Why wasnt it a dead ball?

48.3	Vettori to Dravid, OUT, What a smart work by McCullum! what a fine anticipation. Dravid shaped to paddle sweep and McCullum moved quickly as soon as he sensed what Dravid was trying to do. Dravid paddled the ball but to his horror, there was McCullum with the interception! A fine innings is curtailed by the alert keeper.
	R Dravid c McCullum b Vettori 60 (187m 145b 10x4 0x6) SR: 41.37

Law 41 (The fielder)

7. Movement by fielders
Any significant movement by any fielder after the ball comes into play and before the ball reaches the striker is unfair. In the event of such unfair movement, either umpire shall call and signal Dead ball.

8. Definition of significant movement
(a) For close fielders anything other than minor adjustments to stance or position in relation to the striker is significant.

Here's Tony.

Test 3 Day 1 - India nose ahead

India 375/9 in 90 overs.

First, the numbers - 363 overs on the trot. 5 days on the field. 185 runs in the last session. Numbers 7 thru 11 added 171 runs.

At 204/6, 300 looked like a competitive total.India finished with 375. And New Zealand have to come out and bowl again tomorrow.

And the best part - all day, even when the ball was 75 overs old, there was swing available for the bowlers.

New Zealand were good in parts. The blogger was very good, the blond new boy was pretty ordinary. And Harry Potter, sans beard et al, was hammered.

End of the day, New Zealand will be feeling the heat. This is a game they have to win, they had the ascendancy through the second session, India was under the cosh, and the Kiwis let the advantage slip.

Now, they have to plan to bat once, bat long, and score enough to pressure the Indian batsmen in their second innings. On a wicket that still has a lot to offer the bowlers. And one that will probably get quicker over the next couple of days before settling down.

The dilemma the Kiwis face is this - they have to bat once. They have to bat big. And they have to bat quickly enough in order to give their bowlers enough time to bowl India out. But they cant bat too quickly because their bowlers will not get an adequate rest ( given that they have been bowling for 363 overs now).

Ideally, the Kiwis will look to give themselves between 120 and 150 overs to get India out. Which leaves them between 210 and 240 overs to set up the chase. Assuming they score at 3 rpo, they end up between 630 and 720. And assuming that India finish their innings at 375, that gives them a lead of between 255 and 345. Ideally they will have to aim for the latter because that shuts the game up. And they will also have to give themselves a little more time in the Indian second innings because I think the wicket will ease out considerably by then. Which translates to a 150 over cushion.

Given this, sustaining that run rate over an extended period of time is dicey.

And so, my take is that having been frustrated by the Indian tail, the Kiwis will try to emulate Sehwag and the Indian tail and in the process, implode.

The follow on total stands at 174 now. If Munaf and Ishant manage to swing their bats and keep the Kiwis on the field for just that bit longer, that number will swell. Which translates to more pressure on the Kiwi batsmen.

And they said Test Cricket was boring :) !

Home advantage..

or incompetent umpiring?

17.1	Louw to Hopes, (no ball) 1 run, caught by Gibbs at midwicket, that was a no-ball though as it was a high full toss outside off
17.1	Louw to Haddin, 1 run, length ball is driven down to long-on by Haddin
17.2	Louw to Hopes, 2 runs, another high full toss, but not high enough to be deemed a no-ball, Hopes gets on his knee and swats it to midwicket, Albie has to dive to cut that one off
17.3	Louw to Hopes, 2 runs, another high full toss, this was pretty close to a no-ball, a heave toward midwicket is mistimes, the edge swirls to safety, falling right in middle of three converging fielders

---

44.2	Patel to Mills, (no ball) 1 run, caught off a no ball, waist high full toss on middle, tries to pull it away over deep square, doesn't connect it well enough, goes really high and Yusuf takes a simple catch in the deep. However, the umpires have a consultation and call it a no-ball for height, fair decision
44.2	Patel to Southee, 1 run, in the blockhole on the off stump, dug out wide of the bowler towards long-off
44.3	Patel to Mills, (no ball) 1 run, caught off a no ball again, another one, a beamer, and he's taken off, the attack, caught by Dhoni off an attempted pull but he's bowled two waist high no balls in one over, his painful spell has come to an end

-
PS:- Here is the video of the Loew over ( 8:55 onwards) 17.1 ( the no ball) and 17.3 ( the uncalled no ball) are back to back.

The real issues

Not the batting or the bowling. In the aftermath of Napier, these are the two facets of Indian cricket that will be under scrutiny but the real problem India have is fielding. Close in fielding.

India's slip cordon for the longest time has been Dravid at first, VVS at second, some one ( Sehwag mostly but that varies) at third. Kumble was the designated gully.

With Sachin moving into the first slip, the slip cordon reads - Sachin at first, VVS at second, Rahul at third, Sehwag in the gully.

And that is a real point of concern.

Because India does not have its next generation of slippers and close in catchers ready. We have, at various times, seen Robin Uthappa, Rohit Sharma, Dinesh Karthick,Yuvraj Singh, Md. Kaif ( amongst others) man the slip cordon. Without much luck. Or results.

India now has a bowling attack that is capable of creating more chances than seen previously. But those chances have to be taken for India to be in the game and to win it. And right now, the prospects look bleak after the next year or so.

We also don't have a regular forward short leg and silly point.

And the worst aspect of all this is that we have not even begun grooming specialists for these spots.

The other glaring problem is throwing arms. We don't seem to have any. Munaf has a good arm, but he is a poor fielder. Sachin is the only other player with a good arm.Beyond that, there is no one. In either the current team or on the bench or in domestic cricket.

Post the Lord of the Rings tours, beginning with the IPL, it is imperative that India start identifying and grooming its next generation of slippers and close in catchers. And outfielders.We have the luxury and the latitude in terms of time to identify and finalize on the next batch of players who will take over from Dravid, Sachin and VVS not only their batting spots but their fielding spots as well. It is time we used the time wisely.

Test 2 - Final thoughts

As expected, a draw.

Contrary to Andy Moles' spin on the proceedings, the fact remains that New Zealand spent 180 overs on the field for 4 wickets at the cost of 476 runs. Or, if one wants to be really cruel, 273.5 overs for 14 wickets at the cost 781 runs. No victory that, even of you are into fuzzy math ("Cricket is a momentum game," Andy Moles, their coach, said. "It was a good win last night. Of course the Indians will say that they won the series. That's fine. Our answer is there have been six games of cricket, they have won three, and we have won three. So we are level going into the [Test] series.)

3 days of rest and then the Third Test begins. And while both sides have issues with their bowling compositions, New Zealand face the added quandary of the type of wicket to be rolled out at Wellington in a must win game. Roll out a green top and lose the toss and there go the Kiwi chances of leveling the series. Roll out another Napier and lose the toss and the bowlers will be more than happy to murder Harry Potter.

Paul Lewis thinks that the flat tracks on offer are because of BCCI's clout. I believe the flat tracks on offer are because all Boards concerned and the TV networks involved want the Tests to be stretched into the final session of the final day - this way revenues can be maximized ( through gate reciepts and ad spots). I also believe that flat tracks are New Zealand's best chance of containing India. Vide Napier!

The Kiwi commentators try. They really do.But being obnoxious does not come naturally to them. Irritating at times, for sure, but the general sense I get from hearing messieurs Doull, Richardson, Crowe,McMillan and co is more along the lines of a bunch of guys trying to big up the underdog rather than a bunch of one eyed xenophobes or patronizing boors.

Jesse Ryder. You pick the bar, I pick the tab. Anytime.