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.
