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.