Drinks Break - The Cricket Blog

At the risk of sounding unpatriotic, I must confess that I was delighted to read that Sharad Pawar’s power games have hit a roadblock, with the West Indies and South African boards refusing to back his candidature for the post of ICC president. Given that the Asian bloc (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh) is forever at loggerheads with the England-Australia-New Zealand combine on election (and most other) matters, the West Indies, South Africa and Zimbabwe votes are typically decisive. And although Zimbabwe has extended support to Pawar, the other two votes appear to be headed the way of David Morgan, Pawar’s rival candidate from the England Cricket Board.

What prompted the West Indies Cricket Board and Cricket South Africa to take on the BCCI is not clear as yet, but by all accounts, theirs is a brave decision. Incurring the wrath of the world’s wealthiest cricket board could easily spell financial ruin for the offender. And the WICB and CSA would have been aware that the BCCI, accustomed to muscling its way to victory on the international stage, is not going to take too kindly to this betrayal. Much like American sanctions against disobedient countries, the BCCI would be exploring all the punitive techniques available at its disposal.

But revenge will not be on Pawar’s mind for some time. For now, he would be more involved with lobbying to win support from associate members of the ICC – his last shot at upstaging Morgan. If he fails, another David would have felled a mighty Goliath. But it’s not the romanticism of an underdog’s victory that we should celebrate.
 
We should instead celebrate that an inept cricket administrator has been kept out of world cricket’s most responsible office. A man, who swept to the helm of the BCCI on the back of an exciting manifesto, has failed to deliver on his promises – now it’s only fair that his ambitions of presiding over the ICC are spiked.

This may appear to be an unduly harsh assessment of Pawar’s performance. After all, we’ve been endlessly informed about the multiple multi-million dollar deals that have been struck during his tenure, swelling the BCCI’s coffers to unprecedented levels. It is undeniable that the rich board has got much richer. Unfortunately for Indian cricket, that is all it has achieved.

Ugly witch-hunts against political opponents have taken priority over the promised professionalization of the administration. Confidential reports and emails now leak almost as a matter of regulation, and the board chief doesn’t see anything improper in “putting in a word” for certain players to the selectors. Pay checks of domestic cricketers have not increased in accordance with what was pledged, and stadia and infrastructure in the country largely remain in the despicable state that they were in before. The selection committee chief says there is “no new talent” in India, but pumping funds aggressively into talent development is a thought that hasn’t crossed Pawar’s mind.

To be fair, Jagmohan Dalmiya, the ICC’s only other Indian president, could have been accused of all these shortcomings and more. But at the time, his marketing acumen was lifesaving for a cash-starved ICC. The ICC now finds itself in a comfortable financial position, so the only skill Pawar has on his cricketing CV is unlikely to be of significant use to them – especially as it will be available only when he is not discharging his responsibilities as Union Agriculture Minister, chief of the Nationalist Congress Party and sugar industry baron in Maharashtra.

With umpiring controversies, racial slurs, ball tampering allegations and now even match-fixing dogging the game, the ICC is in need of dynamic, able and transparent leadership. A barrel of empty promises like Sharad Pawar is not the solution.

The most immediate cause for concern after the attack on Greg Chappell in Bhubaneshwar before the second India-WI one-dayer, is the glaring lapse on the part of the security agencies. For a team that is living and playing under the shadow of persistent terrorist threats, one would have imagined that arrangements would have been strong enough to keep at least a deranged “fan” from coming in physical contact with members of the team. Fortunately, Chappell escaped unhurt from the attack and the man has been arrested. But the possibilities of what might have happened had something with more elaborate and vicious designs been attempted, are quite frightening.

After the dust settles on this issue – it will eventually, once a few regulation heads roll in the security establishment and the inevitable “high level probe” is ordered by the authorities – I wonder whether we will find time to address some other disturbing questions arising out of this incident. Questions that have been lurking round the corner for some time now, begging to be answered, but which we refuse to even acknowledge because we don’t want to be disturbed from the happy stupor we’ve fooled ourselves into.

These are questions that ask us to look into the mirror – and answer whether the face we see in it belongs to an aficionado of a gentleman’s game, or to an intolerant, parochial and foul-mouthed ruffian.

These are questions that ask us why, when we accept that zonal chauvinism is unhealthy for the game, we still unabashedly hold on to our own little regional biases. These are questions that ask us why we complain of racism against our cricketers overseas, when we ourselves have populated the North Stand of the Wankhede Stadium and perpetrated nasty racial abuse against a touring West Indies team. These are questions that ask us why, instead of glowing with pride that Mohammad Kaif, a young son of a railway ticket inspector from Eastern UP, has risen to represent India on the international stage, we readily deface the house that his family stays in every time he performs below our expectations.

These are questions that ask us to step out of the veil of devotion to the game which we’ve been hiding behind all this time. And expose ourselves for the fanatics that we are – not cricket fanatics, just ordinary ones.

I remember that during my engineering exams, I always hoped that the questions on sections of the syllabus I had not read through would be in the “optional” part of the question paper – I’d avoid them, and still get through. But there was always the fear of them appearing in the dreaded “compulsory” section, which meant a huge penalty for not answering them.

For long, we as the cricket-following public have tried to play the same game – hoping that these uncomfortable questions will be optional, that we’ll get by without answering them. Unfortunately, as the bigotry and crudeness that has become a part of almost everything in our lives, now takes over even our cricket, these questions are slowly creeping in to the “compulsory” section.

We better start preparing to answer them now, we better try to change the ugly face of the person we see when we look into the mirror – the penalty, otherwise, might be larger than we can bear.

If Nagpur in 2004 marked the beginning of the end of his reign at the helm of Indian cricket, then Nagpur in 2007 will be remembered for being the highlight of Sourav Ganguly’s authoritative comeback to the international arena. Then, he was a beleaguered captain accused of feigning injury before a series-deciding test match; a general who appeared to have lost his winning ways and, more significantly, the trust of his lieutenants. Now, many months of cricketing exile later, the warrior has chosen the same battlefield to announce that he is back – with vintage cover drives still in his arsenal, but a new-found determination to succeed undoubtedly his most potent weapon.

This determination hasn’t manifested itself just in the aggressive intent with which he took on the Caribbean bowlers in Nagpur, or even in the manner in which he dug in against a fierce South African pace attack in the recent test series. It has shone through in every little thing he has done, both on and off the field – from his willingness to bat wherever the team has needed him to, to his refusal to be drawn in to Chappell/Dalmiya-centric exchanges with the media; from his eagerness to get back to the nets even on official “rest days” for the team, to the constant reaffirmation that he is not in the race to be captain. When he has talked – about scoring runs and using his experience to win games for India – he has ensured that he has walked the talk.

It was also refreshing to see that the inevitability of his selection into the one-day squad after the solid South African tour didn’t prevent him from turning out for Bengal in their Ranji encounter against Rajasthan. (Incidentally, he compiled an impeccable run-a-ball century in that game to take Bengal to a thumping win.) He is clearly hungry to play and hungry to score runs. And it is this hunger that ensures that a tentative first-ball nudge now sails between slip and gully, rather than into the waiting hands of a fielder, like it almost always did a couple of years back. It is this keenness to contribute that makes him punch the air in disappointment when he misses out on a juicy half-volley outside the off-stump, even when the scoring rate is decent. It is this desperation to survive that takes the pain away from being hit by a 145-kph Ntini scorcher, as long as it leaves his stumps intact.

What all this means now is that Ganguly is again a prominent feature of India’s plans in both forms of the game. Along with Dravid, Sachin and Dhoni, he is the only batsman who has already assured himself of a seat on the flight to the West Indies in March – a huge achievement in itself, given that he was out in the cold till only a month back.

But if the recent attitude he has brought to his game is anything to go by, Ganguly will not even be thinking of resting on his laurels. The last time India competed for world cricket’s most coveted prize, he ended the tournament with a pat on the back and a tag that said “second-best”. This time, in what will undoubtedly be his last shot at World Cup glory, he’s got an appetite for much more. Some advice for opposition captains: fasten your seat belts; and ya, also try plugging those off-side gaps.

His last 10 ODI innings: 9, 8, 1, 10, 9, 17, 65, 0, 18, 11 (average 14.
His last 10 test innings: 31, 65, 0, 4, 4, 33, 0, 8, 40, 4 (average 18.9)

The last throw of the dice was to accommodate him down the order in the hope that his batting finds some direction. It hasn’t.

Now the only direction he must find is the way out of the team.

For his own good and for that of a team that has laboured under the burden of his abysmal form, Virender Sehwag must go.

While most sections of the media have billed Sourav Ganguly’s selection into the Indian test team as a ‘comeback’, it would perhaps be more fitting to describe it as the Bengal tiger’s ‘last chance’. As his supporters celebrate his return to the Test arena after a gap of ten months, even the most ardent of them know that a no-show in South Africa is likely to shut the door on his international career – forever.

No one would be more acutely aware of this than Ganguly himself. He has turned in a respectable report card this domestic season, but he knows his form has not been spectacular enough to carry him into the side independent of his past achievements. Of course, India’s woefully inept batting in the ODI series helped his cause, as also the fact that we finally have a selection committee that doesn’t make appalling pronouncements on “finished careers”.

Ganguly, however, cannot expect to be allowed to ride on past glory for too long. That he was India’s most prolific run-getter for a better part of three years is without doubt – but, at present, this is an irrelevant statistic. He will need to prove that he is amongst the top six batsmen in the country now, and that there is good reason to pick him ahead of players like S.Badrinath, who have been amassing mountains of Ranji runs of late. He can use his monumental series-defining 144 against Australia in Brisbane as inspiration, but it won’t stand as proof that we still need him. Quite simply, Ganguly needs runs in South Africa, not words about how he is capable of them.

Finally, a word of advice for all Dada’s fanatical fans: cut the effigy-burning and Chappell-bashing and let your hero concentrate on performing on the stage he once ruled. And if he fails, take to the streets – not to protest a conspiracy that you suspect did him in – but to give him a glorious farewell befitting India’s most charismatic and successful captain ever.

With an average combined experience of 123 games per player, India can hardly take refuge in lack of experience as an explanation for their dismal show in South Africa.  But if Virender Sehwag’s post-match comments are to be believed, India’s most recent walloping at Port Elizabeth is due to the side’s “inexperience” and the resulting “pressure” that they have had to contend with.

Quite frankly, such excuses are unacceptable at the highest level of the game, and it is unlikely that Viru will find too many buyers for his argument. But what makes the statement even more bizarre is the fact that it was not the “inexperienced” members who lost the game for India – it’s the much-celebrated “seniors”, Sehwag included, who let their team down.

A quick glance through the scorecard shows that of the 163 runs that India eked out, only 48 came from the six more experienced (over 100 ODIs) players, including a significant contribution of 11 runs from Zaheer Khan at number 9. The remainder was notched up by the so-called “inexperienced” lot. Also, for the record, top scorer Irfan Pathan (47* in 55 balls, 4×4, 2×6) is only 22 years old and into just his third year of international cricket, while the lowest scorer Sachin Tendulkar (1 in 3 balls) is 33 and has been on the scene for 17 years.

I suppose it isn’t entirely surprising to find a careless comment like this coming from Sehwag, given that poor judgment and recklessness seem to characterize everything in his cricket nowadays. Fortunately, now that he has been vacated from the vice-captain position for the test series, we will be subjected to his displays of injudiciousness only on the field and not off it.

After India’s annihilation at the hands of Australia in the Champions Trophy at Mohali, I was quite sure that this match would stay at the top of India’s list of most abject cricketing surrenders for some time to come. As it turns out, that was an overly optimistic expectation – the Men in Blue proved that new depths could be reached as early as the next time they stepped out on a cricket field. Ninety-one runs was all that they managed between them on a lively Kingsmead track, as India crashed to a humiliating 157 run defeat to South Africa in the first one-day international.

Predictably, the next morning’s papers devoted many column-centimetres to despondent first-pagers and editorials that mourned the demise of Indian cricket. Two days after the event, the articles have moved to the sports section, but the misery and exasperation are still intact. The news channels are yet to complete their gory post-mortems, which typically involve an irate ex-cricketer commenting on a host of depressing statistics that confirm that Indian cricket is indeed in the doldrums. The more adventurous channels have also taken to some fancy detective work, as they hunt for India’s leading cricketing ‘mujrim’. The anger has spilled over to Parliament as well, with Agriculture Minister (and BCCI chief) Sharad Pawar being taken to task by his friends in the opposition, over the wretched state of Indian cricket. Gears have changed from despair to fury. Clearly, we’re a nation outraged.

Outraged.

Are we really outraged? What if this same side wins the next match at Cape Town, where the flatter track should definitely be more to our liking? What if they go on to win the series? Will we still be outraged that we continue to be the most ill-equipped team in the world against genuine pace on bouncy wickets? Will we still argue that more quick and lively pitches should replace the dustbowls that we currently play domestic cricket on? Will we still ask why India’s itinerary over the last couple of years has not seen the side visit Australia, New Zealand, South Africa or England? Will we still question why Mohammad Kaif is forever a ‘junior’ member of the side who persistently needs to be shielded from top-class attacks? Will we still wonder why Ramesh Powar does not find a place in this squad despite some gutsy performances in the limited opportunities he has received? Will we still want to know why Munaf Patel has ‘developed’ from India’s quickest bowler ever, to a slow medium pacer who doesn’t challenge the speed gun any more? Will we still demand that Sharad Pawar and his BCCI cronies start delivering on the professionalization promise they made when they took office?

The answer is: we will not. We will stop questioning – and start rejoicing. We will start talking about a ‘renaissance’ in Indian cricket like we did a few months ago when India was on a winning roll. We will once again allow individual flashes of brilliance to blind us to the fact that, in a team sport, collective effort is the only route to sustained excellence. We will overlook India’s depleted bench strength, which is symptomatic of an archaic domestic cricket system that fosters mediocrity. We will start believing that the fourteen men we pick to represent us on the international stage are capable of rising above a rotten administration that cannot see beyond filling its coffers.

All this, of course, only till the next thundering defeat occurs. We will then be outraged all over again and start asking the same uncomfortable questions we are asking today. And as always, those who should be answering these questions won’t bother. Because they know that we are like weary travelers in a hot desert – not bothered about reaching the river as long as we keep getting a few drops of water to quench our thirst.

As England stumbled to its second consecutive drubbing at the Champions Trophy last Saturday, it would be hard to concur with Andy Flintoff’s remarkably upbeat “the lads showed some character out there” pronouncement. After all, snaring a couple of smart wickets in an unsuccessful defence of a paltry total does not qualify as much of a character testimonial – especially when it comes on the back of some uninspiring batting that resulted in the paltry total in the first place.

Character is what the “lads” will now be required to show in substantial quantity, as they head home early from the sub-continent and prepare themselves for their much-awaited Ashes defence in November.

Flintoff and his under-fire coach Duncan Fletcher will draw confidence from the fact that England is still the number two Test match team in the world and, to be fair to them, deservedly so. The exhilarating Ashes victory apart, they’ve turned in some creditable performances in recent months, at home and away, the latest being the dramatic 3-0 victory over the touring Pakistanis.

But their limited overs efforts – and this is putting it charitably – have been shameful. In 41 outings since January 2005, they have won only 12 games – four of which were notched up against Bangladesh and Ireland. This year, there have been just 4 wins in 19 encounters – with series defeats to Pakistan (2-3), India (1-5) and Sri Lanka (0-5). Not surprisingly, they weigh in at a poor eighth in the ODI rankings, ahead only of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

It is hard to explain why a team that has been able to beat the best in the business in the five day game has been found so desperately wanting in the shorter format. One popular school of thought suggests that England lacks the so-called “one day experts” in the mould of the Gilchrists, Sehwags and Jayasuriyas, and have therefore never had a batting lineup that is threatening enough to succeed in the limited overs game. The implication here is that their batting is solid on the whole, but has been unfortunate not to have lusty hitters in its ranks.

This argument is specious on several counts. Firstly, in Flintoff and Kevin Pietersen England has two of the cleanest strikers in world cricket, so there is no reason to believe that they have had tough luck on the aggression front. Secondly, the assumption that the comparatively sedate batsmanship of the others has translated into solidity, is debatable. The top order caving in meekly twice in as many outings in Jaipur is just the most recent in a string of poor shows. In eleven of their last twenty defeats, half the side has been back in the pavilion with less than 120 on the board – not signs of a particularly robust top order. Finally, the theory also casts a blind eye towards England’s serious lack of bowling depth, which has invariably resulted in ten, often twenty, overs being bowled by a bunch of innocuous part-timers. 

The biggest problem for England is that they seem to have fallen for this “one day experts” fallacy themselves, and have sought to rectify it by some astounding alterations to their lineup. Geraint Jones and Matt Prior – wicket-keepers who can at best be described as decent bats – have found themselves pushed to the top of the order, ostensibly to boost the scoring rate. Jones managed an average of 19.85 in 7 outings as opener (highest: 39, strike rate: 66.5) while Prior averaged 23.50 in 10 innings at the top of the order (highest: 45, strike rate: 74.1). It’s a similar story for Ed Joyce, who made a name for himself batting in the middle-order for Middlesex, but found himself elevated to the opening slot when he was picked for England. His scores in the three appearances he made before being discarded: 10, 13 and 8. 

These ill-advised promotions, compounded by injuries to key players like Michael Vaughan and Marcus Trescothick, have meant that the top order has never really worn a settled look. This year alone, there have been six pairs of openers, with the longest continuous run for any one pair being just four games. The only slot where there has been some stability is number-3, where Ian Bell has been persisted with for ten games on the trot. Not surprisingly, the results have been good – Bell has averaged 44.3, with three scores in excess of 75.

The bowling, meanwhile, has not escaped its share of problems. The absence of Simon Jones and Darren Gough due to injury has been a major blow, but what has probably hurt England the most is Steve Harmison’s poor form. On a good day, Harmison is capable of extracting disconcerting bounce, and is a handful even on tracks that are unlikely to have quickies queuing up. On not-so-good days, however, his radar tends to go totally awry and he begins to look quite hittable. Unfortunately, the good days have been rare this year – his economy rate for 2006 is an exorbitant 5.97 runs per over, as opposed to the previous seasons where it is a much more acceptable 4.85.

Further, with Flintoff not allowed to bowl, the ‘fifth bowler’ has become an acute problem in ODIs. The present solution seems to be a mix of Collingwood, Yardy and Dalrymple, who turn in fifteen-odd honourable overs between them, but are unlikely to be giving too many sleepless nights to top-class batsmen.

This lack of bowling depth is something that has been masked in Tests (over 90% of England’s Test overs this year have been bowled by their top four bowlers), but has been exploited by the opposition in ODIs. Unless another quality all-rounder in the Flintoff league is discovered, it would probably make sense to invest in a specialist bowler (Panesar?) even for ODIs, rather than bits-and-pieces cricketers like Dalrymple.

Fundamentally, England needs to realize that the two forms of the game are not all that different and do not demand radically opposing approaches. Further, unless you have a talent pool as deep as the Australians, chopping and changing is not only likely to be futile, but also result in a loss of winning momentum. Unfortunately, England does not have much time to get back into this critical ‘winning habit’ before the World Cup begins next April. They play only one major limited-overs competition, a tri-series Down Under against Australia and New Zealand, before heading off to the Caribbean. Clearly, if cricket’s most sought after jewel is to make its way back to the land it originated in, Flintoff and his men have their work cut out.