A brief interlude

After King Khan, P Chidambaram, Dr MMS, Bal T and the PCB providing comic relief, the serious business is about to begin. A real Test series. Never mind even if it is a two match shoot-out, we will take whatever scraps Emperor Modi deigns to bestow us with.

While injuries to Dravid and Yuvraj have added the extra dimension to the contest, there is still time to go before that.

To me, the tour match - SA vs BPXI is of much interest. The squad picked is a decidedly young one and there are a few interesting names.

If Yuvraj, Vijay and Badri are ahead of him in the Test scheme of things, Ajinkya Rahane need not fret. He is young and has ample time on his side. Unlike Raina/Rohit/Kohli he is unlikely to be rushed into the LOI teams and then consigned to the scrap heap and that is not a bad thing in itself. Ask Rohit. This outing against the best bowling attack in the world will show where Rahane stands as a prospect when the greats leave.

Touted by Ian Chappel as the next best thing in the Indian middle order, the captain for this game, Rohit Sharma, impressed many (including this sometimes blogger) with his effortless strokeplay. Two years since, he has hit a roadblock and has only himself to blame. The ability is still there, a triple in the domestic circuit is but an indicator. However, the ODI route seems shut for now with Virat Kohli stealing a march and Dhoni seeming to favour Raina, with some merit, over him. Gilchrist gushed about his leadership in the IPL. That is another aspect which will come under scrutiny.

Parthiv Patel has been making big runs under the radar recently although it is his keeping that has let him down in the past. While Wridhhiman Saha's selection was a surprise, in the absence of Dhoni it will always be DK and then PP. Why DK missed the bus this time nobody knows, but PP gets another go.

Eight 100s and four 50s in 39 innings are an indicator of Abhinav Mukund's potential. Remains to be seen who makes the final XI with Shikar Dhawan, Cheteshwar Pujara apart from Rahane and PP in the squad. Like Rahane, he has time on his side and is an opener. A long term prospect and worth watching.

For me the most interesting player to watch would be Manish Pandey, still fresh from his heroics at Mysore and good support hand at Indore. The class is evident. This encounter will test his temperament. I back him to come good.

Another youngster who has impressed most people is R Ashwin. After turning a Duleep Trophy semifinal around, this break comes just at the right time for him. No secret that Bhajji is given the long rope thanks to MSD. Soon enough Bhajji will use the rope to hang himself and when he does that, Ashwin's time will come. It would be after WC2011. Till then he would do well to stay motivated.

This brief couple of weeks, sandwiched between Bangladesh and mindless IPL games could be a pointer to things to come for Indian cricket.

++++

Support cast

Two fringe-men have made it count.

I had referred to Kulasekara as a 'journey-man' in an earlier post. 59.4 overs, 12 wickets out of a total 40 to have fallen, at a cost of 12.83 per wicket later, I am not sure these are the stats of a journeyman.

If Sri Lanka keep their cool, the series will be over today and Kulasekara would have had no mean part, whatever be the outcome. From being a prop in a line-up with names such as Murali, Vaas, Mendis and Fernando, Kulasekara has had his moment in the sun.

The other fringe-man has always made it count. Paul Collingwood stepped into the breach, yet again. Collingwood suffers the same fate as VVS Laxman did for the most of his career. He, for some reason was considered the most expendable of the middle-order batsmen, playing perennially for survival. A middle order prop, to bat somewhere between the glamour boys KP and Flintoff. Nothing more.

To me, he is the quintessential team-man. Be it, dragging England by the bootstraps to some respectable total, hard running and smart play in ODIs, or sheer doggedness as shown in this rearguard action - Collingwood is the man. He was never in the limelight (He never will be, with his nudges and shovels) in a team with KP and Flintoff, but he is one person Strauss can rely on to give his best everytime, unnoticed.

I have seen three of his innings which typefies the player he is. None of them remarkable for any great batting quality, but the timeliness of the effort.

1. The maiden hundred at Nagpur in 2006 to put up a total of 400 in a match they were expected to turn up and lose.

2. The double hundred which was strangely a support innings to KP's 150 plus at Adelaide.

3. The second innings hundred to support Strauss' hundred in Chennai in that test match - while Cook, Bell, KP and Flintoff all made single digit scores.

Typically, 1 was a draw and 2 and 3 were remarkable wins - for England's opponents. That has been the theme of Collingwood's career, although 9 hundreds and 15 fifties in 49 Tests suggests a 'maximiser'.

Go well Colly. You deserve your place in the sun.

Finally underway

If Nathan Hauritz were to play domestic cricket in India, they would not smash him out of the attack. They are clever chaps, our batsmen - they can't run two laps during training but they can bat for two days. Hitting him out of the attack is only closing an option. Instead, the Jaffer and others will re-check their guards, take a deep breath and proceed to tuck him off their legs all day. They will kep the valve open - 3 an over - Aaram se. Hauritz would end the day with something like 20-0-70-1 with someone or the other getting out due to sheer boredom.

His effort on Day 1 of Ashes 2009 was something similar. But the single digit in the last column was the difference between a commanding England total/a possibly winning start and an adequate looking one. As it stands, the game is poised evenly with England slightly in front due to the fact that their attack looks more balanced and they will likely be bowling last. However if I were the Goblin (© JRod), I would be thinking three more wickets before they get 350 and game on here.

25 minutes before KP's inspired moment, when he and Collingwood were comfortable in the middle, Australia were staring at 450 minimum. Collingwood edged one he could have left alone, but that was nothing compared to the madness to follow. KP like Virender Sehwag is spoken of as a maverick and a true gift to the game, supremely talented and unique. But while Viru gets out to 'needless' shots at times, he plays the percentages well. I mean, assuming KP connected that shot well, what would he have got, a brace round the corner? Is it worth a wicket in a test match?

Two new men in, Goblin on the attack, Lucifer joins him in the slips and the Aussies are back in the game. Here's where Matt Prior impressed (despite his average of 48, I honestly thought Aus were into the tail) and Flintoff found his spark. Aussies are good at choking off the runs, but Prior played intelligently, tucking it in the legside and running hard, never keeping Flintoff away from the strike. One pull and a brutal straight drive suggested all is well with him. Bowling has been Freddie's stronger suit and his batting in recent times has a sometimes distracted, sometimes laboured look to it. On this occasion he made a visible effort to dominate and strangely Australia withdrew. Deep point on the boundary when the offspinner is bowling (your sole specialist, remember) is not a great sign.

That said, bowling is not the Aussies stronger suit. If Stuart Broad and world record holding batsman Anderson can hand around and push the score close to 375, then the Aussies would worry. Either way the first hour would be fascinating.

PS: I have always thought that the Ashes are England's biggest ego massage - telling themselves more than anyone else that they matter in world cricket. However, with the glut of T20 in recent times, I am delighted to watch Test cricket, no matter who is playing.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

Rahul Dravid is my favourite cricketer of all time - ( it was him and Sachin, but when Rahul was bowled going for a reverse sweep on 270, in Rawalpindi when India were going for a declaration, in my opinion, he dwarfed everyone else)- one of the modern day greats of the One Day game and an all time legend in Tests. No two ways about it. Even these days, when he does not make the first cut ODI XI or XVI, the wise men have deemed him good enough to be in the mix.

It is a long way off to the CT (as fellow bloggers refer it), but then, such is the nature of Indian cricket that a debate will be ignited even before the team has returned from the ongoing series. So while the team takes a break, this debate will go on and intensify when the current 30 is cut down to 15 or 16 (with or without Dravid) as per the tournament's dictates - 'pruning' they call this process. One of the sports channels has already started the show and irate fans are calling from all over to voice their opinions.

For me, the move baffles on two counts:

1. Having more or less picked a core group keeping in mind the WC 2011, the selectors should stick to that group and certainly Rahul Dravid is not part of that group. Hence if Raina/ Rohit are inadequate at No3, either by technique or temperament, then try out the other players in your core group. For instance Badrinath, who has done just about everything but get even a sporadic look-in into the playing XI or Murali Vijay (who was deemed good enough to open in a Test match against Australia). By going to Dravid, the wise men are signalling that they lack confidence in the group that they picked and groomed all along and the same group who has given them a string of victories in T20 and ODIs (which are too well known to be repeated). If the youngsters (like Suresh Raina) were not equipped in 2007, there was no evidence in the interim to suggest that they were better equipped to fast, short-pitched bowling now. And if you think that this lot is not the best, then dropping Dravid for the CB (Australia ODI) series was a mistake in the first place. (And now don't tell me it is the other selection committee, we all know that MSD got the team he wanted). Hence the move does not look good.

2. Is this move intended to give a 'message' to the Rainas and Rohits, that " You guys have to hone your technique/temperament, or we will not hesitate to drop you. Youngistan-2011 be damned." If so it fails, because the other (wrong) message goes to unintended parties - like Badri for instance - that "We will pick you in the 15, but will not insist on you being played. We do not notice your presence. And hence we will go back to the grand master, whom we avoided all along". The right thing to do is straight forward: Having identified R and R as the future, send them on India A Tours/ Emerging Player Tours , where their technique and temperament will be tested. Have a wise man go with them full time to see how they are faring, if need be. As for Badri/Vijay/Ojha/Nayar - see how they fare against international opposition over an extended period of time. Having them as passengers on a tour is helping neither the team nor them. if you just want to make up the numbers, you could take Sreesanth along. He is more fun than any of Badri/Vijay/Ojha/Nayar. He will keep you entertained for sure.

Mohammad Yousuf - The prodigal son

Mohammad Yousuf is a class act. One does not score close to two thousand runs in a year otherwise.

I can recall his batting from three instances. WC 99 was a sucessful campaign for Pakistan bar the final. While Shoaib Akhtar and the bowlers get lot of credit (fairly) and also Razzak for his stodgy batting at no 3 to hold the innings together, to me the key man was Yousuf (Youhana those days). Allright Razzak blocked and kept the wickets intact, but someone had to pace the innings and explode at the end and also give strike to other hitters (Azhar Mehmood and co). That someone in WC 99 was always Yousuf. The absolute mastery in 2006 and partnership with Younis against India. Admittedly, home wickets were favourable, but this man was remorseless. Flawless. The 4th innings 88 he made against Murali in a losing cause. Surprising everyone with how late he could play Murali and remain in control.

Among his contemporaries if one were to describe batting in a word, Younis is bold, Inzamam was classy and Yousuf is all poise.

While I did not see the century on return, I am sure he must have shown plenty of that poise against Mendis and co. 80/4 is a tricky situation to be chasing 290 plus. From there on to get a small but substantial lead of 50 runs is very good going indeed. The match is intriguingly poised and Yousuf has done the job once again. On a difficult track, coming in after a long layoff to score a a hundred at 60 runs per 100 balls confirms that he is a special batsman. Critics could point out that the rest of this team has not played much cricket anyway, but to make a comeback of sorts is always tough. (Ask anyone from Mohinder Amarnath to Dinesh Karthik) Twenty-five test hundreds is a mark of greatness and he is just one short.

On an aside, it is great to have Test cricket up and running after a surfeit of T20.

What If?

This is case has been dead and buried for all purposes. VVS Laxman's ODI record. The idea is to put things in perspective, question the perils of stereotyping cricketers and seeing them through blinkers.

VVS Laxman is one of the greatest batsman India has produced. With close to 7000 test runs, he is arguably the best cricketer in the world to have never played a single World Cup match. The two reasons cited for which he was kept out or missed out (depending on which way one looks at it) were 'Running between the wickets' and 'not the best fielder'.

Let us consider his two contemporaries, great batsmen, who were not great runners and not the best fielders (ground fielding and run saving ability, NOT catching) either and use them as a benchmark for various comparisons. Rahul Dravid and Saurav Ganguly.

Career Stats as of date

Player/Matches/Innings/NO/Runs/Average /Strike Rates/HS/100s/50s Dravid/333/308/40/10585/39.49/71.22/153/12/81

Ganguly/311/300/23/11363/41.02/73.70/183/22/72

Laxman/ 86/ 83/ 7/ 2338/ 30.76/71.23/131*/6/10

At first sight, Laxman's record suggests an inconsistent underacheiver. One has to note that the played his 86 matches staggered over 1998 to 2004 as opposed to the other two who were sure starters in this period. Confidence and assurance of a place plays no small part in performance as you will see.

The fact is that both Ganguly and Dravid were notoriously slow starters in ODIs and grew with experience and responsibility. Ganguly matured soon, and benefited from opening the batting which did his average and SR a lot of good. After 2002, Dravid found his niche at No5 and became perhaps the best middle order batsman in the game, till the time he was dropped. The high NOs and 81 fifty plus scores attest to that fact.

One interesting column is the strike rate. Notice that, even with the staggered 86 matches and even with Dravid and Ganguly improving their ODI play in the middle and later stages of their careers, Laxman has the same SR as Dravid and only 2.5 runs per 100 balls less than Ganguly. So much for Ganguly's big hitting and fast scoring abilities.

So how did Dravid and Ganguly fare in their first 86 matches?

Overall Records in the same number of matches

Same number of innings would have been a better indicator, but since I could not find such a filter in cricinfo (maybe I did not look hard enough) hence this. Even so, being top order batsmen all, it would be a fairly accurate reflection of performance.

Player /Matches/Inns/NO/ Runs/ Average/SR/HS/ Hundreds/ Fifties/ Period

Dravid/86/79/6/2738/37.50/68.70/145/5/18/1996- 5 Jun 1999

Ganguly/86/81/7/2998/40.51/68.87/124/5/20/ 1992(1996)-10 Jan 1999

(Forget the 'on-paper' debut in 1992)

Laxman/ 86/ 83/ 7/ 2338/ 30.76/71.23/131*/6/10/ 1998-2006

Here Laxman's runs and average are low compared to the other two giants. One obvious reason is in the last column. While the other two played out those 86 matches within 3 years, VVS had them staggered over a 12 year period, being in and out of the ODI side. That is not a recipe if one is looking for consistent run of scores. Had he been given a consistent run at No 3, who knows what might have been possible. Plus one must consider he did not make many runs against the minnows of those days. Although it is not clear from this bit of statistic, there were innumerable matches with likes of Bangladesh, Kenya, Zimbabwe and weak bowling sides ( in the subcontinent) like NZ against which Ganguly especially scored a lot of runs. Bringing them into the equation is beyond the scope of the subject.

One measure of how good a player is would be how you fare against the best in the business. It is known that Laxman enjoyed playing against Australia. However, the other point is that Australia were(are) the pre-eminent ODI side in the world, winning ALL the ODI World Cups in question, in this period of later half of 1996 to 2007. To score runs against them in ODIs, one would have to be exceptionally talented to find the gaps, or clear the field, and/or be fleet of foot to beat their super-strong fielding side. None of this three were exceptional runners, although Dravid was/is a great judge of the single. So how have this three gentlemen fared against the Aussies?

Record against Aus in 86 matches

For Laxman, these are the only ODIs played. For Dravid and Ganguly, these were the first 86 Matches they played.

Player /Matches/Inns/NO/ Runs/ Average/SR/HS/ Hundreds/ Fifties/ Period

Dravid/5/5/0/125/25.00/65.44/56/0/1/ 1996 - 5 Jun 1999

Ganguly/8/8/0/213/26.62/64.74/72/0/2/ 1996 - 10 Jan 1999

Laxman/21/19/3/ 739/46.18/77.05/106*/4/2/ Till Date

VVS strike rate against Australia 77.05 is considerably better than his career average. Nothing surprising here. This is more than the career strike rates of all three.

The stats also show that for an Australia series VVS was more likely to be selected. Hence he high proportion, almost 25% against Australia.

Obviously in their first 86 matches Dravid and Ganguly were not very 'seasoned' and pitted against Australia in that period, their records are fairly ordinary. Comparitively VVS's most productive matches against Australia came on the back of his most productive test series against them (2001 India and 2003-04 Australia - confidence and assurance of a place). As for Dravid and Ganguly , undoubtedly, as they grew in class and stature, their career records improved vastly.

Hence a better measure would be to compare how each of them has fared in similar number of outings against the best. This is by no means conclusive, since each batsman tends to have his 'favourite' opposition. Ganguly's in this stage was Pakistan who was still India's bogey and that spoke for temperament. But Austalia were top dog any day.

Record against Australia in same number of matches played

Player /Matches/Inns/NO/ Runs/ Average/SR/HS/ Hundreds/ Fifties/ Period

Dravid/19/19/0/543/28.57/64.56/80/0/5/ Upto 14 Oct 2003

Ganguly/20/20/0/466/23.30/64.36/100/1/3/ Upto 10 Jan 2003

Laxman/21/19/3/ 739/46.18/77.05/106*/4/2/ Till Date

Considering similar number of innings/matches against Australia, Laxman is head and shoulders above the other two while Ganguly's is the poorest in terms of average. Strike Rate wise too Laxman is streets ahead. The Aussies really had Ganguly sorted out on the offside, while Dravid's 6 fifties (seen here and few more 40s not seen here) are proof of his growing assertiveness in the middle overs. Finally, let us see how Dravid and Ganguly fared against Australia till date. Laxman's stats, as expected, remain unchanged. Surely Dravid and Ganguly cannot beat that average of 46 plus by Laxman against Australia.

Career Stats against Australia as of date

Player /Matches/Inns/NO/ Runs/ Average/SR/HS/ Hundreds/ Fifties

Dravid/42/39/0/974/24.97/66.94/80/0/8

(includes all innings played for India and ICC World XI)

Ganguly /35/33/0/774/23.45/67.71/100/1/5

Laxman/21/19/3/ 739/46.18/77.05/106*/4/2

As expected, Dravid and Ganguly are nowhere near that average. Although had Laxman played another 14-15 matches against his favourite opponents, his average might have come down, but that again is arguable. Curiously, Dravid has regressed in terms of average but has got one fifty plus score in every 5 outings. Ganguly has not improved by much. Possibly an older Laxman in ODI's may have deteriorated performance wise.

Comments and Conclusion

The reason for choosing Australia has been mentioned - that they are the premier one day side and it is a fair indicator of the ability of the man in question and he has played most matches against them. It would not have helped to track Laxman's record against, say, Pakistan (against whom, perhaps Ganguly played some of his best knocks) since Laxman played only 10 matches against them (including a matchwinning 107(104) in a ODI Final in Lahore)

It must be noted that this is THE BEST form of Laxman in ODIs. Dravid and Ganguly had similar runs against different opposition in different times. This is a question - 'What if?'

This is not meant to be a critical assessment of Dravid and Ganguly, but it is notable for two things. One - Dravid and Ganguly were far from their usual best against Australia in their ODI game and Laxman raised his ODI game against Australia. Two - how much perception influences reality. Given 330 odd ODIs what could have Laxman done?

Laxman's best place was No 3, but due to the Saurav/Sachin/Sehwag opening conondrum in the later years, the No 3 spot was not available for him.

Call it Laxman'sbad luck or whatever, but the earlier half of his career ODI specialists JAdeja and Robin Singh were around and later half, Yuvraj Singh and company had made it, hence the theory that there were 'better' players for the ODI game. (BTW Ajay Jadeja's career SR was 69.80 - another statistical quirk? or perception becoming reality? Truth was , Jadeja was an established matchwinner in ODIs when Laxman came along)

One final statistic. Please consider the following list.

Ajay Jadeja 196

Ajit Agarkar 191

Harbhajan Singh 185

Venkatesh Prasad 161

Nayan Mongia 140

Robin Singh 136

MS Dhoni 134

Manoj Prabhakar 130

Mohd Kaif 125

Vinod Kambli 104

Kiran More 94

VVS Laxman 86

Dinesh Mongia 57

Hemang Badani 40

The above list shows names of certain players and their ODI caps for India. Now ask yourself - What if?

All stats from Cricinfo

The Deputy

What would happen if Mahendra Singh Dhoni were to sit out for a match? I know, the current designated vice captain in Yuvraj. When Sehwag returns, it would be him. But after the break till September/Champions Trophy, India have a fairly long season ahead. So they would have to be prepared for eventualities and cannot allow their form to vary with their skipper's presence. It happened in NZ, in the second test match, and the Indians, going by match reports, were listless on the field. What got them out of jail was the ability of Dravid and Laxman to bat time and Gautam Gambhir's discovery of another dimension to his game. There may come a time when MSD has to sit out an entire series. I also know that it is still early days int MSD's stint as captain, but there is no harm in thinking of a long term deputy and an alternative, when the need arises.

The vice captain in Indian cricket is an interesting animal. It surfaces in overseas tours and multi-lateral tournaments. It is generally unseen in home series. For tours it has been either the most experienced player besides the captain, or the next best player and someone who is sure of his place always in the starting XI.

Dhoni is the captain for the foreseeable future but who should be the deputy for a long term? If the selectors were to look for a succession plan, the next generation of cricketers are to be considered. Run through the following names of cricketers who are the gen next to the Dhoni/Yuvraj crop - Irfan Pathan, Dinesh Karthik, RP Singh, Rohit Sharma, Raina enough already. None of them is a shoo-in for all three versions of the game and each of them has his own problem(s) to worry about. Gilchrist was gushing about Rohit's leadership in the IPL, but the Indian team is a very different beast. While Irfan P and DK strike as future possibilities, they too are not sure starters and hence in the present scheme of things just cannot be.

So much for succession planning. So the VC has to be an experienced guy, from the Dhoni/ Yuvraj crop, possibly senior even and perform the kind of role Dravid did and what Sangakkara used to do until recently - Contemporary of the captain, may not have a similar long tenure, but experienced leader and will slot in without trouble.

Sehwag and Yuvraj obviously fit in here and Sehwag is the first among equals. He is as street smart as anyone else and there is not much against him except an apparent laidbackness. Yuvraj did not seem too inspirational in both the IPLs. In fact in the first version Jayawardene and Sangakkara were running the ship in tense situations. When Dhoni was chosen over him, there was the impression that he was irked, but now he seems to have made peace with the reality. He must be allowed freely to do what he does best - that is singlehandedly win matches for India.

As for the rest, there is Zaheer, Harbhajan and Gautam Gambhir. Appointing Harbhajan in any kind of leadership role would be the biggest practical joke the selectors can play on the team, its supporters and Harbhajan himself. Gambhir is young enough to serve for another 7-8 years. He is a sure starter for all versions of the game, looked in control in his IPL stint (unlike Bhajji and Yuvraj) and has grown in stature by virtue of his performances and will hence command the respect of his peers and juniors.

For me though, Zaheer is the most impressive canditate. He took the leadership role in the field during power-plays in ODIs, mentored Ishant, set fields with great effect, importantly looked in control. Lastly, he has the respect and trust of the main man in charge. He would command respect by being a sure starter, a match-winner and a man who has fought his way back to the top by hard work and performance. In his comeback avatar, he has made himself counted with the bat more often than not showing the willingness to hand in there. In close test matches in the recent past, the resoluteness of the Indian tail has tilted things their way. Zaheer has contributed to this in a big way.

So all things being equal, Zaheer it has to be for me as VC, till the next generation stands up to be counted.

The meaningless series

While the shoot-out stands at 1-1 before resuming next weekend, what exactly are the takeouts for Team India.

Gautam Gambhir needs a break and soon

It is not as though he has become a bad player of short-pitched bowling overnight, although, successive dismissals in the same mode will do two things. One, put some doubt in his mind and two, encourage even average quicks to pitch it short since the word has gone around. Nothing to worry about though. He did not have an outstanding run in Tests and ODIs with glaring weaknessess in his technique against the short ball. All he needs is a break, since, after Dhoni and Ishant he has been the most overworked Indian cricketer on view. The remaining 2 ODIs, even if he gets decent score will not matter much in the long run. It may be a better idea to give Murali Vijay a couple of outings whilst the series is alive. He did not look out of place in the Nagpur Test and also in the (very) limited opportunities he had in the IPL.

Rohit Sharma needs a wake-up call

Since his matchwinning 80 odd in the T20 Warm Up against Pakistan, this guy has been sleep-walking, first throught the T20WC and now, the first two matches of the meaningless series. Forget the two inconsequential wickets during the Windies chase. He should have been counted with the bat, more so in the second encounter and he failed. Some people do not revel in competition and would like a free range. Rohit had fared well in Australia, but since the arrival of Raina, his opportunities at 3 and 4 have been few and far between and he did not seem to enjoy batting at 6 (if at all in the playing XI). With no Raina aroundand hence no 'peer-pressure', and the team management seemingly inclined to give him an unbroken run as opposed to giving Badri a look-in, Rohit had the right platform. He then proceeded to shoot himself in the foot but mis-hooking once and flailing outside off in yesterday's game. As in Gambhir's case, these two failures do not put him in the 'bad batsman' category. However, serious questions need to be asked on his temperament and focus. For someone spoken of as the next big thing in the test middle-order, T20 cameos are not good enough.

Yuvraj is the key in LOIs

If this point was ever missed, these two games have only served to reinforce that. True that Sehwag found some consistency in ODIs. True that GG had been in unprecedented form. True that MSD's output in ODI's were Dravid-esque. True that the bowling as a unit has worked, but the undoubted star was Yuvraj. When not blasting hundreds , he has been crucial in injecting momentum at other times with timely big hitting. Counting those innings he has made 25 or above, he has scored 828 from 714 balls faced (pounding 30 x 6 and 93 x 4 for good measure, exactly 66.66 % of those 828 runs). In retrospect, it is such brilliance that has reduced pressure on GG and MSD and I would say, allowed them to prosper. (Latest bit of evidence of extra-ordinary ability - that half-flick, half swat off Rampaul that went miles over square leg for six, bowler looking bemused).

Ishant needs a breather

If playing under Bookha Naan for the Whipping Boys II of the IPL dint wear him down, the cumulative effect of the last 18-20 months certainly did. It showed in the T20WC and here too. He will learn to vary his length depending on the surfaces and be a better bowler. It is too early to compare his apparent decline with Irfan Pathan's. For one thing, Pathan had another suit to his game while Ishant has none. He seems focussed enough to recover his bowling mojo. His strength was to keep running in over after over tirelessly. Now, 18 months after Perth, it is natural that he is jaded.

Harbhajan plays true to form

Enough has been said about his bowling and attitude. Bottomline is that he is a passenger and doing just enough to keep the axe away. His admittedly brave efforts while batting should not hide the fact that he is in the team for taking wickets and 18.1-0-101-1 are poor returns for this wicket taker. His apologists in the 'expert' commentary panel, wax eloquently about how the 'compulsions' of limited overs cricket has caused him to cut down the flight, drift and fire it on the pads of the batsmen. Point taken. So where is the flight, drift and loop in the test matches? Shane Warne was Australia's premier bowler in WC '99. He had more than 300 test wickets already and was primarily an attacking bowler. Yet he displayed commendable control and accuracy and took two 4-32 and 4-33 in the SF and Final and handed Australia the cup. In such times of need, Harbhajan invariably goes AWOL and that is my case against him. How can we, therefore, expect any earth-shattering deeds from the turbanator, that too in the 'meaningless' series?

As I see it, the BCCI missed a trick. They could have compulsorily 'rested' some of the players who have been on the road for quite some time. It was in one such 'meaningless' 3 match ODI (initially scheduled to be 5 match) series in Canada against the Windies that Ganguly led India for the first time in Sachin's absence and came back with a 2-1 win. It was notable for the way he staggered himself, Sadagopan Ramesh and Dravid (the only international experience) at 1,3,5 in a weak batting order and optimised it. Such 'meaningless' series are just right for identifying such signs of leadership and ability.

While the board will continue to milk their cash cow to the last ounce, it is also upto the captain and coach to see who are really the motivated individuals and play them.

ICC World T20 - A review

They did it again, only this time, after a gap of several years . Right throught the 80s and early 90s ,if a there was a team that can raise themselves and their level of performance exponentially on the big stage it was Pakistan. Innumerable Champions Trophies, Sharjah Cups etc not to forget big ones like WC 92 attest to that. But over the years, retirement of stalwarts combined with their inherent inconsistency had led to a decline. From consistently challenging the Windies and Australia in the '80s and beating England, India, SL and NZ at will, anywhere, they have slipped to become a middle runger - capable of beating anyone on their day, but their 'days' were few and far between (much like the various Indian teams till the beginning of this decade) and occasionally capable of the ludicrous (losing to Bangladesh in WC '99 and Ireland in '07). But there would be no shortage of theatre.

This time around, they were playing true to form, customary lousy start, backs to the wall, draw favouring them etc. All said and done, after the defeat to SL in the super 8s, they needed to win 4/4 to lift the cup, backs to the wall again. Enter Popeye Razzak.

NZ 2/17 & 5(8)

Ireland 15(9) & 0/18

SF1 - S.Af 12(15) & 0/19

Final SL - 3/20

Granted. Nothing to shout about from rooftops, save the final. But what it did, was to free up the enormous burden on Shahid Afridi and let the team bat him and no 3 in the semis and final. And boy, din't Afridi turn up - match turning/ match winning performances in each of the four occasions. When Ganguly had progressed as an ODI matchwinner, the pressure on Sachin (sole matchwinner in absence of Sidhu and off/on form of Azharuddin) reduced and as a consequence India's overall performance improved steadily. We can see a distant parallel here. With Razzak back in the fold and Imran Nazir to come, and the bowling firepower they already possess, Pakistan's stock in the limited overs versions can be expected to soar. What was difference this time around in the climactic stages, was the absence of histrionics. (Q called it an un-Pakistani win). What the win has done is revive interest in Pakistan cricket and that is necessarily a good development.

Sri Lanka, the romantic's favourite failed only once and that when it mattered most. With WC 2007, they have fallen at the last hurdle in two of the three big occasions. Dilshan replaced Jayasuriya as the talisman player, but weakness in the lower middle order persists. After Ranatunga and Tillekeratne, they had Russel Arnold, who though not a big hitter, could be relied to see them home in tight chases with smart play and excellent running. Chamara Silva and Mubarak do not seem to have it in them. Angelo Mathews is their find of the tournament and seems to be a confidence player. They would do well to give him more opportunities, since he has age on his side to become a real star. Jayasuriya and Murali will not be around for ever. They would have to develop Malinga Bandara and also coax consistency out of Dilhara Fernando when he returns (the good Fernando, that is). For all his ICC rankings, Kulasekara, I think is a journeyman, the thoroughbreds are Malinga and Fernando.

There was some talk about South Africa being title favourites. I was sceptical all along. In SF1, with Pakistan to bat first, it was all uphill for South Africa from there. Q's prediction here was spot on. South Africa have been a consistently strong team, usually in the top 3 in all versions. They achieve such high ratings over a period of time with strong home and away records in bilateral ODI tournaments. They (like NZ) flop and flounder in the crunch in big (multilateral) tournaments. They are good at reading opposition tactics and consistently exploiting them over a period of time (recall Fannie DeVillers getting Sachin out with the slower ball, circa '96), but will not break the mould and dare to try something different, even in the biggest of crunch matches. The T20 SF1 was one such. They are faced with the most versatile bowling unit and chasing 150 and off to a decent start. Would they use Albie Morkel at No 3 or 4 to scatter the bowling and give him a chance to play game breaker. No way! They will play it safe , in the pretext of staying in the hunt and follow the primary school head-master schedule of Gibbs, DeVilliers and Duminy who collectively score 50 runs of 48 balls. Result, Morkel sitting and chafing in the dugout and momentum lost. This is not a case for Albie Morkel as a player and a matchwinner, it is a case for a team in a must win situation, overcoming the fear of failure and making a daring move to win. The end margin - 7 runs. If Morkel had faced half, no a fourth of those 48 deliveries, South Africa would have been in the final. (I made a similar case for using Yusuf Pathan well, earlier). So one can safely say, that till they will continue to be ranked in the top 3, win all home series againt all opposition (till Dhoni takes an Indian team there for a bilateral series ;-)) but still fail in crunch matches in big tournaments.

And what about the Windies. They will continue to entertain and exasperate in turn. But to be fair to them, they ran into SL who came up with their best performance in the entire tournament. Dilshan did not play his scoop perfectly even once, but got to within a hit of his century and after Mathews' bizzare first over, it was game, set and match. But Windies have that most important component for LOIs these days. The genuine, matchwinning, allrounder Dwayne Bravo (not the Ajit Agarkar type). A couple of years ago, Bravo seemed to have only one shot as a batsman - the hoick over midwicket. He has developed an all round game. But Chris Gayle continues to be the main man.

New Zealand did nothing of note, saw their key batsmen get injured, whined after being thrashed and sulked out of the tournament. New Zealand is one of those teams which will always have a minnow or two in all their league games (South Africa being another). They will promptly bash the minnows, get into the next stage and run into versatile opposition like Pak or SL and be shown the door. Eternal Bridesmaid. But somehow they manage to beat India in T20s.

England, like India will be a much talked about and much written about team. In KP and Bopara they have the class and dash for the 50 over and 20 over games. What they lack is the willingness to play Panesar and a high class keeper who can bat well. Their seamers and steady without being spectacular and they are good in the field. Like NZ, they will form the middle rung without ever punching above their weight and unlike NZ they will be true gentlemen. Read - they will not bully the minnows.

Australia - they have received scathing comments and deservedly so for their two performances. What was unnoticed in the melee, is that despite being 3 down for little in the WI match, they posted 170 plus. But for the good Chris Gayle turning up, who knows what would have happened. Similarly, in the next game Dilshan caught them with a punch to the solar-plexus, even before the bowlers had settled and that allowed his captain to manage the chase well. They key to beating Australia in all forms of the game is simple - early and sustained aggression, but not everyone can do this. NZ, Eng and SA certainly cannot. Recall WC 2007 SF2. South Africa talking big about aggression and the match getting over in the first half an hour!Beware a wounded Australia, the next world cup but 10 months away.

And finally what of India. The typical Indian narrow viewed jingoist in me lost interest in the tournament after the teams exit, and hence such a long time for this post. However, in many ways this defeat was a blessing in disguise. For one, it showed Rohit and Raina, there is a long, long way to go, before they can aspire to get into the Test side. Hopefully, this defeat will cause the selectors to introspect about having separate personnel for different versions and not bunch them under "good test player is a good LOI player" mantra. For instance, should the next slot be available in the middle order (temporarily or permanently), it would have to be Badri and Pujara in that order and not Raina and Rohit. Similarly, it will also hopefully stop Ishant being bowled into the ground. If he is a Test match bowler and not found his groove in LOIs, so be it. Steve Harmison retires from ODIs, spends two years thinking about the Ashes, lands up in Brisbane and bowls the first ball at second slip and yet he is England's number one bowler. Just let Ishant be, India's talent pool is wide enough to go well and this tournament is not the be-all end-all of cricket. The seeds sown in the Ganguly-Dravid-Wright era are bearing fruit now in the form of significant overseas Test victories and that is the bigger picture. This is not a case of 'sour-grapes' but an attempt to put things in perspective, seeing the usual media reaction back home.

Tactical errors or head in the sand?

Toughness is on the inside; its what you are made of, not what you display; Anyone can walk with a swagger or turn their collar up. John Wright on Rahul Dravid, in his book 'Indian Summers'.

For the second time within three days the 'defending champions' found out that just turning up and swaggering out to the field would not do. They would have had to turn up, swagger AND actually score a run more than the opposition did (or as on Friday, restrict the opposition). While they could not defend 153 on Friday they failed to chase the same number of runs.

There is a tendency (in Indian media and elsewhere) to talk mockingly of the English cricket team - about how the English 'invented' the game and getting beaten by people who learned it from them - and while doing this, people seem to forget that England, for all their obsession with Ashes have been a middle rung team for all these years. While they have not exactly threatened top teams, it is not that they are at the bottom of the pile either (where one finds WI routinely these days). They are a bit like the Indian teams in the Azhar -Sachin reigns. Good on their day. Yesterday was such a day and they had a point to prove to the expats and PIOs who had apparently booed the home team in their own HQ. Is a bigger motivation needed?

England had given considerable thought to yesterday's encounter while it appeared that India were still thinking about Yuvraj's six sixes.

Harsha Bhogle said something about favourites tags and fearlessless. Nasser Hussain cut him short - India were exposed. Period. How that stung! Because it was true.

The tactical errors which have been highlighted by other bloggers have shown where all India went wrong - chasing (when NRR is not yet in the picture), keeping Ojha out, underbowling RP, overbowling Yuvraj & Ishant, glaringly sending up Jadeja (which was the most damning) and so on. The bottomline, most people seem to agree is that the Indian thinking was way too muddled. They seemed to be experimenting after finding themselves between a rock and hard place.

In some ways, the thinking was reactionary. Dropping the best bowler on view (after being hit for a few bby an exceptional Bravo) was not on. Was not Ojha an attacking, wicket taking option. If he does go for a few, it is not fair that he should be jettisoned.

While I had earlier called for the exclusion of Irfan, Ishant has also not lived up to his ability. The fatigue factor, perhaps. In the West Indies encounter and also against Englad, there were too many hit-me balls from Ishant.

The overall line adopted by bowlers also seemed to be too leg-sidish. They pitched too short, which sat up and bowled defensive lines. Doing nothing special, England managed 150 plus. It was their game to lose after that.

David Lloyd called him 'main man' and the 'thoroughbred' and indeed Bhajji turned in a mature spell when it mattered and reined in the score. He cracked, though - 17.6 and 19.6, two wide ones, fired down the leg side, in an attempt to finish the overs well - 10 runs gifted and India never recovered. Granted Yuvraj muffed a simple stop, but after 12 years on the circuit, Bhajji should not have bowled them in the first place down the leg. Toughness is in the inside.

MSD is tough, if he is anything. But today, he missed a chance to become a hero. Even his run-a-ball 20-full-of-bottom-handed-shovelling-dismissed-when-going -for-a-big-hit would have come in handy today from number 4. Instead, watching young Jadeja painfully struggle sapped the morale of the team. Even in the IPL, Jadeja could not quite clear the ropes, although he remained not-out and finished with reasonable strike rates, those were Nayan Mongia type losing cause efforts. Let us not be too critical of the youngster,because forgetting his bowling contributions which pulled back a 170 plus score to 150 plus.

Some points that reflect the team management's thinking.

A) When quizzed about the Jadeja move, MSD gave his reason and added someting like 'even if the run rate touches 8 or 9, myself and Yuvi can do the job'.

Let's get two things straight here.

1.Yuvraj is 10 times the batsman Dhoni is. Dhoni has this tendency to spin out this "myself and Yuvraj" stuff for quite some time. Who is he kidding?

2.Even in the IPL, MSD could not consistently manage those run-rates he is talking about.

B) MSD goes on to say 'we have people like Yusuf and Harbhajan, who can hit the ball' . Yusuf and Harbhajan, in the same bracket. Give me a break. We know Bhajji is a combative cricketer, who usually punches well above his weight when batting. Yusuf is the cleanest hitter in this squad after Yuvraj. Pushing himself ahead of YP, MSD reduced YP to an Afridi like swishing, between wind and water. That India got within to a boundary hit of winning is thanks to Yuvraj, YP and those two outside edged fours from MSD.

Earlier, while talking about Rohit in the opening slot, it appears they considered YP for the role. Wrong on both counts - opening and no 7. The right role to Yusuf could define cose contests, I had said earlier and despite all the tactical errors, short-pitched bowling it boiled down to just that. One or two more deliveries to face for Yusuf Pathan and India would have been in the competition.

It is no fun being proved right in this fashion.