India's Greatest Win?

Sunil Gavaskar called it India's greatest win on TV yesterday. Plenty of other worthies have said things along similar lines.

Granted that the venue was Perth, an Australian citadel. Granted too that no Asian team has won before. And granted three that India's pace attack consisted of two 23 year olds and a 19 year old.

But, is this India's greatest win?

Was this win greater than Headingley 2002, Adelaide 2003, Rawalpindi 2004, Jo'burg 2006 or Calcutta 2001?

Calcutta halted an Australian juggernaut that had done something that no other cricket team in the world had come close to achieving. And after the capitulation at Mumbai and the follow on, did India even have a hope in hell to dream of a comeback?

It behooves us to remember that this was an Australian team containing Glen McGrath, Shane Warne and Jason Gillespie. Matthew Hayden and Justin Langer. Adam Gilchrist. And the Waugh twins. And an ordinary number 3 batsmen who is now only second to the Don in Australia.

And yet, against the run of the grain, defying the form book, India won. And by 171 runs.

And what about Adelaide 2004?

India were a side note in the extended Waugh celebrations. We were supposed to rollover and play dead.Like the extras in a movie. This was the Waugh show.

And "400/5, We cannot lose" at the end of the first day? What hope did India have after Australia amassed 563?

And yet, against the odds, India won. In Australia's back yard.A "live " game. The first in 10 odd years. India's first since 1981.

What of Rawalpindi 2004? The scene of India's first ever series win in Pakistan. After a batting failure at Lahore and against the fastest bowler in the world.

And Jo'burg? India's first ever win in South Africa. On the back of a phenomenal bowling performance by Sreesanth.

And what of Headingley 2002 ?

A loss at Lords followed by a tense draw at Trent Bridge sets the background. In swinging and seaming conditions, India played two spinners. Think of that.

A match in which the Trinity, for the first time, scored hundreds in the same game. A match whose last hour of the second day will go down in lore. A match in which India played to its strengths, defying convention. Against Andrew Caddick. And Matthew Hoggard. And Andrew Flintoff.

A match that was as complete a team performance as could be imagined.

And so, where does that leave Perth?

In itself, this was a great match. In the context of what happened at Sydney, it was an inspired team performance. In the context of the tour, it revealed steel that most don't associate with Indian teams.

But the greatest?

Yes, this was Perth. But it was not the WACA of old.

Yes, this was an Australian team on the back of 16 consecutive test wins. But it was also an Ausralian team with a new opening pair at the top. And a shaky number 3. And a shakier number 5.

Yes, it was a great bowling performance by India. But this is something that we have come to expect from India over the last few years.

Yes, it was a contest. But it was also the second highest run chase in the history of cricket. And it was the highest run chase in Australia. Ever. And history matters.

The problem we have in India is that we do not make the disctintion between our ODI and Test results. Because, if we did, this India team, since the turn of the century, is probably the greatest Test outfit in our history. And the most complete.

We have bowlers for all conditions and while we may not do a great job in managing them and their injuries, we have depth. And variety.

And we have a core group that, inspite of what our previous coach had to say, is battle tested and battle hardened.

And then there is context.

In Sydney, despite all the bat umpiring decisions and the gamesmanship and the bad blood, India made Australia sweat. And we stretched the game to 6 minutes of the conclusion. And even then, Australia was not sure if they could pull it off.

On the back of that, there was every reason to believe that India could compete. If we made Australia sweat on a wicket with not purchase for the bowlers, we could make them sweat even more on a surface with something in it for the bowlers. Because we are that good.

And because Australia brings out the best in Indian cricket. Because we raise our game to a level we dont believe we are capable of when we take Australia on the field of play.

And because Ricky Ponting overstretched himself by bringing about the racism charges against Harbhajan Singh. Despite Anil Kumble reasoning with him.

And Mike Proctor played his part in galvanizing the team by his judgment.

India was ready to pull out of the series not because the BCCI directed it to but because the players wanted to.

And that distinction is important.

There are easier ways of committing career suicide than galvanizing your opponents and giving them a reason to beat the crap out of you.And bad team selection did not help Ricky either.

So, it is onto Adelaide then. And it is time to level the series.

Because, if there is any team out there that can, it is us.

PS:

Apologies for not blogging for the past few days.. With an itinerary that reads - work 7 AM -5PM, life 5:30 PM - 9:0 PM and Test cricket 9:30 PM - 5:00 AM, it is a tad difficult to blog. Especially when sleep deprived over a period of 4 days.

PPS:

Sehwag to Kumble: Ricky Ponting samne hai, yeh rhythm me hai ( Ricky Ponting is facing and he (Ishant) is in rhythm)
Kumble to Ishant: Ek aur over karega? ( Will you bowl another over)
Ishant:- Haan, dalunga ( Yes)



PRICELESS

Today...

Mukul Kesavan on Sachin Tendulkar

Makarand Waingankar on Umpires

erm, Channel 9

you need a new fact checker.

During the Sydney test, the following graphic was shown on TV

Ricky Ponting v India

Played 3*
Won 1
Lost 0
Draw 1

And today, the graphic showed

Played 4*
Won 2
Lost 0
Draw 1

Fair enough.

Except the next time someone from the Channel 9 commentary team decides to trot out Michael Clarke's best bowling figures of 6/9, could someone also check for the result of that match?

And could someone also check the Australian captain's name in that game?

A hypothetical question for both Captains

If, as all and sundry are predicting, the Perth test is done and dusted in three days, should we be hearing something along these lines from you -

"I know lots of questions will be asked and match reports on this wicket will be sent to the ICC [International Cricket Council]. As a player you want to be tested in different conditions but this is going a bit too far.

What conflict of interest?

Millions of Indians might want to know this - but it doesn't actually make them right. Does Gavaskar himself believe this to be true? If so, he should say it. And if he does believe it, then he should almost certainly resign, for if the ICC is a bastion of "white man's justice", Gavaskar bears some of the blame for having failed to change it.

thunders Gideon Haigh in his column on CricInfo.

Well, here is the breakdown of the ICC Cricket Committee as documented on the ICC Website

ICC CRICKET COMMITTEE
The remit of the ICC Cricket Committee is to discuss and consult on any cricket-playing matters and to formulate recommendations to the CEC which relate to cricket-playing matters. Any recommendations made by the ICC Cricket Committee will not take effect until they are ratified and/or approved by CEC and the Board.
Chairman	Sunil Gavaskar
Past players (2)	Ian Bishop & Mark Taylor
Representatives of current players (2)	Kumar Sangakkara & Tim May
Full Member team coach representative (1)	Tom Moody
Member Board representative (1)	Duleep Mendis
Umpires' representative (1)	Simon Taufel
Referees' representative (1)	Ranjan Madugalle
Marylebone Cricket Club representative (1)	Keith Bradshaw
Statistician (1)	David Kendix
Media (1)	Michael Holding
Associate representative (1)	Steve Tikolo

So, in essence, there are two more layers of bureaucracy to be traversed before any "recommendations" made by the ICC Cricket Committee see the light of day.

How then does Mr Haigh expect Mr Gavaskar to apportion blame for "not changing the ICC"?

And there's more

ICC EXECUTIVE BOARD

The Executive Board is responsible for management of the affairs of the ICC within the framework of the overall policy of the Council of the ICC and having regard to Council's duties and responsibilities generally including those prescribed in the constitution or by statute or by regulation. The prime objective of the Board being to advance the objectives of the ICC.

It is made up of a representative of each Full Member country and three representatives elected by the Associate Members.

MEMBERSHIP OF THE ICC EXECUTIVE BOARD AS AT 30 SEPTEMBER 2007
ICC President	Ray Mali
ICC Chief Executive Officer - Ex-Officio	Malcolm Speed
ICC President Elect	-
Australia	Creagh O'Connor
Bangladesh	Major General Sina Ibn Jamali
England	-
New Zealand	Sir John Anderson
Pakistan	Nasim Ashraf
Sri Lanka	Jayantha Dharmadasa
South Africa	Noman Arendse
West Indies	Julian Hunte
Zimbabwe	Peter Chingoka
Associate Member Representatives
Malaysia	HRH Tunku Imran
Israel	Stanley Perlman
Kenya	Samir Inamdar
*as of 30 October 2007

Guess which country's name is missing from that list?

Heh!

Food for thought

Remember this -

Although Mumbai batted first and ended up scoring only 218, both teams agreed to bend the rules. Australia's target was revised to 300 to allow their batsmen to gain more practice and make the game more competitive for the large number of spectators who filled up the temporary stands erected outside the ground.

Now read this

The Australians are known not to give an inch to their opposition and they extend their discourtesy out of it too. The quality of bowlers provided by Cricket Australia for the net sessions can be best described as pedestrian. It happened at Melbourne, Sydney and now at Perth. The local officials asked a school boy team from England called as Australian Cricket Experience to bowl in the nets ahead of the third Test.

Interestingly, it isn’t the same when the Australians are practicing. For instance, the home team batsmen batted against high quality Western Australia team bowlers.

There were similar complaints when we toured South Africa.

Now, South Africa visits us in March. And Australia in October.

What will the BCCI do?

Will we, as is our want, bend over backwards and provide the best of practice facilities and warm up games or shall we also indulge in a bit of "gamesmanship" - you know, the "hard but fair" type?

And oh, can we also cut down on the photo ops please?

THE GAME

Watched every single ball on DD2 ( this was before DD2 became the monopoly of some mandarin in Delhi). CricInfo has the account.

The Big Game

The Ranji Trophy finals commences tomorrow at Mumbai between Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, Here is the CricInfo lowdown on both teams. UP and Delhi.

And, in other news, another Delhiite has been chosen as skipper of the U-19 team ( that features just one Mumbaikar). Uncle J will be happy to know that Napoleon Einstein is one of the players selected :)

PS:- Here is Dan Nicholl's take on the Sydney debacle

The villain of the piece

My good friend Kartikeya has spent a considerable amount of time highlighting the lacunae in Mike Proctor's knowledge of the rules of the game. Here are the links

Does Andrew Symonds invite the attention of the Match Referee?
When gentlemens agreements don't make sense..... A Question for Mike Procter.
Another question for Mike Procter - Overrates
A Tale of three catches: The Argument against Ricky Ponting and Mike Procter
Tit for Tat - Hogg charged same as Bhajji. Procter shows his weakness again.....
The shadow of the Sydney Test

The pattern that emerges from this, is of a match referee ( of long standing) who is either unaware of the rules or willfully chose to ignore them.

Couple this with his earlier acts of omission or commission and the biases become obvious.

Little wonder then that Sunil Gavaskar wrote "his decision has incensed millions of Indians, who are quite understandably asking why his decision shouldn’t be considered a racist one considering the charges that were levied on Harbhajan were of a racist remark"