Saturday, May 16, 2009
Tension free cricket
| 19.1 | Bravo to Dhoni, FOUR, what a way to finish! Dhoni disdainfully drives the full ball over mid-on for four to seal a seven-wicket win for Chennai and that seals Mumbai's exit from the 2009 IPL |
And with that, Mumbai's 2009 IPL campaign is over. No more waking up at 5:30 AM, no more donning the team colors, no more sitting in the same position so as not to jinx the team even though the legs cramp, no more forays into testing bladder control, no more praying to an assortment of gods, no more finger biting, no more palpitations, no more defending Mumbai, no more cursing Mumbai, no more defending Tendulkar, no more cursing Tendulkar, no more"what could have beens", no more"what ifs", no more to all that.
No more caring. Period.
Now that the emotional investment is no longer there, I can kick back, relax and watch the cricket.
Whoever wins, whoever loses, I could care less.
No tension!
For Mumbai, just one question. The same one as the last season. Where is the bottle in crunch situations? Where is the khadoos cricket that is the hallmark of the city? Why are we so mentally brittle?
Friday, May 15, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Excuse me Mr Modi
but here is a little something to jog your memory
Now, in the just concluded Mumbai Rajasthan match, there happened this little incident
17.2 Patel to Nayar, 2 runs, low full toss outside off, bends low and drags it to deep midwicket, poor fielding, or so it seemed, Smith throws it straight into the umpire and they steal another single, it's all allowedFollowing this incident, Shane Warne was visibly querying the batting team about fair play and fair play points and such like, a clear violation of 1.7 (public criticism of, or inappropriate comment on a match-related incident or match official).
So my question to you is, will any action be taken? And if it is, will cognizance be taken of the fact that this is a repeat offense?
Or are we to assume that given your ties to Rajasthan, the Rajasthan players ( and specifically her captain) are above reproach?
The brittle master
Really? Is Sriram Veera the conjurer of that other famous phrase "Endulkar"? "The Tendulkar shadow refuses to leave Mumbai." he writes.
But for his shadow what was the Indian team, Sriram? All through the 90s, but for him India were but a pack of cards, ready to be blown by the slightest breeze. He gave the team spine and he was its Atlas.
But for him, the nation would have completely lost faith in cricket in the aftermath of the match fixing scandal ( and your little raggedly website would still be housed in London and you would be a two bit beat reporter for some rag).
How old were you when the boy-man hit back to back to back hundreds - in his debut Ranji, Duleep and Irani Trophy outings? Where were you when he hit his first double hundred in first class cricket, the innings that propelled Mumbai to a first innings lead in the Ranji semi finals against Tamil Nadu? And did you know that but for his 96, Mumbai did not stand a chance in its failed run chase against Haryana in the 91 Ranji finals?
Between his debut in 1988/89 till date, we have won 8 Ranji Championships - thats 8 out of 21 Ranji's finals. No one comes remotely close.
What that man means to Mumbai, Mumbai knows. And Mumbai is proud of the fact that Sachin is ours.
The rest of the world be damned.
The Heartbreak Kids
8th match: Chennai Super Kings v Mumbai Indians at Chennai - Apr 23, 2008
Chennai Super Kings won by 6 runs
45th match: Mumbai Indians v Kings XI Punjab at Mumbai - May 21, 2008
Kings XI Punjab won by 1 run
Kings XI Punjab 189/4 (20/20 ov); Mumbai Indians 188 (20/20 ov)
50th match: Delhi Daredevils v Mumbai Indians at Delhi - May 24, 2008
Delhi Daredevils won by 5 wickets (with 1 ball remaining)
Mumbai Indians 176/8 (20/20 ov); Delhi Daredevils 179/5 (19.5/20 ov)
53rd match: Rajasthan Royals v Mumbai Indians at Jaipur - May 26, 2008
Rajasthan Royals won by 5 wickets (with 0 balls remaining)
Mumbai Indians 145/7 (20/20 ov); Rajasthan Royals 146/5 (20/20 ov)
20th match: Kings XI Punjab v Mumbai Indians at Durban - Apr 29, 2009
Kings XI Punjab won by 3 runs
Kings XI Punjab 119/8 (20/20 ov); Mumbai Indians 116/7 (20/20 ov)
45th match: Mumbai Indians v Rajasthan Royals at Durban - May 14, 2009
Rajasthan Royals won by 2 runs
Rajasthan Royals 145/7 (20/20 ov); Mumbai Indians 143 (19.5/20 ov)
Why?
Why cant it be, that for once, it is Mumbai at the winning end of a close game? Either lose heavily or close the damn game.. This edge of the seat, here comes the cardiac arrest tension is not on.
And not fair.
This is so not right. On so many different levels.
Sfx on cricket
(Dated April 29, 2008 - relevant today - reproduced in full)
Cricket is dead. Long Live Cricket…
Jump to CommentsIts not just a game, they say. Its an artefact which we must preserve. And they’re right, of course. Cricket is a game of immense skill and strategy. Of ebbs and flows. The essential cricket battle is not just about which side scores more runs – but the manner in which innings are constructed and bowling strategies countered. A drama of ability calibrated to such high levels that everything extempore seems beautifully choreographed. The time honed skills when on peak display are a rivetting spectacle – their spontaneity making it better than theatre.
But what good is that theatre if it isn’t watched? And how far can we go to make it watchable ?
Thankfully for us, cricket has always been up to the task.
In its early form, Test Cricket was a timeless fight to the death, so to speak. Once a game began , it would end with a result. No rain nor storm could force a draw. It was a Test of many things, not the least of which was patience.
Then, the “I-have-to-catch-a-boat” Test happened and Timeless Tests morphed into those with an end date. 5 days (with an interspersed rest day) was a major innovation which fiddled with Test cricket’s fundamental traditions and actually set a deadline for when a match would finish. Now that one thinks about it , it must have been fairly blasphemous when first suggested but it brought a new set of nuances in. Now you had to construct and pace your innings, strategise (occasionally declare) and develop plans with time constraints. The idea of this first major – and all subsequent – innovations was to retain the sanctity of the inherent skills while also respecting the time of those involved ; spectators, players and administrators alike.
By the 1960s, having tasted the aggression of people like Don Bradman earlier, even that was beginning to seem long – and in response to growing demand for more action , One Day cricket was first introduced in England. This not only reduced the format from the existing 6 days to a single day but also brought it to one innings per side ! With limited overs !! As with all things which are built in response to market needs, it was (despite its fair distance from the traditions of the game), a resounding success. In 1971, somewhat by accident , a Limited Overs international was born and although it was the first time that national sides were playing each other in this form, it captured the World’s attention enough for the World Cup of One Day Internationals to be born a few years later.
Test cricket meanwhiled trundled alongside. It had travelled a long way from the Timeless Test age when it all began and now cohabited the sports’ stage with a compressed form of the game which increased the sports popularity as more countries joined in striving to compete with the best. Surely it could only be downhill from here. And for a while it seemed like thats what it would be.
Kerry Packer came and with him came the World Series Cricket circus. Not only were players not playing for the establishment, but there were other breaks from tradition to infuriate and sadden the purists. Night cricket , coloured clothing (pyjama cricket, if you please), white balls, players wearing double entendre’ T shirts (Big / Bad Boys play at night), Tina Turner videos and players playing (gasp !) for money rather than nation. Kerry Packer’s crew played Tests as well as Limited Overs Games and admittedly they were not well received initially but soon, the concept of the Day-Night game caught on. And Kerry Packer became legend. “There is a bit of whore in all of us, Gentlemen. Name your price”, he said to the Australian Board. And ultimately they did. In the words of Dr Greg Manning ” Packer paid $12 million not to buy cricket but to turn the cricket into something he could buy. The real meaning of his victory was that the game would never again be beyond price.”
At the height of the dramas surrounding World Series Cricket, Packer vouchsafed in a press conference that cricketers had long been exploited by authorities, and that they deserved better pay and conditions because of the pleasure they gave to millions. A journalist took up the thread for his remarks and wondered if the businessman was saying that his enterprise was “half-philanthropic”. Packer’s realism was too embedded for him to agree. “Half-philanthropic?” he said. “That makes me sound more generous than I am.”
Kerry Packer was the “commercialisation of the sport” as we now know it.
And yet, Australia now consider him the second biggest influence of the game (in a good way) for the sport in Australia after The Don. On his passing , the MCC observed a minute’s silence as a mark of respect for his contribution to the game.
Justifiably so. For Kerry Packer not only provided a much larger audience for a sport, and money that made the crumbing finances of cricket worldwide viable , but with the influence of his initiatives and the growing popularity of one day cricket – Test Cricket changed forever as well.
The ODI inarguably enhanced Tests. More results , more entertainment (of the pure cricket kind) and more revenues made it a bigger audience attraction than ever. Most importantly, in terms of skills – Better running between the wickets and fielding standards were natural offshoots but techniques went outside the textbooks and worked ! Of course, players of aggressive intent were part of the sport before the advent of ODIs but clearly that aspect of the game got more widespread.
So why this big hue and cry about Twenty20 in general and the Indian Premier League in particular ? How different is it from the Limited Overs game and how different is the inherent commercialisation from what Kerry Packer was doing ? Why are we so keen to dismiss the format at its very inception ? Why is there a school of thought that considers it so sacrilegious that they won’t watch ! Why are some so upset that obits of Test cricket are being considered and no positives – absolutely none can be seen ?
Equally importantly, why is something that was invented (yet again) by the British (in 2003 in response to the “Man and his dog watching County Cricket” syndrome), suddenly now Brutish ?
The origin of Twenty20 was really to bring cricket into a time “zone” which was comparable with other popular sport like Soccer or (Grand Slam) Tennis. The idea was, as most ideas are, a response to market needs as Cricket sought viewership. The idea was not to replace other forms of the sport – and just as the ODIs have not replaced Test cricket or other forms of first class cricket, its early if not erroneous to assume that Twenty20 will.
Initial cynicism is acceptable – and even welcome. After all, sixes and fours rain. Bowlers feel good with 7ish economy rates. Batsmen ostensibly don’t value wickets. Building an innings is almost a sin. Greed obliterates fear. Almost each toss has the losing skipper saying “conditions won’t change much”. With 3 hour match durations those are understatements. Things move lightning quick. Dot balls are gold. Risk is not a four letter word.
And without denying one’s own early cynicism , its also completely wrong to call T20 a parody, caricature or clone of the game. As we’ve said before , there are always those that will crucify themselves between regret of the past and fear of the future. Understanding the value of every delivery is an intensification of the game rather than a dilution of it. Striving to maximise returns and cut down errors from the word go is placing a big premia on performance.
As far as the IPL itself is concerned, the criticisms are many but the targets keep moving so they’re hardly easy to address. Is it the amount of money ? The source of the money ? Bollywood ? The T20 format ? Lalit Modi ? Loyalty ? Royalty ? Media ? All of the above ? There must be something right, surely.
How different are these concerns from the ones that were doubtless raised when Kerry Packer surfaced ? How long did that last and how much good did it bring ? These are questions which we are in the process of answering every passing day.
Somewhere the “off the field” entertainment, which is causing so much unrest amongst the connoisseurs, will find the right balance with the on field skills but as of now its doing the same job that coloured clothing, black sightscreens and their ilk were doing in the 1970s. And getting as much attention at the expense of the cricket from fans and critics alike.
Somewhere we’ll begin to realise and accept that Brendon McCullum’s 150 in 20 overs (an astonishingly good score for a team at the 20 over mark in the one day game) was an act of great cricketing skill and while the element of orthodoxy was missing , it was perhaps telling that Mike Hussey of the phenomenal Test average nearly matched it soon enough. For those that say that this does not adequately test enough to separate the best from the rest, its equally significant that at the time of writing , these two share the top batting slots with cricketers such as Matt Hayden , Sangakarra, Adam Gilchrist, Andrew Symonds and MS Dhoni. Isnt it a vindication of skill that 4 of those 7 are Australians and come from a team that are thrice World Champions ? Haven’t Glenn Mcgrath and Mohd Asif shown their class ? Haven’t the leadership bluffs of the weaker captains been called?
Another concern is that it pays so much that it’ll destroy the first class structure – already moribund in terms of spectator interest. And there are two aspects of this – money and format.
Money first : These are professional sportsmen and if they bring in the revenue, a share of that to them is really a matter of justice. How else would we like it to be ? But spectator interest for the longer version first class games is a concept that struggles because of the premium that we now place on our time. The ICC bravely tried a “Us and Them” Super Test as a concept and it failed from the start and thats because the problem isn’t one of quality, which is high enough to justify interest – but of time.
Perhaps the format itself will go through changes. Maybe we’ll now have 4 innings of 25 overs each instead of 2 innings of 50 in a One day game to get a hybrid of sorts. But either way, the better cricketers will adjust. Sachin Tendulkar was born about the same time that limited overs internationals were. As were Rahul Dravid, Saurav Ganguly, Shane Warne and Glenn Mcgrath. They grew with, and indeed helped grow One Day internationals – but so seamless was their transition that its unlikely that any of them will be considered as having harmed Test cricket. If anything, they have embellished it.
And the performances will undoubtedly improve. And the IPL – and maybe other leagues of value – will contribute to them because they remove barriers to learning that geography created. First class cricketers and newbie internationals are rubbing shoulders with all-time greats. Getting encouragement, strategising along , playing in the nets , understanding preparations, celebrating victories and analysing losses alongside and imbibing mindsets. Even seasoned players see the value in competing with and against contemporaries that national duty would not typically allow them to.
Test Cricket has survived as long as it has because it has adjusted along with the times. Its monumental oceanic presence taking in the shades and shapes of all the new streams that joined in.
Test cricket is not going to die because the highest form of theatre lives on and because the art form is constantly evolving. It’ll probably get squeezed into an increasingly niche audience but those that are willing to carve the time to watch a performance will always stay. However, if we are to make time for it , then it too must keep with the times.
“Without tradition“, said Winston Churchill, “art is a flock of sheep without a shepherd“. Then, as with all things Churchillian, he added the punch line – “Without innovation, its a corpse.”
India forced what?
Per this article, India forced Asia split on 2011 World Cup.
So I read it. And re-read it. And read it a third time.
And nowhere does it substantiate this claim - that "India had manipulated the situation to its advantage in order to squeeze Pakistan out of the tournament." ( as it is the wording is objectionable, never mind the claim).
"This was a time when India should have come forward, shown leadership and said 'It's all four of us as hosts, or none of us.' If India did not play along, does that tantamount to "manipulating the situation to its advantage" or is it "forcing Asia split on 2011 World Cup" ?
Or has Cricinfo taken the onus of repeatedly insulting its readers intelligence?
Trends?
| PJ Hughes | b Kruger | 118 | |||
PJ Hughes not out 65
| PJ Hughes | b Rogers | 74 | |||
| PJ Hughes | c  Nixon b Harris | 139 | |||
| PJ Hughes | c Denly b Tredwell | 23 | |||
| PJ Hughes | lbw b Willoughby | 5 | |||
| PJ Hughes | c Batty b Dernbach | 195 | |||
| PJ Hughes | c Batty b Schofield | 57 | |||
| PJ Hughes | b Parnell | 12 | |||
| PJ Hughes | c Ambrose b Rankin | 7 | |||
| PJ Hughes | b Nel | 11 | |||
1. 4 bowleds and 4 caught behinds in 10 completed innings
2. The bowler break up is as follows
Right-arm medium-fast
Slow left-arm orthodox
Right-arm medium (6 ft 0 in)
Right-arm offbreak(5 ft 11 in)
Left-arm fast-medium
Right-arm medium-fast(6 ft 2 in)
Legbreak(6 ft 1 in)
Left-arm medium-fast
Right-arm medium-fast(6 ft 7 in)
Right-arm medium-fast
A propensity to fall to taller bowlers with the ability to get the ball in?
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Primacy
pri⋅ma⋅cy
| 1. | the state of being first in order, rank, importance, etc. |
| 2. | Also called primateship. English Ecclesiastics. the office, rank, or dignity of a primate. |
| 3. | Roman Catholic Church. the jurisdiction of a bishop, as a patriarch, over other bishoprics, or the supreme jurisdiction of the pope as supreme bishop. |
1350–1400; ME primacie < class="ital-inline">prīmātia, alter. of L prīmātus (prīm(us) prime + -ātus -ate 3 ); see -y 3
Sir Garfield Sobers and Sir Vivian Richards have defended the primacy of Test cricket in the wake of the withering critique launched by Chris Gayle. Richards said Gayle's comments regarding the death of Test cricket were tantamount to a "total betrayal of the game that raised him" and hoped they were not reflective of the West Indian captain's true feelings.With respect Sir Richards, here is a bit from Chris Gayle's Wikipedia entry
Gayle played for the West Indies at youth international level after he made his first-class debut aged 19 for Jamaica. He played his first One Day International 11 months later, and his first Test match 6 months after that.Then there is the statement itself of betraying the game that raised him - the game Gayle plays is cricket. Not Test Cricket, not 50 over cricket, not beach cricket, not tennis ball cricket and definitely not one bounce out cricket. There are all manifestations of the game "that raised him", different formats, if you will.
"I believe Chris still loves Test match cricket, and maybe he wouldn't have made these comments if he had been thinking clearly. I honestly feel that this is not what he genuinely believes, and if it is, it is a total betrayal of the game that raised him.Everyone has his/her preference - just because you choose to like format of the game does not mean that the other formats are in any way inferior. They may be, in your mind, but sweeping generalizations without the data to back it up is also a betrayal - of intelligence and logic.
Phrase
The death of Test Cricket
Forget all the debate about whether Test Cricket trumps T20 or vice versa.Forget too the firestorm ignited by Chris Gayle's comments.
The barometer for the health of Test cricket is this - a domestic tournament in a foreign country draws in more crowds than a Test match at the Mecca of Cricket at the start of the English summer.
Watching cricket in stadiums is a very English/Australian thing. Unlike India where people prefer to watch the game from within the confines of their homes.
And yet, when there were half empty stadia at Mohali and Nagpur (never mind the fact that the stadia were well away from the city center and the BCCI had a convoluted policy of selling tickets for all 5 days instead of a per day basis), there was incessant breast beating about how Test cricket was dying ( never mind the fact that the TRP's were off the roof as were the ad revenues).
So what does the half empty Lords tell us about the health of the game? And in case we forget, cricket is not on free to air TV. People actually have to pay for the previlege of watching cricket on TV ( unlike India).
And yet, Chris Gayle's comments raise a firestorm. Wonder why?
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Knackered?
Sat 16  16:45 local, 14:45 GMT, 20:15 IST | 48th match - Deccan Chargers v Kolkata Knight Riders New Wanderers Stadium, Johannesburg |
| Sun 17 12:30 local, 10:30 GMT, 16:00 IST | 49th match - Deccan Chargers v Kings XI Punjab New Wanderers Stadium, Johannesburg |
Back to back games? At the fag end of the campaign? Who came up with this itinerary and how did DC consent?
Exorcising the ghosts
of May 21, 2008 and April 29, 2009.
Two games, Two clinical wins.
Next up, the Royals sans Warne.
Sachin versus Shane will have to wait!
Fourth on the leader board. Who would have thunk, two games ago?
Monday, May 11, 2009
When is the ball dead?
From Cricinfo
3.5 Vaas to Carseldine, OUT, Carseldine is out, a bizarre bit of cricket, Carseldine fails to connect with the ball again, it thuds into his back pad, Gilchrist collects this time and belts out an appeal for caught-behind, Carseldine doesn't realise the keeper has the ball and sets off for a single, Gilchrist whips off the bails and asks the square-leg umpire for a stumping, which is upheld
LA Carseldine st wicketkeeperGilchrist b Vaas 8 (11b 1x4 0x6) SR: 72.72
From Cricbuzz
Vaas to Carseldine, out Stumped!! Unbelievable piece of stupidity from Carseldine! back of a length outside off, Carseldine misses the clip, they all go up for the caught behind, there was no bat involved, came off the back leg, Gilly is distraught at that not been given out, what does Carseldine do, he looks for the single, Gilly whips the bails off in a flash, Carseldine is left bemused, never seen that before, what a gift of a wicket for DC. Carseldine st Gilchrist b Vaas 8(11) [4s-1]
The dead ball law
Law 23 (Dead ball)
1. Ball is dead
(a) The ball becomes dead when
(i) it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or the bowler.
(ii) a boundary is scored. See Law 19.3 (Scoring a boundary).
(iii) a batsman is dismissed.
(iv) whether played or not it becomes trapped between the bat and person of a batsman or between items of his clothing or equipment.
(v) whether played or not it lodges in the clothing or equipment of a batsman or the clothing of an umpire.
(vi) it lodges in a protective helmet worn by a member of the fielding side.
(vii) there is a contravention of either of Laws 41.2 (Fielding the ball) or 41.3 (Protective helmets belonging to the fielding side).
(viii) there is an award of penalty runs under Law 2.6 (Player returning without permission).
(ix) Lost ball is called. See Law 20 (Lost ball).
(x) the umpire calls Over or Time.
(b) The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the umpire at the bowler's end that the fielding side and both batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
2. Ball finally settled
Whether the ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide.
3. Umpire calling and signalling Dead ball
(a) When the ball has become dead under 1 above, the bowler's end umpire may call Dead ball, if it is necessary to inform the players.
(b) Either umpire shall call and signal Dead ball when
(i) he intervenes in a case of unfair play.
(ii) a serious injury to a player or umpire occurs.
(iii) he leaves his normal position for consultation.
(iv) one or both bails fall from the striker's wicket before he has the opportunity of playing the ball.
(v) he is satisfied that for an adequate reason the striker is not ready for the delivery of the ball and, if the ball is delivered, makes no attempt to play it.
(vi) the striker is distracted by any noise or movement or in any other way while he is preparing to receive or receiving a delivery. This shall apply whether the source of the distraction is within the game or outside it. Note, however, the provisions of Law 42.4 (Deliberate attempt to distract the striker).
The ball shall not count as one of the over.
(vii) the bowler drops the ball accidentally before delivery.
(viii) the ball does not leave the bowler's hand for any reason other than an attempt to run out the non-striker before entering his delivery stride. See Law 42.15 (Bowler attempting to run out non-striker before delivery).
(ix) he is required to do so under any of the Laws.
4. Ball ceases to be dead
The ball ceases to be dead - that is, it comes into play - when the bowler starts his run up or, if he has no run up, his bowling action.
5. Action on call of Dead ball
(a) A ball is not to count as one of the over if it becomes dead or is to be considered dead before the striker has had an opportunity to play it.
(b) If the ball becomes dead or is to be considered dead after the striker has had an opportunity to play the ball, except in the circumstances of 3(vi) above and Law 42.4 (Deliberate attempt to distract striker), no additional delivery shall be allowed unless No ball or Wide has been called.
Question is, if the wicketkeeper is appealing for a caught behind, isn't the ball automatically dead?Sunday, May 10, 2009
Seiously KKR?
Ajit Agarkar plays a blinder to propel KKR to 123. The adrenaline is pumping. So is the confidence. And what does McCullum do?
Open with Ishant and ...Henriques!
I mean, seriously?
Much better
By far the most balanced team the Mumbai Indians have fielded in this tournament so far. They got the right left right batting lineup going. The bowlers had definite roles, the team was not carrying any hangers on.
The batsmen batted, the bowlers bowled, the fielders fielded, Sachin handled his bowlers well. The result was a clinical performance by the Indians and a much required win.
Better days lie ahead!
