Crystallize the idea

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

Is an idea a bane unless of course it sounds brilliant first up? How will Indian cricket prepare for the future?

Indian cricket seems to have entered a new mature era. Foresight. Their top test cricketers are now regularly rested so they can play heady series like Down Under and whichever else the Board deems necessary. Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid and the veterans, including trump card Dhoni look fresher when they head out.

When MS Dhoni captained India to their 2007 T20 World Cup win in South Africa and topped the following year with establishing India in the top three rankings in most forms of cricket, India breathed easy and was delighted. The team also looked balanced and even had legends like Dravid, Tendulkar, Sehwag, the pace bowling though fast-medium at best, was looking composed with RP Singh as the new strike bowler and veteran Zaheer Khan.

Some pundits however warned that that was the time to shred the old Indian laxative mentality which in bygone eras had assumed 'The team has arrived.' It historically led to a take-it-easy philosophy in terms of what to do with Indian cricket planning. Wise people opined that Indian needed to focus on succession planning, even if 'stick with the best while they last' was a trend that would continue. If a new crescendo had been reached because of the talismanic qualities of skipper Dhoni, even a new skipper had to be groomed about four years since that period.

That wisdom would now ring true. Welcome to a new era in Indian cricket, the age of the outspoken cricketer. Even at what can be considered a mid-career-phase for arguably India's best ever captain, Dhoni has said he is not sure of playing the next world cup in 2015 and would decide by 2013. He's stuck to his guns in the sense that when casually asked two years ago when "if at all" he would consider retirement, he said "Definitely before Sachin Tendulkar." It was of course his testimony to Tendulkar's undying passion but had a ring of trueness about his own ambitions.

Purists, then, would typically be shocked to hear that the most valuable player in a team who made his debut 15 years after another player would actually consider retirement before him. But the shock is less. People have realised that cricketers have ambitions of their own, commitments to family and interests outside cricket. Yet, the statistic is though procative.

Well, with the modern-day lessons learned that time passes too fast and the tiring nature of Indian cricket exhausts cricketers faster, the BCCI too has decided it will form a pool of fast bowlers all ready to play at a ‘telephone call.’ As opposed to nurturing the chosen few who represent the country currently and 'grooming’ youngsters. Indeed, the volume of cricket played by Indians is alarming and these solutions should actually be applied to even regular batsmen, spin bowlers and even wicket keepers. Surely, Parthiv Patel figuring regularly in Indian teams is an indication that administrators are wary of their main gloveman missing out because of injury.

Anyway, coming back to things more pleasing to the eye, what better treat than to have our famed trio of Tendulkar, Dravid and Laxman playing on for another three years in Tests? So, what’s the solution to see that happen, considering that age nowadays is only a number? Play them only in series identified as crucial or iconic. It does not mean necessarily play them in an England series in England just because it's the home of cricket. Australia, a destination with unique challenges, South Africa a hard-as-nails nation in cricket and a Pakistan series are the must-have selectives to prolong careers of these warriors.

Just picture the scenario that we build an India team without these three playing against New Zealand, Sri Lanka, the West Indies and others. Suddenly, we have them for crucial series in tough conditions. Does that not add an X factor, a potent item for a series win? Therefore, we have the resources and abilities to build purely a rotational team. Well, almost rotational.

John Buchanan

To reject an idea after due consideration is fine but never must we stick to old methods just because they were at one time considered correct? When a futuristic Aussie coach suggested that he field three captains in the Indian Premier League, a former great criticized him straightaway and we lapped up that conventional wisdom contentedly. How many of us bothered to analyse that the coach, John Buchanan, meant having separate thinkers for batting, bowling and fielding and the idea needed to be at least tried in an environment of less pressure? It seems that the general outcry against it led it abandonment in the crystallizing phase.

We are usually ready to accept that the pressure on Dhoni is more because he has to be the captain, the thinker; Remember, how his batting style changed after he became skipper, from being of gay abandon to that of a cautious, late-firing type?

So, why can’t we accept that when a player does not have to be the thinker in say, keeping tabs on the batting order, his own batting may flower. This would be possible in the experimentative scenario of multiple captains. But change is too strong an idea for us to accept, huh?

Careful India, the future is here already. Will you make the mistake of idea rejection?

Succession Planning

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

Should MS Dhoni be cloned? Not in a science lab but by the BCCI. The star captain has done more to transform Indian cricket than arguably any player in its history. Do we simply wait for the future (and captains) to unfold? Is there anything to be passed on from Dhoni?


Best Captain Ever

MS Dhoni has been referred to as Captain Cool, Captain Fantastic and also acknowledged by former Test cricketers as the best Indian captain ever.

In the same era, India has developed another facet, of bench strength, that is, having a larger pool of active players. Of course, part of that has been because the Indian team plays more cricket than any other country.

Successful Succession Planning
Finally, looking back from the early part of the 2000 decade, India seems to have done succession planning. It continued blooding young players and re-trying discarded wonder boys instead of resting on the established one. But few can doubt down that beneath these systematic approaches, golden touch captain MS Dhoni has been responsible for India’s two major successes during his barely four-year term – the T20 World Cup 2007 and the World Cup 2011. Of course, India became a powerhouse in all formats of the game, leave these more coveted trophies.

As an Individual MS Dhoni’s captaincy record stretches to winning two IPL trophies and one Champions League T20 trophy , besides of course his team Chennai Super Kings figuring in the semi finals of all four editions of the former.

Future-captain camp
Is it a good time to table a meeting with Dhoni and ask him to train our ‘future captain?’ Be in Suresh Raina or Virat Kohli or anyone else. It’s a camp only metaphorically, because the effort would be to make the incumbent to observe the skipper’s style, changes and communication methods. For that matter, it’s even worth asking MS who he forsees as his kind of a captain.

Grey haired Dhoni captains on..
It’s easily possible that Dhoni will captain India at least until the next World Cup in 2015. Why, even if age catches up with him, the selectors may play him into relative ‘old age’ just like England did Mike Brearley in the early ‘80s. Brearley did not command his place in the side on his playing abilities but was a psychologist cricketer whose side subsequently beat the ‘old enemy’ Australia in the series titled ‘Botham’s Ashes.’

The Probables
There’s no doubt that Virat Kohli is a player and captain of good ability. Although everyone has their style, should not the BCCI ‘migrate’ the captaincy style of Jharkhand’s Dhoni to the Captain Elect of India.

Shelf Life
Well, it may be too early to take this approach if the selectors persist with Dhoni purely on captaincy abilities until the 2019 World Cup. But one never knows what developments sprout. Dhoni himself has said that he will play until he enjoys the game and has even jokingly rebutted questions of supposed retirement plans. Perhaps more as a testimony to Tendulkar’s undying passion for the game, he predicts that his retirement will probably come before the past master’s.

SWOT analysing India's World Cup Quarters Victory

World Cup 2011 Quarter-final, 24th March, India Vs Australia, Ahmedabad

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

Who was the real hero, no doubt it was a combined effort that helped India vanquish invincible Australia in the World Cup quarter-final?

Celebrating the 'Heroes'

Well, India performed reasonably in repairing their ‘batting collapse’ gene while beating World Champions Australia. Sure, the whole nation is in raptures because their favourite boy Yuvraj who can send the ball soaring over fences fired off. And the ‘match finisher’ Suresh Raina lived up to his old name.

 Introspect

Surely, any side will not be perfect in executing its plan and for this, the India batters may escape flak because they won and also by seemingly a substantial margin of 15 balls and 5 wickets. Let's throw a spanner into the works. The margin was always bound to be the extreme of either 15 balls or close to 0 balls. Raina hit a six when about 20 runs were needed but few would realize that this was ‘the only way to go.’ The Aussies, no doubt a mean fielding bunch, did not have the long off and it was actually easier to do that than hit a 4 or even tickle the ball around for 1 or 2 on the off side. 

AAgreed, it takes gumption to play the shot, which Raina displayed. But there is no harm in calling it a regulation strike viewing the fact that India is a world class side. That mentioned, let’s move on to two worrying factors that can be addressed as the side prepares for the next battle.

 PROBLEM AREAS FOR INDIA TO ADDRESS:

1.       No calling: No doubt Gambhir ‘tried twice before but finally succeeded in the third successive ball to run himself out’ as the commentators dryly added. The real problem would seem to be that Yuvraj was not issuing a ‘no’ call. In the ball where the former was run out, yes, it would seem to be Gambhir’s call because the ball was played behind the stumps. However, Yuvraj, instead of looking up at what his partner was doing, seemed pre-occupied with himself. Gambhir too would be at fault for not calling ‘yes,’ when the call was his, which fact is evidenced by Yuvraj not even looking up after playing the ball. Neither did the stump mic pick up any calling.

Indians are irked at Gambhir's running but was Yuvraj who later apologised alert enough?

It would be hard to believe that the Indians are following the ‘striker will call’ method, no matter which part of the field the ball has gone to. (The Australians have followed this since the mid ‘90s, which undoubtedly requires aggressive running). If Gambhir ran so confidently, unfortunately while at fault for not calling, for the ball which was behind the stumps, it would seem the Indians don’t get tangled with this method.

2.        

Mediocrity against a full toss has exposed Kohli

2. Virat’s dismissal: Agreed that a full toss can make a batsman mistime the ball but Virat Kohli showed a distinctly aggressive path while not being sure where the short mid-on was.His unique technique means his legs cross over to maximize leverage and the bat twists unconventionally, therefore limiting his options for other strokes. But with plenty of time available he could have eschewed the path of glamour. 

Missed middle of bat: He failed to digest that he didn’t get the ball onto bat’s sweet spot or for that matter see the closeby mid-on fielder. A dismissal that would popularly rank as ‘soft’ however this batter really needs to take a deep dive. Are his previous century exploits making him feel his has the full repertoire? Is the guarantee given by the team management of his playing all world cup matches making him lax?

Winner factors: After handling our lacunae, let’s identify what real factors tilted the match towards us. Sure, disciplined bowling tamed the Australians. But remember the Aussies are no mean defenders of 260. Factors:

POSSIBLE 'MEN OF THE MATCH':

1.      1.  Sachin Tendulkar: Kudos may flow freely to Yuvraj, Raina and even Sehwag but Sachin Tendulkar can be considered the real match winner. Defending 260, the Aussie bowling and fielding raised itself, the former being especially disciplined and backed eagerly by Ponting’s off side cordon prowling in every ball to prompt the uppish stroke. It was the way that Tendulkar handled this that quietly disintegrated the Aussies.

Was Tendulkar's chiselled 50 worth of  the Man of the Match award?

No Yuvraj, Sehwag, Dhoni or Yusuf heroics would have managed that, where on the contrary each four or six hit by these powerful men at that stage would have made the Australians feel they were closer to drawing blood.

Remember, Dhoni’s famous words about 3 years ago, saying “since the Australians are used to winning matches in a certain way, if you upset that system, they find it difficult to win.” Tendulkar did precisely that for his team. Again, it was not his run-ball strike rate but the method of scoring.

Did Dhoni's 'mini strokes' to bowl Sachin, Virat take away the Aussies' rhythm?

2.       2. Dhoni’s surprise overs: Bowling Kohli and Tendulkar for one sudden over each at different stages of the match may each pass over as an unconnected incident to winning the match. Especially since neither over fetched a wicket, nor was a maiden or a very frugal one. However with each of these overs, where about 6 and 9 runs respectively were conceded, the Indian captain had made the Aussie batsmen think instead of settling down to a regular albeit better bowler. 

Opposition guessing?: When Kohli and Tendulkar were replaced by other bowlers, the Aussies must have experienced the ‘bluff’ that maybe Dhoni would charge them too, which of course he didn’t. All this cerebral work would have seen 5-6 overs go by, therefore proving an innocuous game changer against a strong Aussie side.

Jaded Milestones?

World Cup 2011, 20th March, India Vs West Indies

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

Are players’ personal targets a bane to the team? Should they be ‘handled’ differently?

How many balls are being consumed when a batsman is one stroke away from a century? Are the missed runs affecting results?

Records, bah!

The Indian obsession with milestones, thankfully mostly with the spectators, continues. Everybody was baying for Tendulkar’s 100th century in the game against the Windies at Chennai, even before the innings had resumed. On the contrary, the shrewder but smaller flock heaved a sigh of relief when the master got out early – apparently India boost their chances of losing by 70% whenever Tendulkar scores a century!

Live Another Day

Not that the statistically suave folk mind Sachin achieving the landmark. They’d rather he did it in a more inconsequential game outside of the World Cup. Of course this match was marginally inconsequential to both teams who’d already qualified for the knockouts, but then, you don’t want to risk losing your tempo in a once-in-four-year World Cup. Well, India won the match.

Milestones to the Winds

Anyway, the topic of discussion is why don’t players, maybe in a more public perspective, forget about milestones? The best milestone would be the victory achieved in that match, no matter how inconsequential the match itself. Why can’t a player, people and a whole nation recognize the times when a player got out at 99 trying to force the tempo? Signify that effort as a milestone.

Contradictions

We’re doing contrary analyses these days. We universally accept the fact that every run needs to be saved while fielding and one in ten matches can be potentially won by a single run. So why not forsake the milestone?

How to Approach a Milestone

Why can’t a player actually attack when he’s at the milestone, therefore, if he gets out there will be no complaint that a ‘few balls were consumed.’ Of course, if he gets away with it, his personal fifty or hundred too would have been achieved and his side’s momentum untouched.

Run Rate Dilemma

Commentators put too much archaic emphasis on 'run rate'

Only J P Duminy has been forthright and related to the press that he wasn’t bothered about his milestone (he was dismissed in the 90s) in a recent World Cup match. Then, there is yet another obsession among the public and commentators, that of the run rate. Agreeably, a run rate of 8 to 10 is considered achievable at the end of the innings (last ten overs) but too much thought is being is being put into it.

Only JP Duminy has declared he is not bothered when a hair breath from the landmark!

Outside Influences

Twenty20 cricket, whose influence and strategies have percolated to 50-over cricket, has taught us that none of the targets considered unachievable, yet worth of discussion, in the period before 2007, are like that anymore. 2007 represented the dawn of a new era with the global accepting of the T20 format and the enhanced power and skills of those playing it.

Determinants of the Chase

Momentum, How the Pitch is Playing Currently and Wickets in Hand can be the only three determinants for whether a team is on track for a potential victory. Michael Hussey needed 18 runs off the last over to win the semi-final for Australia in the T20 World Cup of 2010. The whole world believed it was ‘possible’ yet distinctly unlikely, but the reverse was proven.

Magnify

Michael Hussey's winning last over effort in the Word Cup T20 semis, 2010 showed that ideal run-rate theories can be thwarted.

Well, let's multiply Hussey’s ‘challenge’ and the 'resources available' (balls) by a factor or three to construct an imaginary one in an ODI or T20 innings. Here, it’s unrealistic to expect to get 54 runs off 3 overs. Therefore, let’s assign 10 runs as 'achievable' off each of the other 2 overs. 38 runs needed off 3 overs. Outside reach….?

Outside the Punter’s Reach?

Commentators are likely to say that a rate of 12+ is unlikely to be achieved? The ball-to-run comparers think “38 in 18 balls” “is closer to 40 runs” and therefore, ‘outside the realm of possibility.’ Naysayers! Sure, we need one ‘big over’ of about 18 runs, but largely, the thinking of most analysts remains rooted. One wonders if this affects the teams’ thinking also.

Well, Hussey showed it does not. So, isn’t the breathable ozone layer the limit, if not indeed the sky? Message to the world - “Think high, think ‘sky’!”

Crack the Middle Order Code

India Vs South Africa, 12^th March, World Cup 2011

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

Match summary: India 296 all out (48.3 overs) lost to South Africa 300 for 7 (49.4 overs)
 

Well, everybody in India was ruing the ‘throwing away of their wickets’ after being on 267 for 1  in 39.3 overs. In analyzing the Indian innings:

Pros:

1.      1.  The start was perfect by Tendulkar, Sehwag and Gambhir (267 until the second wicket fell with 10.3 overs to go)

2.       2. Tendulkar (out to an aerial shot at point) probably was told to get on with accelerating the rate immediately when the powerplay was taken. Therefore, the team was communicating within itself.

3.     3.  Gambhir and Pathan, wickets number 3 and 4 to fall had the license to hit because it was the powerplay. Yes, we know the criticism about batting powerplays ironically having a converse effect on teams. It’s now the talk of town, but remember, up until that point, this was not firmly established. These guys were partially innocent.

Cons:

1.       1. Yuvraj: If he got a full toss, he should know that he HAS to put it into the stands. Yet he chose to believe that his natural ‘masculinity’ would carry the ball through whereas it was pouched by Mornie Morkel well before the boundary line. Shame that a full toss, that too from a medium pacer like Kallis could not get what it deserved from one of the strongest hitters in the world.

India's strong batting failed after a superb start

2.       2. Zaheer Khan: Sure, he’s not a batter but when he came in with 7 wickets down and Dhoni there, shouldn’t he have known that either he should nudge singles to give his skipper the strike, or else if wanting to hit a ball should put it into the stands or try for a boundary. Just like Yuvraj, he gave a lukewarm hard shot straight into a deep fielder’s hand. Sheesh! What use is all that experience?

By Strategy

Well, pros than cons and yes, we seemed to be playing to a strategy by coach Gary Kirsten. Some of those dismissals were ‘with the run of play.’ No point going on a witch hunt everytime!

Emotional Shot Making

One thing stands out – we were against a ‘method’ side, much like Australia who really capitalize on the traditional emotional shot making of Indians. Gambhir deciding he can do it two balls after Sachin left… Yusuf deciding the same within an over and Yuvi too… Not that India didn’t have a license to hit from the coach, but ‘ball selection’ of the shot to play at was somewhere between mediocre and underdeveloped.

Method Vs Flair

The other thing that stands out about these ‘method’ sides is that they never fold up the way Indian or Pakistani sides do, much as the latter two are touted for high skills. Australia and South Africa exercise great discretion in shot making even if the ball is effortlessly flying off their batsmen’s blades for sixes and fours.

Work on Specific Psychological Faults

Therefore we’ll always be a poorer side to these unless we work on micro aspects in our ‘collective approach’ to batting. Sure, we’ve admitted in recent times to our inabilities to handle the short ball or for that matter in diving around to field, where hopefully our corrective efforts are bearing fruit. It’s time now to get humble.. our so called famed world-class batting side with its supple wrists etc fails to perform and need lessons there too! Not so much physical but psychological.

Avoid Blaming our Triers

Now, let’s not blame Yuvraj or Gambhir’s dropping of catches during this match because these things do happen. Yuvraj ran short of luck while trying maybe to think too much about the oncoming catch at short mid on whereas Gambhir distinctly slipped in the outfield in the late part of the Proteas’s innings and as a result, the catch evaded h­im.

Where else to Point the Finger?

What else can be sought out as a reason for poor performance? Not particularly Virat’s ‘soft’ dismissal of giving a return catch to the left arm spinner Peterson. That’s the guy’s technique, his flambouyant blade and unfortunately the angles did him in. Everybody’s bound to have an off day.

Good to Have an ‘Off Day’ Early

Well, after a tie with England and a dip against South Africa it may augur well to get some early lessons during the tournament. We’ll probably pull off some stunners after the quarter final, provided we make it there. It’s the accepted theory about peaking at just the right time. Remember, India’s captain Dhoni can do little wrong in the longer context of a well spaced out tournament … or so the Indians believe.

Change Umpire's Rules - Judge Batsman's 'Intent'

World Cup 2011, 2nd March

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

Ian Bell's LBW Referral

Indian captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni’s acrimonious call about the Umpire Decision Review System being flawed may have created ripples through the media and its followers. When England batsman Ian Bell’s leg-before refusal was referred for Review, the ball clearly seemed to be hitting the stumps and the skipper was apt to believe that the batsman would be given out. However, the reviewed judgment maintained ;not out' on the basis that he had played well forward and was 2.5 metres from the stumps. 

Whose Call Is it Anyway?

A disappointed Dhoni made his point after the match about the review system being flawed. However, what the Indian skipper did not realize is that the UDRS is merely an aid to the umpire who is the end is the final arbiter. When viewed from this perspective, it seems okay. In fact, it gives the appealing team the benefit of knowing that the opinion of another umpire (TV umpire) has been considered. In the framing of rules in the future, some things need to be considered if they haven’t already:

Tall batsmen can play half forward and get away!

1.      1.  Intent: Because a tall guy can even play half forward and get a reprieve whereas somebody who’s Tendulkar’s height of 5’ 5” would be adjusted leg before, how far can we stretch objectivity? By objectivity we mean that it’s logical that over a greater distance of the pad from the stumps, stark deviations in the ball’s path are more likely. But this theory has to be quashed merely to avoid batsman with bigger shanks taking advantage of ‘common logic.’  Joel Garner or Kieron Pollard at 6’ 8” would play half forward with a chance of scoring more off the ball instead of a more defensive fully forward stroke.

Conclusion: Make the rule so that only if the batsman is fully forward, will the umpire consider ‘not out’ as the likely call. This is irrespective of how far down the pitch he already is or whether he's a tall man or short. 

Remember, however, that the ump is the final arbiter and any subjectivity from him is fine. These are rather guidelines than rules that will govern umpires’ decision making.

2.

Batsmen stand well outside their crease to unfairly negate lbws

2. 2.Batsman standing well outside his crease: While this is the likely scenario only when the wicket-keeper is standing back (obviously when the pacers are bowling), many batsmen are resorting to it to avoid the lbw decision. One can even imagine a batsman playing from ‘the area where he’s standing,’ well outside, (what would effectively have been his crease), neither fully forward nor half cocked. And when wrapped on the pad they would be difficult to give out by the ‘common logic’ of being a good distance from the stumps.

By the way, some of us traditionally believed that a batsman standing well outside his crease risks playing the ball 'faster' over a distance less than 20 yards and would be loathe to it. That is an old wives’ tale now. Throughout the 1990s’, if not earlier, batters started to stand well outside their creases to 'meet the ball' before it began to swing.

Conclusion: The rules should be amended to state that, like in point 1 above, a batsman’s lbw verdict would be decided on the basis of ‘intent’ of the batsman to either play fully forward (giving him the benefit of doubt) or conversely, of playing either half cocked, from the crease, or back, whence he would not be given the benefit.

Although a forward stroke, the Sweep invited lbws in the 1990s

3.       3. Batsmen playing fully forward have been given out in the last 20 years: It was only at the dawn of the ‘90s decade that umpires starting raising their finger when the batsman tried to sweep a spinner, missed and had the ball hit the leading pad. Until then, traditional mindsets and the rule of law prohibited many. 

Why? Because a sweep stroke was considered an example of a batsman playing ‘fully forward’; the position of his leading pad is as far out as that of a batsman playing a fully forward straight-bat stroke.

So, what was the deciding factor in the umpires’ turning so bold? Answer: “The batsman is taking liberties by playing across the line of the ball.” 

Just because the rules state that a batsman playing well forward should be given the benefit of the doubt, he should not take advantage of that cover.

This quiet revolution, hailed by more than a few commentators about twenty years ago has been well accepted. What we must realize is that subconsciously, umpires are judging ‘intent.’- intent either to play truly forward with humility to a ball that has them in a quandary, or intent to misuse some conveniences given to them.

Another good example that the cricket world does recognize ‘intent’ is that when a batsman merely pads a ball without an attempt at a stroke, he can be given out even if:

1.       1. The ‘point of impact’ is outside the line of the stumps

2.       2. He is playing forward

Why, even a leg bye is disallowed in the case of deliberate padding!

Conclusion: Well, with amazing benefits given to batsmen in the last 50 years such as if the ‘point of impact is outside the line of the stumps’ (if the batsman attempted a stroke) and that the ‘ball pitching outside leg-stump can never claim an lbw,’ it is time to re-write the laws to tighten things against them. Batters’ ‘intent’ must be judged in a fully forward stroke!