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.