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 Probably an outdated team strategy.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.