Of Experience and Judgment

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.

Outrage

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.

Blasts from the Past

Selected cricket articles I’ve written, some of which have been published on Sify Sports

• Cautious Optimism, the need of the hour – November 22, 2005
• Of Coaches and Administrators – May 21, 2005
• Battle Won … War Still Open – March 23, 2005
• 2004 – A Disappointing Year for Indian Cricket – January 27, 2005
• Indians on the Threshold of Greatness – January 13, 2004

Hope to have a lot more to say in the weeks and months to come, on Drinks Break!

English Blues

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.

Say Cheers!!

I’m no journo, commentator or scribe,
But yes, another of the armchair tribe,
Who (to be cliched) lives-n-breathes the sport
And believes his views are of global import!
These scribbles shall contain my honest take …
So let’s raise a toast to this new Drinks Break!