Tag Archives: Laxman

Very Very Special Birthdays

In a series that has already seen a few birthdays, tomorrow (1 November) will be a very very special birthday of a special batsman — V. V. S. Laxman. He is the youngest of the Fab Four — I think Peter Roebuck has termed him Ringo to Ganguly’s Paul, Dravid’s George and Tendulkar’s John! Laxman turns 34 on 1 November 2008.

This series has seen a few birthdays from both teams. Interestingly, most birthdays on this tour so far have been of the over-30s club (if we count players who turned 30 as belonging to the 30s club).

  • Virender Sehwag turned 30 on the last day of the Mohali Test (21 Oct).
  • Anil Kumble turned 38 on the 1st day of the Mohali test (Oct 17).
  • Matthew Hayden turned 37 on the 1st day of the Delhi Test (Oct 29).
  • Zaheer Khan celebrated his 30th birthday a couple of days prior to the start of the Bangalore Test (Oct 7).
  • Stuart Clark celebrated his 33rd birthday on the last day of the Australians’ tour game against Rajasthan (Sept 28).
  • Brad Haddin turned 31 two days after the conclusion of the Mohali Test match (Oct 23).
  • Brett Lee will celebrate his 32nd birthday during the Nagpur Test match (Nov 8).

There are two players that break the over-30s ring to the birthday honours list for this tour:

  • Mitchell Johnson will celebrate his 27th birthday on the last day of the Delhi Test match (Nov 2).
  • Gautam Gambhir celebrated his 27th birthday the day after the Bangalore Test concluded (Oct 4).

I stumbled on all of this when looking up the ages of the Fab Five of Indian cricket. Anil Kumble turned 38 on OCt 17 2009; Rahul Dravid will be 36 on Jan 11 2009; Sourav Ganguly already turned 36 on July 8 2008; Sachin Tendulkar will turn 36 on April 24 2009; Laxman will turn 34 on Nov 1 2008.

While Ganguly has already announced his retirement at the end of the ongoing series against Australia, it is conceivable that Anil Kumble will not be around for long. Kumble will, in all likelihood, be the next “cab off the Fab Five Rank”, especially since India has a captain-in-waiting in (M. S. Dhoni) and also a legspinner-in-waiting (Amit Mishra and two, if you count Piyush Chawla). Anil Kumble can leave the grand stage comfortably, knowing that his art as well as his leadership philosophies are in extremely good hands. Through a combination of luck, opportunity-seizing and design, there appears to be a succession plan in place for his departure with no sudden and gaping holes. What is now required is for Kumble to make his call on when he wishes to step down. I have a feeling that the two Tests against England in December this year will be his last. The thought of packing his bags for a trip to Pakistan early next year (2009) and another one to New Zealand soon after that will be enough to provide that proverbial last straw in a weary camels’ back!

– Mohan

India Vs Australia :: Test 3 :: Delhi :: Day-2

Honours were even on the first day till that point when the battler, Gautam Gambhir and the magician, V. V. S. Laxman started their act. Up until then, serial-spitter Ricky Ponting, embattled Brett Lee, talent-limited-and-yet-overly-talkative Shane Watson, offensively-aggressive Simon Katich, tour-passenger Cameron White and weed-killer Matthew Hayden seemed to have the measure of the Indians.

Two early wickets of the batting wizard Sehwag and the Zen-like Dravid meant that the burly and unruly Australian hunting-pack saw a door open. After the mauling that this pack had received to their collective backsides at Mohali, it was fascinating to see this hunting-pack once again circling, like vultures eyeing a dead animal. However, that door was shut initially by the mercurial and saintly Tendulkar. Once the battler Gambhir and the magician Laxman got together though, the key to that door had been lost by the confused, haggard and paralysed, yet defiant and aggressive Australian pack who continued to hunt for their prey as only hunting dogs can.

Phew! I can’t keep up this act any longer! It is hard working being a Conn, I tell you! The above paragraphs are in reference to an earlier article on this blog.

I’ll return to normal programming now!

The 2nd days’ play of the Delhi Test match is a few hours away yet. It should be a fascinating days’ play. Unlike some reports that have India way out in front, I believe that this match has many a twist left in it yet. The only disadvantage Australia has, at this stage, is that it does not have a quality spinner in its midst. Leaving out Jason Krejza and then bowling Cameron White, the preferred first-choice spinner just 4 overs was a folly, in my view.

If Australia can take a few quick wickets early on day-2 and get stuck into the Indian tail, it could be all over in a hurry. The ask would be for Australia to then bat long and hard and only once in this match! It is a hard ask. But it is certainly possible. If not, Australia would have to face quite a few overs of spin from Anil Kumble, Amit Mishra and Virender Sehwag and, on a pitch that is already offering some slow turn and variable bounce, the going will be tough for the Australians.

Its time to whip out that cliche again: The first session of day-2 is going to be crucial for both teams! The new ball is only 3 overs old and so the early morning seam could do the trick for the visitors. India, meanwhile, will be looking at a score of 400-420. Any 1st innings score in that range will be a good one on this pitch, I feel. This Kotla pitch looks very similar to the one Pakistan played in last year and in that match, 276 was the highest score in the match by either team!

Session-1:

Last night, I was thinking about the last time Australia played India at the Feroze Shah Kotla ground in Delhi. That was in 1996 in what was to be the first match of the Border-Gavaskar Trophy. The inaugural edition of the BGT was a one-match series! If I remember correctly, Australia was on its way back home after a tour of Pakistan? I could be wrong here. Anyway, I thought about that match because India had a D. Johnson playing for it, just as Australia have an M. Johnson playing in the ongoing Test match at the Kotla!

The one thing that stays in my mind from that match, above all else, was the wild slash that Michael Slater had in the second innings to a wide ball from the Indian Johnson to be caught brilliantly by Mohammed Azharuddin in the slips. Yesterday, we had Dravid slashing wildly to a ball from the Australian Johnson to be brilliantly caught by Matthew Hayden in the slips. Although Slater had made an impressive 44 in the 1st innings of that Test match, that irresponsible second innings slash by Slater — when facing a huge 1st Innings deficit — was widely reported to be the start of the end for the talented Michael Slater. One hopes that a similar fate does not befall Rahul Dravid!

I just don’t know how that India team won that inaugural BGT with players like opener Vikram Rathour (with wicket-keeper Nayan Mongia for company, who, incidentally had a fabulous game with bat and gloves to be named Man of the Match), left-arm spinner Sunil Joshi, pace-man (debutant) David Johnson and off-spinner Ashish Kapoor against an Australian team that boasted several modern-day greats! Again, in that game, the weak Australian spinners let them down with Brad Hogg — on his debut, for Australia I think — and Peter McIntyre — perhaps on his 2nd or 3rd match. Both Ashish Kapoor (4 Tests) and David Johnson (2 Tests) would play only one more Test for India before being discarded. Yet, India won thanks to Anil Kumble!

Indeed, I remember reading at that time that an Australian player had one look at the pitch and said, “How come India is going in with only 3 spinners?“, to which an Indian journalist walking by said, “Actually one would do!

Peter Roebuck writes eloquently about that game.

Anyway, back to the game now…

Australia started with two slips and a gully for Brett Lee, who started by rapping Laxman on the pads and went on to complete a good maiden over! There was just a slight hint of movement here for the Australian bowlers to exploit. At the other end Lee’s bowling partner was Stuart Clark, who had impressive figures of 21-8-29-0 at the start of the days’ play!

In the second over of the day, Gautam Gambhir got his 150; a splendid effort from this young Indian battler. And soon after, India’s 300 was brought up by a Laxman tickle to the 3rd man fence and soon after, the 150 of the Gambhir-Laxman was brought up.

What was happening on day-2 was a repeat of day-1 by Gautam Gambhir and Laxman. Balls that were short of a good length and wide of off-stump were left alone — and there were plenty of those — while the straighter balls were played competently. In that sense, the new ball was being somewhat wasted by the Australians. In the 6th over of the days’ play, the fielders were already spread to all parts of the field. This wasn’t the start that the Australian doctor had ordered!

From a strategy point of view, what was more confusing was that instead of bowling it full and allowing for seam movement, the Australians moved to what they do best when under pressure — even shorter stuff. They used to call this “Chin Music” under an earlier Australian dressing-room phraseologist. This was, in my view, the wrong way to bowl at the Kotla, especially early on in the morning when the ball can seam a bit. I would not be totally surprised if the Indian bowlers use the conditions better.

The first hour had again yielded only 13 overs in which India had scored 46 runs without the loss of any wickets. Laxman was on 85 off 136 balls and Gambhir was on 161 off 322 balls. The partnership was worth 185 runs off 50.1 overs at a rate of 3.68. This was good going from the Indians. They seemed keen to grind out the new ball and that was just what was required.

After the drinks break, after a flurry of boundaries, Cameron White was introduced into the attack — not a bad move by Ponting, given that Laxman was on 92. What was not great captaincy though, was that White was bowling to defensive fields. There were plenty of singles on offer. White started off with a maiden over.

Soon the partnership was worth 200 runs of which Gambhir had made 99 and Laxman had made 94 off 148 balls. India had moved to 357-3 off 105.2 overs.

After a few overs of settling-in, Cameron White was starting to bowl well. There was loop and drift in his bowling and he was getting some bounce from the wicket.

Laxman moved closer to his century by crawling through the 90s. It was clear that Laxman wanted this century badly. His previous century was also against the Australians in Sydney (Jan 2008) some 8 months earlier, where he made 109. There was no walking down the track like Gambhir had, on day-1. He compiled the singles slowly and played out several maiden overs.

Australia’s tactic was to spray it wide of off stump to a packed off side field. It has been a long time since I have seen such negative tactics from the Australians. Stuart Clark and Mitchell Johnson had bowled a wide each. How often do you see Test match wides?

Laxman got his century off a glorious off drive, just before lunch. His century had come off 172 balls with 10 boundary hits. This was his 13th century (and 6th against Australia).

At lunch, India had moved to 393-3 off 115 overs (@ 3.41 rpo). Laxman had 104 off 174 balls and Gambhir had 191 off 362 balls. The session had yielded 97 runs off 26 overs at 3.73 rpo. The Gambhir-Laxman partnership was already worth 236 runs! There appeared to be more records there for the taking and it could get quite ugly for Australia, with Ganguly and Dhoni waiting in the wings.

This was clearly India’s session with the SBS Score reading: India 2.75, Australia 1.25!

Session-2:

I predict that this will be a go-slow session by Australia in which we could have a wide or two too. Captain and bowler would often consult in this session to perhaps discuss global hunger, the global stock market crisis, the latest Hollywood release and the price of wheat in the commodity markets! I won’t be surprised if Australia bowl less than 26 overs in this session!

India, meanwhile will look to accelerate and get to 500 as quickly as possible before Dhoni could be unleashed. This will, in all likelihood, be a cat-and-mouse session.

After starting with Stuart Clark and Brett Lee, Ricky Ponting brought himself on for a bowl — the 8th bowler used by the Australians! Gambhir was on 197 at this stage. So it wasn’t such a bad move by Ricky Ponting!

In the next over, Gautam Gambhir got his 200! The young lad had made a huge step up from a talented individual to a potentially great player. He had made his 200 off 375 balls with 25 4s and 1 huge six! At that stage, Gambhir had been batting for just over 9 hours! It was a mammoth effort from a young man who had finally arrived.

Now that Gambhir had made his double century, one could possibly expect some fireworks from the Indians. However, what we had was a tired chop onto the stumps by Gambhir. The bowler was Shane Watson, the man at the centre of the controversy the previous day! Gambhir had played excellently well to make 206 off 380 balls. Shane Watson had a wicket of his first over of the day! The partnership was worth 278 runs off 72.1 overs at a rate of 3.85 rpo with Laxman making 130 and Gambhir making 139 of these.

This got Sourav Ganguly to the crease. He had been waiting for 5 hours and 15 mins to walk into the middle! It also got Laxman and Ganguly together adding to the possibility of some interesting running between the wickets!

But soon after he came in, Ganguly played a lazy drive to be caught by Ponting in the covers off Simon Katich! The score read 444-5.

Even though Australia had captured 2 quick wickets, it appeared as if there was an air of resignation about the Australians. When Laxman was on 134, a slips catch went in between Haddin and Hayden. In normal circumstances, Haddin would have caught it. But the feet and the hands just weren’t moving. In the very next over, a firmly struck ball by Dhoni flew straight to Simon Katich, the bowler, who dropped that hard chance!

The interesting observation in all of this, from an Indian point of view, was that Shane Watson was getting some reverse swing and Simon Katich was getting spin!

Dhoni came in and played a little cameo. But after facing 29 balls for a hurriedly crafted 27, Dhoni edged one from Watson to Haddin who made no mistake this time! The India score was 481-6. The possibility of a declaration around the 550 mark was fast disappearing at this stage.

Kumble came and batted sensibly. He helped India bring up the 500 off 139 overs (3.6 rpo). The run rate was reasonably healthy. But the over-rate was quite pathetic. Even though we had two spinners — Cameron White and Simon Katich — in operation, Australia was still about 7 overs short of where it needed to be.

There were clear indications of urgency from the Indian batsmen though. And this was a good sign. The plan may be that they wanted to have about 20-25 overs at the Australians on day-2 itself.

At Tea, India was 515-6. Laxman was not out on 160 off 252 balls and Kumble was on 16 off 30 balls. That session had yielded 122 runs for 3 wickets (at a rate of 4.52 rpo) off 27 overs. Although Australia did claim the 3 wickets, I call this an even session, mainly because of the speed at which the runs came from India! The SBS Score now reads: India 3.25, Australia 1.75!

Session-3:

India came out after Tea with positive intent. Both Anil Kumble and Laxman were going for their shots. In no time at all, they brought up their 50 partnership off 78 balls. Interestingly, Kumble’s contribution to this partnership was 26 from 46 balls! The score had moved to 532-6.

India soon reached 550-6, but there was still no declaration in sight. With Laxman on 178*, perhaps his 200 was the declaration point?

Batting, however, was extremely easy. Even Anil Kumble was doing it easy. Having said that, Kumble is no mug with the bat. Yet, batting was easy here. The somewhat up-and-down insipid Australian bowling didn’t help the Australian cause. The bowling just lacked incisiveness.

At this stage, Australia had used 8 bowlers and Michael Clarke was coming in for another spell. One of the bowlers that hadn’t had a bowl yet was Michael Hussey; the bowler who bowled ahead of Brett Lee at Mohali! Figure that captaincy out, if you can!

Mitchell Johnson then got Anil Kumble out LBW for a really well made 45. The score at this time was 579-7. It was clear that a declaration was around the corner. Perhaps the target that the team had set itself was Laxman’s 200, Kumble’s 50 and the Laxman-Kumble century partnership. However, with Kumble out for 45 in a partnership total of 98 runs (from 22 overs at a rate of 4.45 rpo), all eyes were now trained on Laxman’s 200.

At this stage, Laxman was on 194. If Laxman did indeed get his 200, it would be the first time that two Indians had scored a double hundred in the same innings.

With the score on 584-7, I saw the strangest incident on a cricket field! Laxman tickled a ball to square leg and took off for a run. Billy Bowden declared that Laxman had run on the pitch and declared it a “dead ball”! Although well within the rules, that was a strange decision. More so because Laxman didn’t quite run in the danger area. To make matters worse, Billy Bowden declared the over closed when just 5 balls had been bowled! The declaration couldn’t come quicker for the Australians. But I had a feeling that Billy Bowden could do with a feet-up too! He was losing the plot here!

The batting massacre continued through Zaheer Khan who hit some lusty blows.

India finally declared the innings close at 613-7d (off 161 overs) when Laxman got his 200 off 301 balls with 21 boundary hits. Zaheer Khan had made a quick 28 off 21 balls (5 fours). The final partnership was worth 34 runs from just 5.2 overs of which Laxman just made 6 runs!

India had about 17 overs to bowl at the Australians and would possibly be looking to take a wicket or two in that time.

India started with a somewhat defensive field. Even when Ishant Sharma was bowling, India had only 2 slips and a gully! This was somewhat surprising given India had plenty of runs to play with. India started proceedings with two maiden overs.

Australia batted well to finish the day on 50-0 from 15 overs. Both Hayden and Katich played the pace bowlers competently and were watchful against the spinners. Ishant Sharma and Zaheer Khan — particularly the latter — did get some seam movement. However, the interesting observation was the both Anil Kumble and Amit Mishra got bite and turn from this pitch. This should make the 3rd days’ play an extremely absorbing day of cricket.

Again, in spite of extending the days’ play by half hour, the teams had bowled an over short. What was interesting, however, was that the Indian bowling rate was closer to 14 overs per hour, while the Australian over rate, despite the presence of Cameron White, Michael Clarke, Simon Katich and a brace from Ponting, was at or below 13 overs per hour. I doubt Chris Broad will do anything about it though.

Given the plunder of runs from the late order India batsmen, a score of over 600 and also the fact that Australia did not lose a wicket in the remaining time-period, I call this an “even” session. The SBS Score reads: India 3.75, Australia 2.25!

– Mohan

India Vs Australia :: Test 3 :: Delhi :: Day-1

After the Australian debacle of Mohali, it was a long wait before this Test commenced! There was a lot of talk in the intervening period from both teams and also a well-timed release of explosive excerpts from an autobiography which Tendulkar termed as “loose”! The marketing guys got great value from all of that drama! We had a crack here at i3j3Cricket too at writing Sachin Tendulkar’s yet-to-be-written biography! A lot of fun was had by all, including debates on whether or not Sachin Tendulkar lied at Sydney.

In my view, there is an obsessive interest in the pitch by the Australians when they tour India! If they went in with the attitude that they are hardly likely to get a spinners’ paradise in Perth, the Australians may actually grow to love the conditions in places like Delhi and Mohali. These places, especially with the early starts, afford early seam movement and late Irish movement, particularly given the dry and abrasive pitches.

The Australians also love to over-focus on the toss! Again, the focus shouldn’t be on the toss.

For example, at the Kotla in Delhi, of the toss wins, the bat-first choice has resulted in only 5 wins from 29 games! The bat-first decision resulted in 11 losses at the Kotla! So, the toss should be removed from the minds of the Australians.

In my preview of this game, I said that pace will do as well on the Kotla as spin would. Given that Stuart Clark comes into the side, I give Australia a slight edge in this game!

One other factor that I did not mention in my preview is that India rarely strings a consistent run of wins in any major series involving big teams. A huge win is almost immediately followed up with a poor loss. While Team India has lately begun to show signs of being good overseas travellers, the team will have to work hard to wipe that bad “win one match well but lose the next one immediately” record off its books. And the opportunity to commence this journey would be here at Delhi against the best team in the world at the moment.

Given that I had a migraine today — which, I can assure you wasn’t pre-arranged or pre-ordered — I was lucky to get home early. After a quick sleep, even though the migraine continued unabated, I managed to watch the game through one eye closed (and I realise I leave myself wide open saying this)!

Session-1:

India won the toss and elected to bat. It was quite unusual for Kumble to win the toss, given his general bad toss-luck. But he did win the toss this time! Harbhajan Singh sat out the game with a bruised toe and this enabled Amit Mishra to get his second Test game! As expected Stuart Clark came into the Australian side. This wasn’t a bad move for Australia I thought. With the morning haze and the greenish top, Clark and a fired-up Lee would be able to get a fair bit of seam, I’d have thought.

Indeed, Brett Lee struck very early. In his very second over, Lee got one to nip back in sharply and got Sehwag plumb in front of the wicket. India was 5-1 before the Australians had broken into a sweat.

What I liked about the Australian approach was aggressive intent. Of course, it helped that Australia got the early wicket of Virender Sehwag. But we did see more attacking slips in place and we did see catching positions. This caused doubts to creep into the minds of the batsmen. The going was tough on a pitch that was already showing signs of offering low bounce.

Brett Lee was bowling it at 148 kmph and yet Brad Haddin was collecting it around his knees! An excellent bouncer from Brett Lee struck Rahul Dravid on his chest as he ducked. This was certainly going to be an interesting deck as the match progresses. From that point of view, India would be disappointed at losing local-man Virender Sehwag early. Another local-man, Gautam Gambhir, however, was batting well against two opening bowlers who were bowling well.

The good thing for India, however, was that despite the accurate in-the-corridor bowling by Stuart Clark and Brett Lee, the two batsmen — Gambhir and Dravid — were batting well. Brett Lee, in particular, was bowling more accurately and with more fire than he did at Bangalore or Mohali. The break appeared to have done the Australians a whole lot of good. Early signs were that the scars of Mohali were behind the Australians!

At the end of 10 overs, the India score was 22-1. It did appear as though this would be one of those typical grind-it-out type Tests; one that mimicked last years India Vs Pakistan Test match in which the scoring rate was around the 3 rpo mark for much of the game. At this stage, Stuart Clark had figures of 5-2-4-0! Mitchell Johson was brought in for Brett Lee.

Dravid was actually playing quite well at this stage and had all but pitched his tent on the pitch for a long stay there when, against the run of play, he drove at a Mitchell Johnson ball that was travelling straight to Matthew Hayden at slips. A thick edge meant that the ball travelled to birthday boy, Matthew Hayden, just a bit earlier than Hayden may have expected it! The resulting catch was snapped up and India was 27-2! Dravid had no reason to play at that ball other than the fact, perhaps, that he wasn’t getting any free runs at the other end from Stuart Clark!

At the drinks break, India was 37-2 off 13 overs!

After bowling 7 overs for 5 runs (7-3-5-0), Stuart Clark was replaced by Shane Watson. I didn’t quite understand this move because Clark was bowling very well. His line was immaculate and his length was superb. Another over or two Stuart Clark overs may have been good, I thought.

Gambhir was batting sensibly and Tendulkar was looking quite solid. Mitchell Johnson was bowling to a 7-2 off-side field and one of the 2 leg-side man was a short gully. Mitchell Johnson was sliding it wide off the off stump. After an early play-and-miss, these offers from Johnson weren’t being accepted by Tendulkar. This was good cat-and-mouse stuff from both teams.

I particularly liked the way Gambhir was playing balls outside the off stump. He was leaving it all alone and was comfortable playing the patience game.

It looked as if the Australians had studied Gambhir’s game really well in the break between Tests. He was being presented with several balls outside his off-stump. And he was having none of that! It was also interesting to see the number of Australians that wanted to wish him “good morning” and enquire about his “dinner plans”! If I were Gambhir, I’d feel quite proud of the fact that the Australians had studied his game intensely and the fact that they were all suddenly interested in his dinner plans! This is, to me, a sure sign of respect!

Brett Lee came in for a last burst before the lunch break. Right from word go, Lee was bowling well. The intensity and the speed were back, it seemed. But he was bowling to a Sachin Tendulkar and a Gauram Gambhir that were both playing sensibly.

Shane Watson had, at this stage, bowled 4-2-7-0. It seemed that Shane Watson and Stuart Clark were bowling in a containing role, while Brett Lee and Mitchell Johnson attacked.

The last Brett Lee over before lunch saw the bowler bowl to a very innovative field. Just 1 slip oversaw proceedings. However, there was a ring of fielders on the leg-side. Ponting was constantly attacking with inventive fields. It didn’t achieve anything, but it showed to me that this was a team that wanted to make the running in this Test match. The captain wasn’t prepared to wait for the batsman to make a mistake. These were good signs for an Australian fan.

At lunch, India had moved to 67-2 off 26 overs, with Gautam Gambhir on 25 off 80 balls and Sachin Tendulkar on 26 off 45 balls. Shane Watson had figures of 6-3-8-0 although, to be honest, about 30 of the 36 balls were bowled wide off the off-stump and left alone!

The first session, in my books, was Australia’s with the Session-by-Session (SBS) score reading India-0, Australia-1.

Session-2:

The post-lunch session started with Brett Lee bowl to Sachin Tendulkar with just the one slip and a ring of fielders on the leg-side. The over produced a sensational up-and-under cut over the slips cordon to the 3rd-man fence! This was an awesome shot that was manufactured after a late adjustment to an off-stump bouncer. I have only seen Tendulkar and Sehwag play this shot with any semblance of authority and control. I also feel that this shot is also a good indicator that Tendulkar is on top of his game.

Stuart Clark shared the post-lunch attack with Brett Lee. The Australians continued their positive intent after the lunch break. The fields were attacking and, more importantly, there was no deep-point and leg-side sweeper either. When the Australians set fields like this, it is a sure sign that they are playing attacking cricket. The mindset is more important to me than anything else.

Hopefully, the Australian new-age-cricket strategy as well as its author have been thrown out of the Australian dressing room!

At this stage, Tendulkar started to open out and play his shots. Even then, it was good to see the Australians bowl attacking lines to the Little Master. Although the field did spread out a bit, thanks to a flurry of boundaries from Tendulkar’s blade, the Australian intensity wasn’t diminished. Stuart Clark, in particular, continued to bowl superbly to Tendulkar. He was giving nothing away and even bowled a maiden over to a man who appeared to be in superb nick. Tendulkar had moved to 44 off 68 balls at this stage.

The bowling plan was beginning to emerge. Ricky Ponting was going to use Brett Lee and Mitchell Johnson in short attacking bursts with Stuart Clark and Shane Watson bowling a defensive, chocking lines. This was not a particularly bad ploy. Mitchell Johnson was offering either enticing sliding slingers outside off stump or cross-seam slower-balls outside off stump. Johnson replaced Brett Lee whose first post-lunch spell was somewhat ordinary. India moved to 102-2 off 35 overs.

Soon after,Tendulkar played a delectable late-cut off Stuart Clark to bring up his 50 off 79 balls. His half-century was vintage Tendulkar and contained 8 boundary hits. He seemed to have a measure of the pitch as well as the bowling. While his 88 at Mohali was made against a somewhat ordinary bowling attack bowling to somewhat defensive fields and on a batting pitch, this half century was against a strong Australian attack that was bowling to intelligent fields.

In this mode, I felt that the only way Tendulkar would get out would be if he got either bored or over-confident. The Australian plan of attack to Tendulkar was somewhat obvious. Stuart Clark was bowling outside off-stump to a 7-2 off-side loaded field. The Australians wanted to choke Tendulkar’s run-scoring opportunities. They nearly had Tendulkar when the batsman tried a paddle sweep off Stuart Clark that rapped him on the pads. Containment was the name of the game!

At the Drinks break, India was on 108-2 off 40 overs at 2.7 rpo. This was tight bowling from Australia and there weren’t too many runs for the taking. The batsmen had dug in for the long haul. Gambhir had moved to 40 off 117 balls and Tendulkar was on 50 off 92. The wicket had flattened out a bit by now. The interesting piece of data at this point was that the partnership had reached 81 runs off 29.2 overs at a run rate of 2.76. In this, Tendulkar had made 50 while Gambhir had made only 25! His role was to keep one end up; an unusual role for him!

Just after the drinks’ break, Cameron White bowled the first bad over of the day; the expensive of the game thus far. The Indians milked him for 11 runs and, in the process, Gautam Gambhir brought up his half century off 120 balls. Soon the century partnership was brought up. The partnership came off 201 balls with Gautam Gambhir scoring 39 of these and Tendulkar making 56 of the runs. The Indians were batting brilliantly at this stage and one sensed a momentum shift in the game. I felt that the foot had come off the pedal the moment Cameron White was brought on. The pressure valve had been irrevocably released.

Not surprisingly, Stuart Clark was rested after a 9-over spell. His figures read 16-5-26-0. Sensational and tight stuff from the big man. Mitchell Johnson came on and I wouldn’t have been surprised if Cameron White would be changed at the other end too. But no, White continued after giving away 25 runs in 3 overs! A wide ball resulted in 3 byes too as Brad Haddin’s horror tour (with the gloves) continued.

Not surprisingly, Shane Watson came back into the attack, perhaps an over or two too late. One would think that he would continue the holding job that Stuart Clark had carried out.

Unfortunately for the Australians, there was nothing in the pitch in this session. So a defensive ploy, achieved through bowling tight lines to a defensive field, was perhaps appropriate at this stage with the hope that the ball will reverse swing in the last session.

The 51st over of the day say an interesting exchange between Gambhir and Watson. All morning, Watson had been repeatedly asking Gambhir about his “post-match dinner plans”. It was all getting a bit tiring, really. Then, when going for the first run of a brace, Watson appeared to show his elbow at Gambhir. On the return journey Gambhir expressed a keen interest to show Watson “I have an elbow too” (in the words of Ravi Shastri, the commentator at the time).

Then just on the stroke of Tea, Sachin Tendulkar nicked one to Brad Haddin to take a good catch low to his right. Tendulkar was gone for 68 and India was 157-3. Again, after putting in the hard work, Tendulkar had departed. On this occasion, admittedly, it was to a very good ball from Mitchell Johnson. Maybe the ball might have been left alone? The partnership was worth 130 runs from 41.1 overs at a run rate of 3.15 — Tendulkar had made 68 off 125 balls with 11 boundary hits (Gambhir had made 52 runs in that partnership). I feel Tendulkar was playing for the Tea break, just as he was perhaps looking for the close of play at Mohali! The fact that he was choked a bit may have contributed to his hang-the-bat-out shot to a good ball from Mitchell Johnson.

A ball later, which enabled V. V. S. Laxman to get off the mark, Tea was called. There was an irony there! India went to Tea at 158-3 with Gambhir on 67 off 155 balls. In that session, 91 runs had come off 26 overs at 3.5 rpo. At this stage, Australia had bowled just 52 overs in the day — and that means they are 8 overs (some 35 minutes short of where they ought to be). I personally believe the viewing public is being short-changed by this sheer incompetence and negligence on Australia’s part. I am hoping that Chris Broad, the Match Referee is going to do something about this pathetically deplorable over rate.

Because of that Sachin Tendulkar wicket on the stroke of Tea, what would have been, undeniably, an India session became a somewhat even session. I would not score this completely even and am forced to go into two decimal places! The SBS score reads: India 0.75, Australia 1.25!

Session-3:

The India batsmen started off positively after Tea against Mitchell Johnson and Shane Watson. In particular, Gautam Gambhir was batting splendidly with some wonderfully times strokes on both sides of the wicket. Without too much effort and with somewhat consummate ease, the partnership between Gambhir and Laxman yielded 32 runs from 6.1 overs at a run rate of 5.18!

From nowhere, it seemed, Shane Watson produced a bouncer on off-stump. It had Gambhir fending in an ugly manner. Off his gloves and shoulder the ball flew between the ‘keeper and a really wide 1st slip for a boundary. A regular 1st slip would have caught that comfortably! Gambhir moved to 91 with that stroke but not before reconfirming his post-match dinner plans with Shane Watson!

It seemed that everyone in the Australian team wanted to have dinner with the local Delhi-lad, Gautam Gambhir! In the very next over, perhaps in fear of feeling somewhat lonely at the end of the 1st days’ play and the post-match dinner party plans, Mitchell Johnson bowled a bouncer and enquired in a rather agitated manner about Gambhir’s post-match dinner plans!

The 50 partnership between Gambhir and Laxman came from an elegant front foot cover drive on the up by Laxman. The 50 came off just 51 balls with Laxman having made 17 of these off just 19 balls.

In the same over, Gambhir danced down the wicket to a Shane Watson delivery and smashed the ball for a towering 6! This was a terrific manner to bring up his century! Perhaps he was totally upset and worried at having to spend his entire match fee, shouting dinner for the Australians who all seemed keen join him for dinner that night!

Now while the century at Mohali against the Australians was an excellent one, I feel that this one at Delhi was even better! There wasn’t much pressure on the Indian batsmen in the 2nd Innings at Mohali. Here, there was. India had made a rather ordinary start here at Kotla and the Australians were bowling with a lot of fire initially, at Tendulkar and Gambhir. He weathered the storm in the first session, played steadily in the second session and then, opened out really smartly in the post-Tea session. He had paced his innings beautifully and hit some glorious strokes along the way. The real question for me was one of whether Gautam Gambhir would be able to step it beyond the low 100s and make a really big century. For me, this ability marks out a great player from a good player. Gambhir, by scoring consecutive centuries against a world-class team, has shown that he ought to be considered in the books as a good player. He had to now step up a notch and get a big innings in, especially since he had already worked very hard to “get his eye in”!

Michael Clarke was brought in — perhaps in a bid to repair the over rate, which was going somewhat pear-shaped for Ricky Ponting. One could see that the pitch was offering slow turn for Clarke. Both batsmen were batting well and Ponting was forced to bowl Michael Clarke. If only the Australians had bowled with greater urgency and discipline in the earlier part of the day, Ponting needn’t have gone for the Michael Clarke option in a bid to give the over-rate a hurry along. The Australian sloppiness and tardiness early in the day made for this unprofessional situation. These are the small things that make me feel that this Australian team has a lot of work to do yet on this tour!

As I been saying since the 2007 summer here in Australia, I do hope the Match Referee does something about the appalling over rates of the Australians, in particular.

India’s 250 soon came up from 70 overs at 3.57 rpo. The partnership between Gambhir and Laxman reached 100 runs from 19.2 overs (116 balls) at a rate of 5.17 rpo, of which, Laxman had made 36 and Gambhir 63! This was an impressive partnership, mainly because of the impressive near-Australia-like scoring rate it had been made in. Gambhir was playing majestically at this stage and Laxman was steady — his 36 had come off just 45 balls with minimal fuss!

With a half hour to go to the official close of days’ play, Australia still had 18 overs to bowl. Australia’s over-rate graph was beyond pear-shaped at this stage. In a bid to ensure that his backside wasn’t whipped by the Match Referee even before the end of the days’ play, Ponting brought Simon Katich in to bowl. Now, most Indian fans will remember Simon Katich getting Virender Sehwag out for 194 at the MCG towards the end of the 1st days’ play in 2003! Here at the Kotla, Simon Katich was getting some bite from the pitch and some slow turn. These were good signs for the Indian spinners! And when Gambhir danced down the pitch to hit him for a boundary, Katich also booked himself into Gambhirs’ post-match dinner-party! Gambhir’s party was the place to be it seemed and, with this pleading request from Katich, it appeared as though all XI Australians were booked in on the Gambhir post-days’-play dinner party! Gambhir must have thought to himself, “Such a nice and friendly bunch, this Australian lot, but don’t they have their own things to do?”

In Katich’s next over, he seemed to indicate to Gambhir that he wanted the post-match dinner party to commence even before the days’ play was concluded! It all emanated from Gambhir being blocked from going for a run by the bowler, Katich. In fact, as a result, he had to send Laxman back. He seemed to enquire what the problem was with Katich and this upset the bowler! Katich was perhaps upset that Gambhir did not take the run for, perhaps if he had taken that run, Katich may have scored a choice Diwali sweet off the dinner menu as a present! It was clear to me that this Australian team was run ragged at this stage!

In the next over, Laxman brought up his half century off 70 balls. This was a steady half-century from Laxman; one that contained 3 4s.

Right on the dot at 4.30pm in Delhi (10pm AEST), India had reached 285-3 off 81 overs. This implied that Australia was 9 overs short of its bowling quota at the scheduled close of play — on a day when just 3 wickets had fallen and on a day when there was precious little by way of interruptions! This was an absolute travesty by Australia and needs serious looking-into! Australia was thumbing its nose at the establishment through its bowling-rate recalcitrance.

With 20 minutes to go to the end of days’ play, it appeared as though India was attempting to pull down the shutters. The batsmen started to play cautiously for time. It is at this time, when dusk sets in, that things can happen in India — especially if the batsmen are tired at the end of (an extended) days’ play.

Soon, we had Brett Lee and Stuart Clark bowling in tandem in light that wasn’t quite improving. In the 86th over, the new ball was taken. Brett Lee took the new ball with 5 overs to go to the end of play. There was a little seam movement for Brett Lee and this was encouraging. The Australian bowlers were straining at the leash to get that breakthrough which would bring them back into the session. If things stood this way, this would be India’s session.

When the end of days’ play was called, India had reached 296-3 off 89 overs a a run rate of 3.32. After extending play by half hour, Australia was still an over short of the days’ bowling quota. Gambhir was not out on 149 and Laxman was 54 not out. The partnership between Gambhir and Laxman was already worth 139 runs off 37.1 overs at a rate of 3.73!

The last session belonged to India and the SBS score was: India 1.75, Australia 1.25!

This was Gautam Gambhir’s day though! And the fact that he had the entire Australian team crashing in on his post-match dinner party meant that he had earned the respect of this Australian team; one that doesn’t bother asking after an opposition players’ health or dinner-plans unless they see that player as a ‘danger’! It was great to see Sachin Tendulkar bat brilliantly and it was wonderful to see Laxman play the way he did — poetry in motion. But this was Gambhir’s day and he has some unfinished business to complete tomorrow.

– Mohan

Best Test series ever!

Down memory lane…

To me, the best Test series India has ever played was against the same country touring India now.

You know the one I am talking about – the series in which Laxman and Dravid played that epic knock in Calcutta and Bhajji conjured up a hat trick. It was also the series that thrust Saurav Ganguly in to prominence as a leader. He may not have shone in that series with the bat, but he managed to rally the troops into a fighting come back. In a way it is fitting that he ends his career against the Aussies – hopefully this time, finishing up in style with the bat.

If you would like to re-live the moments of that tour, there is no better place to start than to visit the Tour archive at CricInfo -

“You just dropped the test, mate”

Steve Waugh has admitted that it was not an easy relationship with Ganguly in that series. 

Apparently, when Ganguly dropped a catch of Steve Waugh in that famous test in Calcutta, Steve Waugh, repeating his famous Word cup quip, is alleged to have said to Ganguly- “You just dropped the Test, mate”. As it happened, Bhajji soon took the wicket of Waugh and the rest, as they say – is history.

They were probably never best mates, but Ganguly did receive some high praise from Waugh in the end. When Ganguly toured Australia last Summer, Steve Waugh said – “You don’t have to like or dislike him. You have to respect him”.

Farewell the Prince

i3j3 will most likely have a post dedicated to Saurav Ganguly talking about the cricketing memories he will leave behind for us, but meanwhile CricInfo has a wonderful article tracking the time line of his rise and fall, including that famous series I just talked about –

-Mahesh-

A question of timing: Why, When and How should these gentlemen leave?

Over the last few weeks the debate on the “seniors vs replacements” debate has intensified to almost shrill tones. I have, myself, written on this for sometime now. Most major newspapers, websites and blogs have contributed to this debate. Players themselves have weighed in to the argument.

On this blog, I had a reasonably long and somewhat circuitous argument with Chandan on the whys and why-nots.

The debate has often centred on the quality of replacements. A question that has been posed often is: “Is Badrinath better than Ganguly?”. Of course he is not. Not now, anyway! “Then why replace Ganguly” is an immediate retort!

Every player has the right to think that they have one more season in them; one more tour; one more match; one more innings. Not many people like to leave the world stage. The adrenaline rush of walking down the steps of the Eden Gardens or the SCG to the screams, shouts and plaudits of the gathered throng can only be addictive; something that most players would want again (and again). It must be hard to leave. The body might send a message, but the mind will want that ego boost — a craving for more. This is not just with cricket. Actors have stayed on when the stage lights have all but dimmed. Singers have stayed on well after the sound engineer departed the studio! Sports people are no different. Cricketers are certainly no different.

The problem is that indispensability often breeds over-dependence and chokes progress.

We have to start with the following axioms (a) no one is indispensable. b) there cannot be any negotiables in selection policy — no long-kiss-goodbyes and golden-handshakes, (c) selection in times like this requires strategy and vision, and commitment to that strategy with clarity and courage.

I was asked in the comments section of a previous thread to thump Cricket Australia’s and the ECB’s (English Cricket Board) selection-vision document on the table. That must be one of the most strange requests I have had lately! Firstly, of what relevance is the ECB in this argument around cricketing excellence? Secondly, my guess is that, apart from the CEO and the Board of Directors of Cricket Australia, not many people would have access to the vision and strategy of Australia’s selection committee. But do we know that one exists? Absolutely, if one reads player biographies and other material from which one can infer the existence of a clear and defined strategy. Moreover, evidence of the existence of such data is evident from newspaper and media reports. One can point to the building of pace bench-strength in light of the imminent departure of the likes of Glen McGrath, Andy Bichel and Jason Gillespie. While one points to the barrenness of the spin stocks, that is more due to the lack of available options than a lack of effort. Cricket Australia has invested a fair bit in talent identification and nurturing in this department. These efforts have largely failed up until now!

In stark contrast, we have a governance board in India whose Secretary recently claimed that it was not possible to carry out retirement discussions with “seniors” lest there is an argument! This certainly does not inspire me with confidence on the existence of a vision and strategy, leave alone the presence of courage to act on the vision/strategy!

Can we say the same about Cricket Australia? No. I have confidence that CA moves forward in a considered and strategic manner.

Not many teams survive the loss of players like Justin Langer, Mark Waugh, Steve Waugh, Darren Lehmann, Adam Gilchrist, Shane Warne, Glen McGrath, Stuart McGill, Brad Hogg, Jason Gillespie, Andy Bichel and Michael Kasprowicz to injury, loss of form and forced-retirement over a reasonably short period of time. Australia has. And to pin Australia’s success merely on the depth of the domestic competition would be naive. Of course, some of these players were lost to retirements or loss of form. However, some of these players were retired-out of the game. If we go back, we can also point to Michael Slater, David Boon and Mark Taylor who were given tough love when it came to them being phased out of the game. There is clear evidence of tough love in the selection process. Such tough love is required when dealing with player egos. All one needs to do is read biographies of the likes of Mark Taylor, Steve Waugh and Darren Lehmann to know the manner in which Australian selectors have ensured that sustainability of their excellence proposition is the key plank that they work on. It is not enough to win the next match! That has to be a given! They work on where they ought to be when the next series victory needs to be seized.

Like Wayne Gretsky, they concentrate on where the puck ought to be; not just on where the puck is! In India, we have selectors that are unable to think cogently about the future because they do not wish to have arguments!

Cricketers, are not immune to ego when it comes to their position in a team. Steve Waugh was convinced that he had more seasons in him. The Chairman of selectors at the time, Trevor Hohns, thought otherwise and had a tough conversation with Steve Waugh. A date was set for transitioning both the player as well as the leadership. The selectors acted with courage.

Was there an adequate “replacement” for Steve Waugh, the player and Steve Waugh, the captain? After all, that is the question that is asked almost always in India! “Do we have adequate replacements for Ganguly, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman and Kumble?”, is a question that is often asked.

Like Prem Panicker comments on his blog, I am not really sure what that question actually means! The only person that can replace Ganguly is Ganguly! We will never have another Sourav Ganguly to replace Sourav Ganguly. We can never have a Steve Waugh to replace Steve Waugh. But unless Ricky Ponting was given a good team to work with and make his own, the leader in Ricky Ponting will not have been born! If Steve Waugh had stayed on for a year or two longer — and he could have, for after all, he had a very healthy average in the last year of his career — Ricky Ponting would have inherited a team sans Warne, McGrath, Waugh, Langer, Martyn and Gilchrist! Who knows what his initial steps will have been under that situation? Under the scenario in which Steve Waugh left behind a strong team as his legacy, Ponting was afforded the luxury of making a few mistakes along the way — and he did — only to have a strong support that cleansed these errors away.

Likewise, it is best to phase in new talent in India in a gradual manner. We can’t have a situation where a fresh set of five players are thrown into the lions’ den to fill the gap created by a mass exodus of Ganguly, Laxman, Dravid, Tendulkar and Kumble.

Often, when I am asked “Is there a replacement for Ganguly”, I am stumped. What, precisely, does that question mean? There can never be a like-for-like replacement. However, I would like a player like Badrinath (say) to find his feet by playing in a team that includes Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman for at least 8-10 matches before someone like Rohit Sharma and (a set) Badrinath can play in a team that includes Dravid and Tendulkar. Over time, it is likely that Badrinath, Rohit Sharma, Suresh Raina and Yuvraj Singh will form the next Fab Four.

Why do I say that Ganguly must be the first to leave? It is just that, of the Fab Five, he seemed to me to be the most likely to have age caught up on him. Like Rohit Brijnath says, so eloquently, “But if these men once exuded a certainty, now it is less so. Confidence comes, then it dries. Tendulkar has no control over his body’s misbehaviour, Rahul Dravid no idea why technique abandoned him for a while without even a farewell note, Ganguly no certain explanation why timing briefly eluded him. Mind and body are in a slow divorce. These men have fought and defeated everything: selectors, derision, pitches, Australians, but age is beyond beating. Of course there are five-wicket hauls left in them, and strong centuries, and even great series, but they will arrive at a slower frequency. So why not go, leave to an applauding nation; why sit, in cricketing middle age, alone at home, as Ganguly must have, waiting for a phone call?”

Adam Gilchrist knew, in that instant that it took from when he dropped the catch in Adelaide to when the ball hit the ground, that it was time for him to leave the scene. It took him 1 second to realise that his time was up. And just as he turned his back and gave himself out, in that World Cup match against Sri Lanka — when he walked back to the pavillion — Gilchrist was convinced that his body was giving way. He decided that it was time to leave… on his terms. His mind was made. He talked about it in the papers the following morning. That was a courageous decision. Not many sports people know that their time has come. As Rohit Brijnath says, ”…they play because they love it, because they ache for competition, because they don’t do anything else as well, because they can still play, as Laxman might tell you… Competition is an addiction that keeps them here, that brings them back, an addiction so deep that even the perfect ending is somehow imperfect. In a way, this makes sense: how can finishing what you love most ever be satisfactory?”

So, it has to be about the selectors who make up their minds with some clarity, and then, make up the minds of our senior cricketers.

No one wants these five gentlemen to go. I certainly do not want them to go. But go, they have to! They are mortals and I would hate for these five fabulous gentlemen to go the way Kapil Dev did. We all heaved a collective sigh of relief when Kapil Dev left the scene. These five cricketers have been the best ambassadors for Indian cricket that I have known. Each one of them has been a gem. There aren’t many controversies surrounding Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Kumble and Ganguly. Yes, Ganguly has been an in-your-face cricketer and has incurred the wrath of some journalists. He has copped a few fines for slow bowling and the like. But he has worn his heart on his sleeve. He has been the one of the best leaders of men in Indian cricket. He can claim responsibility for transforming Indian cricket from a team with potential to a team that can beat the best… regularly. He and his band of gentlemen colleagues, are not just “Five Good Men”. They have been terrific role-models at a time when Indian cricket has grown from potential to strength. They have presided over a period that has been, quite undeniably, the most exciting phase of Indian cricket — with TV rights, monetary benefits, dominance on the world governing table, not to mention a strong and sustained growth in the strength of the team itself. Under their caring and watchful eye, India has won overseas Test matches and ODIs. India has started to translate its enormous potential into results on the ground. And this has been achieved by five extremely gentle, generous, well-mannered, humble, role models. History may not forgive their occasional indiscretions and tantrums. However, if they continue to overstay their tenure at the crease, history will be less kind — as it perhaps had been to Kapil Dev. We should not wish them to leave.

The responsibility for managing this exit should rest with the selectors. There can be no “deals”. There can be no voluntary retirement system in place. There should be a dignified and well-managed process for their exit. It cannot be up to the players! Anil Kumble will want to play till his arm falls off! Even last week, Anil Kumble said that he cannot put a time-frame on his retirement.

The selectors should develop the strategic roadmap and then have five independent conversations. They owe it to the Five gems. They also owe it to Indian cricket. For this to happen, as Harsha Bhogle says, “The non-negotiable here is the selector’s decision. You cannot sign a deal with a player for four games, for example, and keep him in the side if he doesn’t score a run in the first three and drop him if he makes a double hundred in the fourth. Ideally that conversation should happen before a player’s value has eroded but when the end is in sight. It should be a little nudge that says a push is round the corner. It then allows the player to either announce his retirement or take up the challenge and accept the push if the performance is not forthcoming. But for that to happen the selection committee has to be independent and their judgement non-negotiable. It is not impossible for it happens every day in places where merit is respected.”

India is lucky to have had these five dignified servants serve Indian cricket with excellence and courage. I certainly have been fortunate to have seen much of their cricket and have benefited from their frequent invasions of my living room. Indian cricket owes these Five Good Men a dignified, scripted and well-managed exit.

– Mohan

Fab Four Retirement — Can we please not debate this again?

[This article was submitted by Pranav Ram Gandhi, a regular reader of i3j3Cricket]

Here we go again, get ready cricket fans, its time (once again and again and again) to discuss the retirement of one of the Fab Four. This time it’s the Prince’s turn: Sourav Ganguly.

The question at hand: Since Sourav Ganguly was not selected for the Irani trophy, should he retire? Has the board struck a two-test deal for him to go out gracefully?

This time around the debate is about Sourav Ganguly. In a few months it will be about Rahul Dravid and V. V. S. Laxman and then it may be about Sachin Tendulkar. So in the interest of saving a discussion for the future, let me just pen down (hopefully for the final time) the story on the retirement of any of India’s Fab Four. Will they? Wont they? Should they? Shouldn’t they?

Vijay Merchants’ famous “Retire when people ask ‘why’ and not ‘why not’” statement when asked on why he was retiring set a trend in sport on how a certain sportsperson chooses on when to retire. For those of us who were too young to know what the esteemed batsman was referring to, on his sudden retirement announcement he was asked why? He responded that he would rather retire when people were asking him “why and not why not”

A noble thought, no doubt but is this the Golden Rule that all sportsmen must follow? Can this be the measuring stick of making ones’ decision? Let’s take a look and see how many of the greats truly stick by the same philosophy? The list is pretty well balanced.

The Merchant Conformists:

Bjorn Borg retired at a stage when most people believe he had a few grand slams left in him. He walked away from the game and never looked back. A few years later he tried to make a comeback with a wooden racket in a time of graphite power. Needless to say, the comeback was a disaster. But his original retirement still stands as his official one. Most at the time did ask why.

Shane Warne and Glen Mcgrath retired at a time when most people believed that they could have easily continued to be the leading bowling combination in the world. A big deal was not made of their retirement simply because they had played so much cricket. However, no one doubted their ability to still play at the highest level. Both performed superbly in the IPL, which was played well after they retired. There were a few that asked why, you can still perform we all said.

Justine Henin shocked the world when she retired as the number one women’s player in the world.
Others on this list include Michael Schumacher and Barry Sanders (American Football Player).

The Merchant Non conformists:

Kapil Dev stretched on his career just to break Richard Hadlee’s record of the total number of Test wickets. At a private party, a senior Indian cricket official (who shall go unnamed) said, “It is so embarrassing, Kapil is bowling so slow that the ball is not even reaching the wicket keeper. But what can we do? He just wont go.”

Michael Jordan retired, then came back, then retired again, then came back again and then retired again. The first and second retirements were in line with the Merchant philosophy, the third one, not so…

Muhammad Ali even came back one too many times. His last comeback at 37 led to an embarrassing defeat to Larry Holmes.

We now have the possibility of Lance Armstrong making his 3rd comeback. His second comeback from retirement was a stunning success. What will the 3rd coming hold in store for all of us?

Right time:

So what is the correct time to retire? When the press, media and most importantly the public push a sportsman to retire they have one of two reasons. Reason 1- You should retire now before you ruin your legacy. Reason 2- You are hampering the team’s success (in case of team sports), so please retire and get out of the way of the younger players.

Let us examine these reasons:

Legacy: The word legacy is so sacrosanct in sport that no one wants to tamper with it. If you have been great enough to have a legacy, why run the risk of ruining it right? I have a question for the legacy protectors: When Michael Jordan came back a third time and played with the Washington Wizards did he ruin his legacy? Is he no longer considered the greatest player ever to play the game of basketball and one of the greatest sporting icons ever? Is Kapil Dev not considered to be one of India’s greatest cricketers? What do we remember about Jordan? Is it his last shot in a Bulls Uniform in Game 6 of the 1998 NBA finals or his tumultuous two years in Washington? Is our image of Kapil Dev that of a struggling bowler who had a tough time in his last few tests? Or of him lifting the 1983 World Cup at Lords’?

Are the non-conformists at the risk of ruining their legacy? Not a chance. If you are great enough to have a legacy, no one can ever take that away from you. Muhammad Ali will always be the greatest, Michael Jordan will always be His Airness and Sachin Tendulkar will always be one of the greatest to play the game. That is one thing you can never take away from these men.

Younger players: There is a school of though that elder statesmen stand in the way of younger players and can often hamper the teams’ success. This question poses a dilemma. In the case of Kapil Dev, for example, this was a valid criticism. The team was suffering and no new bowlers were getting an opportunity. Yet there is another side to this as well. Sourav Ganguly was ousted and basically told by almost everyone outside of the West Bengal region that his time was over and that he should just retire. He went on to make one of the great comebacks in Indian cricket.

So who is to judge? Looking at the above examples, how do we know whether it is time for retirement, or it’s a slump in a long great career? The answer is that we don’t. Nobody really does. Not even the sportsperson themselves. For them to accept that they can no longer play at the highest level is more often than not unfathomable. In 2007 Sourav Ganguly was India’s highest scorer in Test cricket, and the world’s second highest scorer in Test cricket. He averaged 46.33 in his last 15 tests, well over his career average of 41.75. Sachin Tendulkar is averaging above 50 in his last 15 Tests while V. V. S. Laxman is averaging 53.40, which is almost 10 runs over his career average of 43.80. So do you really expect these batsmen to hang up their bats and call it a day? Do you really expect them to think that they can’t do it anymore and that they should retire? That is not happening my friends; they will argue that stats prove that they are still performing.

The only thing that might get the thought brewing in their heads is the recent tour of Sri Lanka where all of them struggled and two younger players in Virender Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir performed. However, I think it will take a lot more than one lousy tour to convince them that the end is near.
So what does that say for the Fab Four? Is their legacy in jeopardy? Not a chance. Sourav Ganguly will always be one of India’s greatest captains, a god on the offside, and the man who changed the way India plays cricket on the field. Rahul Dravid will always be The Wall, India’s greatest number three batsmen, and a class act. Laxman will always be the prettiest Indian batsman to watch, his 281 will remain in the folklores of Indian cricket and he will always be the man that the World Champion Australians “did not know where to bowl to”. And there will only ever be one Sachin Tendulkar. Enough said!

In conclusion, are they hampering the team? Should they be dropped? Should they call it a day? You will have ten people arguing for and ten others arguing against each one of these dilemmas. At the end of the day, they are going to retire when they want to. So leave them alone. Let us stop wasting paper, airtime on television, your time and most importantly my time in this wasteful and directionless discussion.

– Pranav Ram Gandhi

Does Ganguly have to retire?

This is written in response to a comment that Chandan made in an earlier thread. I started this in the “Comments” section of that post and then, when it grew too big on me, I thought I’d post it here as an article.

In his comments, Chandan says: “Secondly the decision to drop Ganguly can’t be long overdue because in March-April he had made a fighting 87 in a match where none of the other Indians batsmen clicked on a green track in Ahmadabad against SAf quicks and again made a match winning 87 in the final test on a minefield of a track where no other batsman from either side could score big. Failure in Lanka has been his first complete failure in a series.”

Sure. One can’t deny the fact that Ganguly has scored an 87 here and a 80 there in the recent past. But I said even back then that Ganguly has to step aside and let others occupy his place in the team.

My view is that one should not build for the long-term by just looking at the immediate past!

Steve Waugh made a gutsy 80 not out in his last Test. Indeed, in his last series, Waugh made 267 runs at an average of 44.50! Not bad returns! Does that necessarily mean that he should have played on for another 20 years! If he had, he may have made more runs even after his legs and eyesight had deserted him! Who knows?

Only in India do we — fans and administrators — look just at the last game or the last series before making an attempt to look at the future! Only in India do we ask petulantly, “So what ra? You think Rohit Sharma would be better than Ganguly-aaa? Prove it raaa. Look at Yuvraj. What he has done raaa.” in response to a postulation that Ganguly should make way for a future-build.

One can’t wait till a CEO has passed away to think of grooming the next CEO! We have succession plans in industry. So why are we insulating our sport from succession planning? Such succession planning should take into account future aspirations of the enterprise, the current state of resources and talent, the current capability that exists and future needs. Succession plans should also take into account current stability and continued sustainability of the fundamental proposition — an ongoing strong unit! Plans will then need to be drawn up for intercepting that aspirational future in a systematic manner!

In the position we find ourselves in, if we only looked at the last two series as the only thermometer for future-build decisions, I am sure we can mount a case for a perpetual stay-order on the axing of any of the fab-four until they lose their legs completely at age 86! After all, one could always point out that “X and Y failed ONLY in the last series but did well in the immediately previous series before that”!

Moreover, an argument around “Why bring in youngster X? Will he be better than Y?” does not hold water either. Few new CEOs of companies are immediately successful. Over time, they will develop their own character, develop their own bags of experience and chart their own path. Over time, a new fab four will emerge. Similarly in cricket!

India cannot afford a state where all four of the fab-four depart at once. Youngsters need to be phased in. Over time, a new and different Fab-Four will emerge!

Of the current Fab-Four, Ganguly looks the most dodgy. He looked lethargic and lackadaisical in Sri Lanka. His fielding is worse now than it ever was. The only saving grace in all of this is that, with Ganguly’s departure, Laxman is no longer the second-worst fielder in the team! This is not to suggest that Tendulkar, Dravid and Kumble are amazing fielders. However, it is inconceivable to me that Gautam Gambhir, Harbhajan Singh and Virender Sehwag are the three best fielders in a national Test side, with Harbhajan fielding at cover-point!

Moreover — and this is no more than a hand wave — while I can see continued contributions from Tendulkar and Dravid into the future, due to their over-reliance on technique, given his predominant reliance on hand-eye coordination, I see Ganguly as the potential first-cab-off-the-rank in a drip-by-drip spill-and-fill operation. In other words, I do see the potential for Dravid and Tendulkar to clear their Mendis-induced-cobwebs and bounce back. They have the luxury of falling back on their technique. One feels — and this is no more than a hand wave — that with the loss of that dogged determination that he so used to have and with the advancing of age — as evidenced by his lethargic fielding in Sri Lanka — Ganguly has to make way for a younger, smarter player.

I have been an ardent fan of Ganguly for a long time. And I still believe that he was Indian Cricket’s first real leader of men. But it is time for him to hang up his boots and quit the Test and ODI scene gracefully.

– Mohan

Silver Lining…

India’s loss to Sri Lanka in the Test series, with the Flab Four indulging in a “rabbits in headlights” muddle through, resulted in a silver-lining for a perpetual recent bridesmaid of Indian cricket. Thanks to Sachin Tendulkar injuring himself in the 3rd Test, Badrinath got a call-up as his replacement for the ODIs.

Earlier, Badrinath had spoken out fiercely for the first time on being overlooked yet again. The appalling aspect of his initial non-selection was that none of the selectors bothered talking to him about where he actually stood and whether or not he was at all in the frame. Surely, this is not the way to go about team selection! If selection is all about putting a team on the park for the next game, any dill would do!

Badrinath said earlier, “I’m lost, I don’t know where to go from here. None of the selectors have ever told me where I actually stand. I would love to know where I am lacking so that I can work on that.”

Worse still, after being “over taken” first by Rohit Sharma and then by Manoj Tiwary, the last straw for him was when he was over-taken by Virat Kohli.

When asked, Bupinder Singh Sr, one of the selectors, said that selection matters were confidential — so much for transparency!

Anyway, Team India’s Test Series loss, and Sachin Tendulkar’s injury meant a silver lining amidst a dark cloud.

Subsequent to this loss, I can’t imagine that a “do nothing strategy” will work for the selectors. It has worked quite elegantly for India up until now. There will be shrill calls for team change — often the only way change really happens in India!

Effigy makers are already rubbing their hands in glee as they hear their cash registers ring! I guess that’s the only way change is possible in Indian cricket! Sigh!

After all… When a “Why fix it, unless it is totally and irreparably broken?” mantra is the over-riding philosophy, what’s the point of a strategic plan? Crisis Management is the name of the game. Always.

Anil Kumble has been horribly unlucky with the “Review” system in the Test Series against Sri Lanka. He is bound to head back home dejected and disappointed not merely because of his misfortune with the “review” system! But because he has a far more important “Review” on his hands as he heads back to Bangalore to cool his heels. He would need to carry out a fearless and frank “Review” of Indian cricket’s strategic road-map. One is needed desperately and neither the BCCI nor the selectors have shown either the wherewithal or the interest or the courage to carry it out. It has to be up to Anil Kumble. He needs to “Review” Indian cricket and where it is headed in the next 5 years, which, despite the doomsday-ness of my postulation, is in desperate need for a large dose of courage.

Currently, when it comes to a strategic roadmap for Indian cricket, Anil Kumble has the luxury — another silver lining perhaps? — of having a blank piece of paper to work with. The people charged with this responsibility seem to have their hands only on confidentiality clauses and, of course, the cash register! That lot and the effigy-makers are making the money while Indian cricket suffers!

Meanwhile, more meaningless ODI cricket awaits us. A few wins there will make us forget this tragic loss, which, one hopes, will not be brushed under tattered and listless carpets.

– Mohan

Flab Four about to hand over series to Sri Lanka

This may be a headline that is written too soon — and I agree that it is the person who lives dangerously that writes off a Dravid-Laxman-led revival. However, I would be most surprised if India wins this Test match from here. India go into day-4 just 14 runs ahead and with most of their recognised batsmen back in the hut. Dravid and a limping-Laxman would perhaps need to live in Harry-Porter-Land to pull this one off.

Harbhajan Singh is looking for a miracle from Dravid and Laxman! He said, at the conclusion of the 3rd days’ play, “We are looking to have good partnership in the morning. I hope Laxman and Dravid play what they played in Kolkata (in 2001) and put us in a good situation. And from there if we win the game it will be a great win for Indian cricket.” He then went on to have a dig at the batsmen, when he said, “Obviously, it is a little disappointment that as a batting unit we did not perform what we should actually have. These are the guys who have won games for India. It is just a matter of not clicking perhaps.”

The peach, however, was when he attributed Ajanta Mendis’s phenomenal rise to luck! “I wish I could pick his luck, the wicket taking luck. We all bowl the same sort of delivery. Obviously he is new in international cricket. The more the people play him the more they will get to see him. More people will learn about him. Obviously he got some variation and every ball have variations. Basically I would like to steal his luck. Wicket taking luck!”

Hmmm! That explains a lot then! Harbhajan Singh puts down his own miserable run with the ball to lack of luck! It is not about bowling tripe. It is not about the miserable fielding that the Indians have displayed in this series. It is about wicket-taking luck!

For the state that Team India finds herself in, one can blame the fielding — and it has been bad. But then, one could mount an argument that it has always been bad! So, whats’ new? One can blame the bowling — and it has been inconsistent and insipid. But then it always has been an inconsistent area for India!

For me and my money, the Team India state is reflected by its middle order batting. It is the insipid middle order batting that has made the difference in this series. India’s middle-order was its strength. It is not at this current point in time. Time after time, good starts have been squandered by acts that remind us of rabbits and headlights! There is a certain nervous tentativeness about the middle order batting that does not bode well for Indian cricket.

Although Muthiah Muralitharan and Ajanta Mendis have bowled splendidly, I am convinced that India’s much celebrated “F(L)ab Four” haven’t contributed to the series situation. As Dileep Premachandran said in his piece in Cricinfo, there has been a muddle order about the Indian middle order in this series.

India went into this series against Sri Lanka with a much-celebrated middle order. They are returning from the series with more questions than answers. I am sure that the call for the slow (perhaps forced) retirement of the celebrated four will only grow to shrill-pitch when the team returns to India regardless of the outcome of the current Test match!

– Mohan

Where to from here for India?

So India lost the first Test at the SSC in Colombo. Correction. They did not just lose the 1st Test. They were mauled by what Sri Lankan captain, Mahela Jeyawardane called “the perfect Test“. It was indeed a “perfect” performance by Sri Lanka. Muthiah Muralidharan had a terrific Test match and Ajantha Mendis — I was a fan of his style of bowling from the moment I saw him in the Asia Cup Final — had a perfect debut Test. The Sri Lankan batsmen kept their foot on the pedal when they batted and made the most of shoddy fielding, bad catching and a lacklustre bowling performance by the Indians.

So where does India go from here?

Unfortunately, given the team composition that India has gone with, and given the captain’s proclivity to back his peers, nothing much can really be done!

Dinesh Karthik had an awful match. He made several blunders in his ‘keeping and his batting made Devang Gandhi look like a better alternative! It was that bad! However, I do not believe that the team will dare risk Parthiv Patel as a replacement! So it begs the question: Why did Parthiv Patel go in the first place? Would it not have been better to take a youngster like Srivats Goswami?

In the bowling department, Zaheer Khan bowled like a millionaire and Ishant Sharma was largely ineffective. Having said that, it is not like the team would risk swapping them with R. P. Singh and Munaf Patel? Munaf Patel bowls just a tad faster than Chaminda Vaas’s slower ball these days — which, in turn, is just marginally slower than Anil Kumble’s normal delivery! :-)

It is likely that R. P. Singh might replace Zaheer Khan and if the team management had courage, this swap may be profitable. It does not mean that R. P. Singh is a better bowler. But given the listless ineffectiveness of Zaheer Khan’s approach in the 1st Test, it may be that a shake-up is needed!

The spin bowling department presents more serious questions. Anil Kumble cannot be dropped. He is the captain. Harbhajan Singh was pedestrian in his approach and quality. It may be a good idea to swap him for Pragyan Ojha? But is this a viable option? It isn’t as if Ojha has a Mendis-like reputation behind him. And having not been in a pressure situation in the past, it is unlikely that India will risk losing pressure-cooker-situation experience for a debutant. For, however ineffective Harbhajan Singh was, he does have pressure-cooker-situation experience on his side. It will take a brave — very brave — captain to swap Harbhajan Singh for Pragyan Ojha for the 2nd Test!

The only way Ojha (or another pace bowler) can slot in is if one of the Fab Four batsmen is dropped (either that or Gautam Gambhir is dropped to allow Dinesh Karthik to open the innings). These are unlikely scnarios.

So, in the bowling and ‘keeping department, apart from a possible swap of R. P. Singh for Zaheer Khan, I do not foresee any change that India can make!

The batting is even more interesting! Given the absence of an all-rounder in the team, India is forced the hand it has been dealt by the selectors! Given the balance of the team and given that the batsmen capitulated so meekly in the 1st Test, nothing dramatic is going to happen with the batting — either the composition or the line-up! So, I predict the same batting line-up that India took to the 1st Innings of the Colombo Test — with Dravid at #3. In my view, there is nothing wrong with Dravid at #3. He is struggling, but I haven’t seen any evidence to indicate that Laxman is in the form of his life either!

It will require some courage for Kumble and the Team management to swap Sourav Ganguly for Rohit Sharma. In my view, this will be a welcome change and the commencement of a gradual phase-out of the Fab Four. However, in my view, it will not happen now. Kumble is perhaps too much of a traditionalist and peer-group-camaraderie-captain to go down that route. These are hard decisions that require a hard, relentless and uncompromising leader. In this regard, Kumble is no Steve Waugh.

So I suspect that the batting order will be the same too!

All an India fan can hope for is a better showing from its ‘stars’.

We live in hope of a bounce-back by India. It is possible. It has been done before. It needs the team to step up to the plate and play with the aggression and intent that it can.

– Mohan