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!

WORLD CUP 2011

India Vs Bangladesh, 19th February 2011, Mirpur, By Vikram Afzulpurkar

World Cup Under Way

Amidst somewhat mediocre TV production and unclear graphics, the world cup is under way with the India Bangladesh match. Well, the lead cameraman definitely didn’t know how to follow a regulation inside-out stroke from Sehwag then there were instances of a blurred image. Aren’t these international TV teams or is a local flavor of Mirpur in Bangladesh? TV guys, this is the world cup, buck up.

Correct Strategy

Bangladesh’s chase to India’s mighty 370 was a candid view of what might be the commonly accepted strategy in the second decade of the 2000 CE century - consolidation particularly against strong teams. Well, don’t forget we’ve had three glorious years to grow into 20-20 and certainly some psyches and strokes may be migrated into 50 over cricket. Suddenly this ‘glorious format’ will hog the attention of the world audience like no time has done since the September 2007 albeit T20 World Cup. 

Wickets in Hand

The Bangla Tigers’ score of 234-4 with about ten overs to go might have hinted at a chance to go for the remaining 137 runs at the rate of 14 per over. Well, India is no pushover in bowling but the adventurous Bangla fan might have harbored some hope. She’d say, what if the Tigers considered this a Twenty20 match from this point on with six wickets in hand. 137 needed off 60 balls achievable with some lusty hitting and a little luck.

At this stage, matters of minor help for Bangladesh would be that they were facing a six-over-old hard new ball that clonks easier to the fence (a second compulsory new ball is taken after over 34), and then, a Powerplay may create gaps. Of course that wasn’t to be but perhaps the Tigers had the correct general strategy. If they’d tried to push the rate along faster from say over 30 to over 40, resulting in hypothetically 280 or 290 runs but for the loss of more wickets, say seven, it may have been a less favorable position. To have to chase 90 or 80 runs respectively with only three wickets in hand (possibly of tail-enders) in the last 10 overs would have inspired them less.

No dishonor in Defeat

Eventually Bangladesh ended up with 290 for 9 in 50 overs but probably giving them a better chance because of the strategy adopted. From the Indians’ point of view, Virendra Sehwag's 175 and Virat Kohli’s 100 hogged the limelight as did Munaf Patel's 4 bowling strikes.

Bowlers Getting Centuries - Harbhajan

1st Test, India Vs New Zealand, 4-8 Nov 2010

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

Another hero comes along
Indians are overjoyed. In the backdrop of coach Kirsten's prod that the current Indian cricket team may earn the tag of the greatest Indian team ever, the poster boy Harbhajan Singh, an off-spin bowler by all counts, SCORES A CENTURY batting AT NUMBER 3 (or 4) and RESCUES INDIA FROM POSSIBLE DEFEAT.

Take a closer look
With this writing on the wall, our fans are ecstatic but caution, my India! Cynical thought it sounds, explore the circumstances, rather the things that favoured him. Sure, it was a joyous result but let's not be overjoyed - the Kiwis had such an attacking field, the only go was (and it is his penchant) for the Sardar to go over the heads of the infield, which he did.

Certain situations allow for flair
These days, with the sheer number of pressure-situation-matches everybody can throw the bat (with moderate discretion of course). Yes, cricket is a hit-or-miss affair and on this day, the Punjab player didn't miss and got to 115. Interestingly, the other star of the day VVS Laxman (50 runs) got several plaudits about ten years ago for scoring 165 at a fast pace during a rubber against Australia. Emotional Indians as we are, our journalists wrote reams to the effect 'the boy stood on the burning deck, whence all but he had fled,' and even accused the Australian media of deriding this praise which the latter wrote he had scored when the field was 'in' as Australia had no go but to push for the win.
Reflect
There is a great element of truth in the critical media's appreciation which was grudging. These are the aspects fans need to understand.

World's Greatest?
At the moment team India are in some danger of getting lax because of excessive praise. Note that for the cricketing world, India is their oyster. IPL, Champions League, Indian investments in the Australian domestic T20 league are the components. Nobody wants to criticise India in this decade. After all lucrative contracts are to be had for players, commentators, administrators as long as India is in. Look at the praise being lavished and judge whether it's overplayed:

• An Australian coach describing Suresh Raina as 'the best young talent.' (As if there isn't in Australia, Pakistan etc)
• Dean Jones in 2007 describing Ishant Sharma as the 'next superstar of world cricket' (Is he even a star today?)
• Venkatesh Prasad being talked about as part of Team Australia cricket staff. (He's good but that good to invite global attention?)
• Gary Sobers making a press statement that "Subhash Gupte was a better leg-spin bowler than Shane Warne" for whatever specific reasons. (Did Gupte even get the accolade of being the best during his time in the '60s?)
• There's hardly been a dirty sledge against any Indian batsman (or bowler) since 2008 when the first IPL was held and huge money from 'Indian coffers' became a possibility for any player on the globe.
• A relative nondescript in current day context like Murali Kartik getting an English county contract. He's neither a current Indian player nor truly incisive. (Jolly good effort, eh, old chap? Please some Kolkata Knight Riders' selectors or administrators to 'consider' some players from England for future IPLs?)

Think India, think and filter this world praise, some of it self promoted of course.

Mumbai Indians Prove Inept

Champions League T-20 2010
Mumbai Indians Vs South Australian Redbacks, 14 September 2010

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

The Mumbai Indians' sad display in not defending 180 against the Redbacks is a case in point of Indian self-centredness in glory as opposed to Australian/South African phegmatism even in bang-bang cricket. What were Rayadu and Saurabh Tiwary thinking in trying to cart a six when they holed out, considering their respective overs had yielded sufficient runs? The latter was undoubtedly going for his fourth consecutive in that over which had seen something like 4,2,6,6,6,_ before he flashed his macho mane and bat.

There's also a doubt about whether the Indian section of the TV commentary team is analysing correctly. Just because one version said the pitch was worth 140 runs they summed up that anything over and above was a boon, therefore calling the target of 181 for the Redbacks an uphill task. In that light, Tiwary was portrayed as a hero who supposedly got unlucky in trying harder.

By now, it should be famil1ar gospel in 20-20 that if you've batted well, then you ought to carry on responsibly because it is your day. If you can't because of a good ball or a difficult situation, no minus marks. After all you've made the opposition feel they'll have to work hard to get their wickets. On the contrary, if you display that you are game for personal glory (under the guise of team glory) you've shown your weakness. The opposition immediately has its tail up.

Another failure of TV pundits is to accredit knocks from batsmen that are close to the two-runs-a-ball average, for example 47 off 26 balls as already good and on that premise that these hallowed batsmen can now do little wrong. What must instead be understood is that no contribution is complete until the batter responsibly plows the furrow. Till good balls do him part.

The context of run-a-ball or more-than-a-run-a-ball is wrongly being portrayed as an index of the batsmen batting well, a definite hangover from 50-over cricket, where again in its early days, this average was definitely a positive. Contrary to this thinking, one must appreciate that even 26 runs in 30 balls can be a great contribution at that point, depending on matured a way the batsmen understood the situation and saw off not necessarily a hostile situation, but a lukewarm one prone to even greater dangers of over-hitting.

Kieron Pollard on his part played well and learned from his previous game's mistake where he tried for glory at an inappropriate time. Today, he finally perished in the end overs when it was necessary for a big man like him to bang it at whatever cost. Therefore, full marks. If only his predecessors had taken the cue, which it would be good if they do, however, it's now a fairly Asiatic malaise to try for glory. Time will tell, hopefully another story.

One can assign little blame to the Mumbai Indian bowlers, except for Zaheer Khan's failed reverse swing attempts resulting in full tosses when Harris or the other Redbacks' batsmen flicked for sixes at a time when it was yet possible to claw back into the game. At the start, no wicket fell until the Redbacks scored about 112, which is what you'd expect on a good pitch particularly when it isn't going to be the Mumbai Indians day. Yes, the odd catch will also be dropped because at the Redbacks' score of about 90 because the fielding side is under that much more pressure to get their first scalp. This needn't mean the death of fielding and the public at large must also be careful not to blame the loss on poor outcricket or bad bowling. It was a pitch full of runs and when batting, individuals in the Mumbai Indians' team should have eschewed belligerence at the inappropriate time, therefore leading to a higher total. One can argue that 200 would have been a do-able total from the Indian outfit.

In the end the Redbacks reached home quite easily, therefore shredding the TV pundits' theory that 180 from the Mumbai Indians was a big score.

Scrap the Duleep - Clear the Calendar

15th February 2010

By Vikram Afzulpurkar

Well, the backdrop is of two of the most exciting finals of domestic Indian tournaments within barely days of each other. It's going to make our blood run thick about national cricket tournaments. Mumbai edged out Karnataka by six runs in the Ranji finals, during which Manish Pandey's brilliance brought the latter ever so close to winning. There was more in store only days later - The Duleep Trophy final.

Classic Duleep final
The Duleep final, though not seeming as close, was a monumental effort from both sides, but especially for West Zone's Yusuf Pathan who seemed to have achieved the impossible. Even in these days of wider imagination and scores of 433 being chased in 50 overs. Yusuf powered West's world record first class chase of 513 when punters probably weren't even willing to offer odds. His double hundred second innings effort sealed it, but wait, there was more earlier. He'd scored a hundred in the first innings!

Dinesh Karthick led from the front for South with hundreds in both innings, not to mention stewarding his side to give them the early advantage. Herculean efforts and great entertainment. The games before the final though did not seem to have the same hunger for the players; somehow, state pride comes above so called zone pride if there is such a thing.

Scrap or not?
I opine that the Duleep Trophy be scrapped however. No doubt, the odd match will be a good show. But the clarion call from wise players, Dravid recently, is strong, that the calendar is crunched and therefore some tournament needs to be shelved.

Dravid's case is strong because he's telling us specifically that domestic cricket itself is suffering because captains play defensively by holding back their key bowlers so as to not tire them for the matches to come. An easier calendar will allow them rest and recovery. This is the best example of end-user feedback which must be heeded, or else the cricket establishment will let it pass.

So, we're staring at an irony here - scrap a domestic tournament, which recently provided a grand fest, while serving a good cause to domestic tournaments in general. Not to mention that these kids playing the domestic tourneys will lift their game and graduate to playing for the country.

A Step Back in Time
A historical perspective can delve into two periods - perhaps the late 1930s and then the mid 1990s. At both these points, there were scarcely enough cricket, relative to the eras, being played to groom youngsters in India. To the Ranji Trophy, which Mahatma Gandhi approved as opposed to the Pentangular which was run on regional lines, was therefore added another tournament. It sought to combine the best of each cricket zone in the country, apparently providing cricket for the selectors to view. And what better name to give it than the Duleep Trophy after an illustrious son of Indian origin, Duleepsinghji.

The Birth and Intent of Modern Domestic Tournaments
The mid '90s represents another period, when the Indian Board decided to add tournaments like the Challenger Trophy, and in any case many other tournaments including the Irani Trophy had already been born. A good solution at the time. However, we all know the cash rich nature of today's cricket and consumerism. Many more tournaments were added in the fifteen years since the Challenger. Some of them are corporate driven and cannot be axed because India Inc fuels cricket growth today and to a good cause.

If this action of scrapping relatively dead tournaments is to see light, some more can come under the axe:

The Irani: Is nothing but a chauvinistic show of Mumbai's might, characteristic of their winning the Ranji Trophy for something like 15 successive years, starting from the late '50s. There is no sting in that theory now because as Mumbai themselves will admit, there are many more sides hard to beat in this professional era.

The Challenger (NKP Salve) Trophy: In today's Academy-led grooming and selection process, this tournament's viewer response too is poor. Sure, the selectors watch these but more out of habit.


We need to take some fast action. For posterity's sake, Duleepsingh's name can be lent to another tournament which better catches the public eye in this era, even if it's a 20-20.