman caught at extra cover, caught at first slip and three dismissals off the unread googly!)

Difference in line is Warne's prerogative
Ian Chappell correctly remarked even in Warne's success days that he must not be treated like a model leg-spinner - his line is leg-stump or outside whereas a leg-spin bowler's must be between middle-and-off or off-stump so as to induce the drive. Of course he was not criticizing Warne whose awesome turn, reputation and guile would carry him even higher but merely giving batsmen around the world over a hint on how to play him.

Not everyone can be a Warne
A whole generation of teenagers tried imitating Warne's action (and therefore line) but not realizing how incredibly strong the man was to get such tweak over a walk-in as opposed to a run-up. Shahid yesterday displayed the line that usually loopy (and shorter) leggies in the classical mould of L Sivaramakrishnan, Qadir and Clarrie Grimett in the 1930s used to get wickets. Importantly, he does not have the loopy flight of these ideal-height wizards and would be deprived of the effect (inducing the drive etc), but it just shows how the classical line and length suits leggies. Well, you can argue that Shahid is a wickedly cunning bowler and those grey cells have something to do with his success yesterday instead of me towing the old line about classical line and length. But net-net he put the ball in the right place - the good 'ol place.

No real flipper or top-spinner
Yes, Shahid's use of the googly was not sparing, so the batters had to play at most leg-spinning balls for fear they might jag back. Also notice, Shahid does not have a particularly devastating flipper, so popularised by Warne and today Ajanta Mendis that it's now modern day folklore and a must have. Afridi may send down a 'back of the hand' variety ball but not really a practiced flipper. Nor do I see him employ the top spinner at will. And he's supposed to possess an off cutter. So folks, in the end we have it that a spinner is like a magician and every generation must throw up its own tricks or cease to be effective.

Afridi an uncredited inventor
Edison the telephone, Bosanquet the googly, Saqlain the doosra, all inventors. We have an unrecognized one, with Afridi, who must be credited for two inventions - the fast yorker (from a spinner!) and the off cutter (from a leg-spinner) neither of which we saw yesterday but they're in his arsenal. The paradox is that this unloopy bowler with no flipper or an exhibited top-spinner got six dismissals yesterday from conventional balls and bowling a conventional line. Well, looks like the batters played into Afridi's comfort zone with the though at the back of their heads - "In the least, let's play at these balls. They might be one of his innovative ones."

Moral of the story: It's good to invent balls and be wily. That way, even your conventional leg spin or googly balls get you wickets. Call it bench strength (of your balls).

The future for Shahid
Wasim Akram became a very mature and reliable batsman and even got his second test hundred at the fagend of his career. You don't need to be told what his primary skill and role was. In the same way, Shahid is now breaking in as a bowler. Yesterday, his inclusion in the team was as a bowling all-rounder as the commentators remarked, as opposed to his entire career thus far as batting all-rounder. Looks like his bowling all-rounder role will continue for some time.

Full fledged bowler
Really, yesterday brought forward a very important point - Shahid Afridi has been recognized as a partnership breaking bowler, but nobody really gave him credit for being a pure bowler in 'brain,' like a Saqlain Mustaq or other contemporaries. From now it, it seems ominous he will be recognized as one.

Can Indian pros truly run well between wickets

IPL, Chennai Vs Royal Challengers, 20 April 2009

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

Suresh Raina (Chennai Superkings) was the other bat when Matt Hayden got run out. Look at the dismissal closely and you'll see that although it was Hayden's call, Raina gave a 'no' (that's okay) but then had the gall to say 'yes' a half second later at which Matt who'd lost at least two yards responded by running through.

Well, you can argue that Matt could have had the final say because it was 'his call,' but is there some cricketing sense taking a beating even among Indian pros? I mean pros because, yes, they truly deserve their place in the Indian side too because of percentage batting abilities and fielding etc but you wonder if this aspect of the game (running between wickets) escapes them. If so, a whole new cricket coaching class has to be scheduled ... with numbers (runs i.e. probable runs and rate at which lost due to a set and blazing batsman getting run out etc) being quantified so the importance is realized. Correct running between wickets must become second nature at that level, not remain a drilled skill for too long.

Swap for God's sake

Sachin a good skipper?
Last year, there were whispers that had Shaun Pollock been allowed to continue the Mumbai Indians' captaincy in IPL-1, they would have won the games to see them through to the knockouts; Sachin missed some games, during which Pollock led the team to a frightening five consecutive wins including the eventual champs Rajasthan Royals who seemed unflappable even at the time.

Well, this year's IPL edition took off with the little master captaining his side to a comprehensive win over runners-up Chennai Superkings.

Dhoni's 'A-Gony'
Why was Joginder Sharma sent ahead of Manpreet Gony (No. 10) who impressed no less as an allrounder last year. Probably, yes, to get the crucial runs if it came down to a collapse. But on this occasion, the match situation at six wickets down should probably had go the Chennai Superkings captain thinking differently. Joginder Sharma distinctly couldn't get the ball off the square for three or four deliveries on two separate occasions. I think the match was lost here for the Chennai Super Kings.

Chidambaram Stadium Paradox
Takes me back to 1997 when in a one-day series against Pakistan (Saeed Anwar's 194 n.o.) Indian chased the mammoth total well, with Dravid duly getting a century on the belter of a batsman's track. However, come the crunch and we have Nayan Mongia walking out at his appointed number when a slog was on to get those elusive runs in the last overs. Hey, wasn't Sunil Joshi the effusive left-handed allrounder, top hand player and all that, the right bet to displace Mongia, which Tendulkar somehow didn't think of. Lack of some imagination in the team's think tank at that stage. One or two blows over the heads of the fielders, mechanically more possible by Sunil Joshi would have set us on course but we fell woefully short. The paradox in this context is that we're talking about the winning Mumbai Indians captain donning the role at Chennai a decade ago. Hope some cues are taken in Indian cricket and if this analysis is right... there is no batting order cast in stone in limited-overs cricket.