Youth and experience

Since we are a young and inexperienced team, here is a suggestion -

India's ODI itinerary for the year 2008 looks like this

Tri-Series in Australia (Aus, Ind & SL) ( min 8, max 11 games)
Tri-Series in Bangladesh (Ban, Ind & SA) ( probable min 6, max 7 games)
The Asia Cup ( min 2, max 6 matches)
versus Zimbabwe ( 3 games)
versus Sri Lanka ( 5 games)
versus England ( 7 games)
versus Pakistan ( 5 games)

Effectively, India plays between 36 and 44 ODIs in the year 2008.If I were Dilip Vengsarkar or MS Dhoni or both, I would persist with the same group of players ( give or take a Yusuf Pathan) that is currently doing duty in Australia through all of these games.

The advantages are two fold

1. The sheer number of games gives us a bigger sample data to make judgments on which players are long term investments versus flashes in the pan.

2. We are playing just about all the cricketing nations in the world, barring New Zealand and the West Indies in this period. Also, we will be playing in all the four countries hosting the World Cup in 2011. By playing in different conditions and against varied opposition over the course of one year, judgments made will be quantifiable and intelligent instead of vague and speculatory.

The tangential advantage I see is that if changes have to be made before the New Zealand tour, the selectors will also have data available from the Ranji Trophy which will have commenced in October/November, thus leading to an informed selection.

Also, this whole youth versus experience debate is nonsensical in my view. What India wants is for two things to happen

1. In the immediate term, identify and groom a team that gives us the best opportunity to lift the World Cup at the Wankhede in 2011

2. In the long term, identify and nurture players who will be the backbone of the Indian lineup and who can make the seamless transition from ODI to Test cricket.

And if we do not start now, 3 years and a bit before the World Cup commences, we will end up repeating history.

And surely,this must have been the biggest lesson learnt from the disaster that was the World Cup 2007.
----
On Yuvraj Singh - if I were the Indian think tank, I would jettison the move of playing him at 4 for the next couple of games atleast. And here's why -

Yuvraj lacks both form and confidence. And the longer time he has at the crease, the more time he has to think about his lack of form . And the more time the opposition has to remind him of his lack of form.

What Yuvraj needs is not time but a dose of confidence. And for that reason, I would not bat him any higher than with 5-7 overs left in the game.

Get out there, swing the willow, connect a few, run hard between the wickets and, through all this, keep the brain in the freezer.

Do this a couple of times and the form and the confidence will be back. And if not, there is always Manoj Tiwary.

Dont quite get it

Channel 9 lists the Indian line up in the following batting order

Tendulkar
Sehwag
Gambhir
Yuvraj
Uthappa
Sharma
Dhoni
Pathan
Harbhajan
Sreesanth
Sharma

Two right handers, followed by 2 left handers, followed by 3 right handers and then a left hander. Two things here

1. Shouldn't the left/right batsmen be staggered a bit more - disrupting the bowlers lines and all that
2. If India get even a half decent start, the last thing India will want is for two left handers fronting up to Murali in the middle overs.

Hypocrite

"Cricket has had three attempts to deal with alleged racial abuse of the same player and has failed on every occasion," he told Cricinfo. "In the latest instance a player held an honest and reasonable belief that he had been racially abused. It does not matter if he may have been mistaken, the fact is, he held an honest and reasonable belief that he had been racially abused. For this, he has been portrayed as a villain.

"The priorities of each board have been misdirected at best - one hell bent on protecting its image and the other hell bent on protecting its revenues. Allegations of intimidation, interference and some good old 'backroom bullying' have unfortunately been all too prevalent in this issue and other issues.

says Tim May, Chief Executive of the FICA, the Federation of International Cricketers' Associations. He goes on to add

"Racism is a sensitive and very serious issue within our respective communities. The boards have failed in their responsibility to uphold their respect for this issue. They have failed the players, they have failed both the ICC's Code of Conduct and the ICC's Anti Racism Code, and they have failed the communities where racism is a real, live issue.

"After this latest episode and seeing how cricket handles this type of issue, why would any player possibly think about reporting any further instances of racism?" May asked. "You will be hounded by the press, you will be directly or indirectly will be intimidated by cricket officials and you will be hung out there to dry and be painted as the bad guy. Players should be approaching such matters with confidence that the system will support and protect you, not decimate and discredit you.

"It's the ICC's duty to protect the integrity of their Code. I am confident that the ICC will launch a thorough investigation into the alleged actions of both boards and key officials - there are serious allegations of intimidation and interference of those involved in this hearing -and such allegations must be dealt with swiftly and decisively.

all of which would be perfectly fine, if the above words were expressed by Darren Lehmann, President of the Australian Cricketers Association.

However, for the Chief Executive of the FICA, whose purported objective is

The Federation of International Cricketers’ Associations (FICA) was established in 1998 to co-ordinate the activities of all national players’ associations which protect the interests of professional cricketers throughout the world. It brings together all of the world’s cricketers, regardless of nationality, religion, political persuasion or race, under an international body which will focus on matters of general interest to the game and its players

this comes across as rich, if not hypocritical.

If protecting the interests of the players, regardless of nationality, is the stated objective of the FICA, where was Mr. May when Mr. Proctor dispensed his verdict in contravention of all known rules of due process and natural justice ?

And where was Mr May when Mr Proctor justified his verdict by stating categorically that "only one party was telling the truth"? Weren't player interests hurt then?

And since Mr May is so very concerned about the ICC Code of Conduct and the ICC Racism code and upholding the integrity of the same, how does he reconcile with this

Furthermore the note kept of the four hour hearing in front of Mr Procter is a mixture of pr�cis and direct speech of parts of the proceedings, testimony and submissions that were noted down. The first page records appearances and the rest of a four hour hearing occupies less than five and a half pages. Given the informal nature of the hearing and the circumstances pertaining to it this is not surprising and is not a criticism. However, it seems to me in future that particularly for more serious offences under Level 3 and Level 4, it would be better if the referees were able to record a full transcript of the hearing in front of them. But what it meant was that the record was inadequate for the purposes of this hearing which is why I heard evidence from all parties.

Bashing the Cricket Boards is fine and dandy, but what of his own dereliction of duty?

Hypocrite.

The Judgement of Justice John Henson

in full.

Marvellous!

Uncle J blogged about them and here they are

The Rivalry

Great sporting rivalries can’t be manufactured by administrators, they need to be fuelled by arrogance, cheating, choking, cockiness, sh1t hot performances and twats.

What would Walter think?

The last of the major rivalries is the one that will eventually take over the world. The current superpower vs. the next superpower, India. I’m not just talking cricket, I’m talking politically, media wise and everything else that matters in cricket.

The recent Australian tour to Indian was the sign of things to come. Sledging, send offs, racism, media storms, great innings, and all sorts of other great stuff that get us excited about cricket. There were so many blogging arguments about an unimportant one-day series and monkeys.

us verus dem bastardos

Uncle J had penned these prophetic words prior to the start of the India Australia series.

And in case anyone doubted that India and Australia are the next great sporting rivalry, the current series has laid those doubts to rest.

And I am not talking of the quality of cricket alone. That was never in doubt ever since the Border-Gavaskar Trophy was launched in 1996.

Boorish behavior, racism charges, bad blood and a feeling of victimization on both sides of the divide have done enough to ensure that this is the rivalry for the future.

India cannot forget Sydney. Australia wont forget the racism charges.

October cant come soon enough.

Dear oh dear!!

The scars inflicted by John Buchanan on Shane Warne must run deep. What else explains this broadside in a signed eulogy on Adam Gilchrist's achievements?

And when John Buchanan was in charge . . . let me tell you, we needed as much common sense around as we could, because I believe the coach had none. Speaking of the ex-coach, he should thank Gilly and the captain Ricky Ponting for an extension of his contract, because they were the only two who wanted him to stay.

Everyone else asked said: "No, let him go. He's had his time."

Gilly supported the coach. I say good on him for standing up for what he believed to be best for the team.

Come again?

"BCCI president says introducing new evidence is unfair" reads the title of the link of the CricInfo website. And I am like, why do the BCCI honchos open their mouths before they have perused through the new "evidence".. This was before I read the actual article, which is reproduced below, in full.

BCCI president says introducing new evidence is unfair

Stump microphone transcripts are ok, says Harbhajan counsel

Cricinfo staff

January 28, 2008

Harbhajan Singh's counsel VR Manohar is confident the present evidence against his client is "innocuous". © Getty Images

A day before Justice John Hansen begins hearing Harbhajan Singh's appeal in the racism case, the counsel for the Indian side, VR Manohar, said he would not oppose the use of additional evidence like the transcript of the stump microphone but would object to any embellished improvised material, which he said was "fishy" evidence.

In Australia, meanwhile, members of the Indian team were wondering why the additional evidence had come so late, three weeks after the conclusion of the Sydney Test at which the incident occurred.

Justice Hansen said on Monday the appeal would be a re-hearing, with evidence being given by all of the witnesses who gave evidence to Mike Procter in the original hearing; he also spoke of "additional evidence, such as the transcript available from the stump microphone," being made available.

"I have nothing against the stump microphone evidence being used as long as it is not tampered with," Manohar told Cricinfo from Mumbai. "What I will object to is a scenario where a player who said he didn't hear Harbhajan use the monkey word during the first hearing turns around and says he did hear that word. That would be termed as "fishy". If the players decide to add to what they have stated in the tribunal, and if that contradicts their initial stance, that would be objectionable."

"If there have been any suspicious changes to the material recorded during Procter investigation, I would term it as fishy or embellished improvised material. That said, I am not against using stump microphone transcripts or some thing new like that."

Manohar, whose son Shashank is the Indian board's president-elect, will participate in the hearing via a video link from Mumbai. He has not travelled to Australia, citing his age - he is 74 - and his confidence that the present "innocuous" evidence was enough to prove Harbhajan's innocence.

Cricinfo, meanwhile, has learnt that the evidence provided by the stump transcripts is inconclusive - what Harbhajan says is indecipherable - and is expected to neither jeopardise nor help his case.

However, the BCCI has said that introducing new evidence at this stage was not a normal court practice. "Our lawyer has said that whatever comes to the fore in the lower court is discussed or heard by the appellate commissioner, bringing new evidence is against the rule," BCCI president Sharad Pawar told reporters in New Delhi.

The original hearing was played out under the shadow of India's threat to pull out of the tour unless the racism charge was withdrawn. There was some speculation that the threat still held, and Lalit Modi, the board's vice-president, said as much on Monday. "If the racism charge against Harbhajan is not taken back, then the Indian board has taken a decision that the team will come back to India," Modi was quoted by PTI.

Malicious journalism anyone?

Awww look, shutup!

Now that the Test series is done and dusted, Ricky Ponting (henceforth referred to as Pricky Ranting) has questioned the validity of India being worthy challengers to Australia's #1 spot.

"Even though they are No. 2 ranked team they are probably not now. They are going to lose probably four or five of their best players by the time we next play them," said Ponting, lauding the seamless transition of opener Phil Jaques and Michael Hussey into the Test XI.

"They are going through a similar phase to what we have gone through over the past 12 months. It will be interesting to see how their team backs up from that. They have some rebuilding to go through."

Yeah well, you need not bother Pricky. Because the team is going to be as is when you come a visiting our shores in October.

And by the time we come to your shores, you will probably be in retirement, racing greyhounds around Oz.

And in the meantime, you could direct your concerns on

a) beating Pakistan in Pakistan
b) finding a replacement for Gilly
c) Trying your hand at spin because your current lot wont make it in our district levels.

Goodbye Gilly

You achieved what no captain since Bill Lawry had achieved - you were the man spearheading the assault on the Final Frontier.

And to your credit, you succeeded where others had failed.

It couldn't have happened to a nicer man.

Thanks for the memories!

Disappointed

with India's approach in the final innings of the Adelaide test. 20 odd overs with over 200 runs to get and the Indians thought it better to send Ishant Sharma out rather than declare.

What were we afraid of?

We just fed into the “Oz is great” myth.. This, after we ran all over them at Perth.. If THAT does not give us confidence, what legacy is Kumble talking about?

This was timid cricket. If we cant trust our boys to deliver, who can we trust? This is bad captaincy by Kumble.. I am disappointed..

A natural progression

This is a post about captaincy.Specifically, Anil Kumble's captaincy.

There has been a lot of discussion in the print and visual media in the few days following the win at Perth that Kumble should have been made captain a long time ago.

I am not so sure.

The 90's was a wasteland as far as Indian captaincy went. Md. Azharuddin never inspired, Sachin Tendulkar demanded too much without the necessary expectation setting.

And the selectors oversaw such shenanigans as the player disputes over pay, the Navjot Sidhu walkout from the England tour, the debacles at Barbados and Australia, the disaster that was the 1996 World Cup and match fixing.Remember "Noel David who"? Or the "Nayan Mongia- Md. Azharuddin" package deal to Oz circa 1999?

There was no cohesion - we prepared dust bowls at home and rolled the opposition. Then we packed our bags and got rolled over by the opposition.

The match fixing scandal ( and South Africa winning in India) changed all that.

The match fixing scandal and Sachin's subsequent resignation as captain forced the Board and the selectors to look seriously at blooding newbies untainted by match fixing. Also, because of the match fixing scandal and the subsequent bloodbath, the selectors and the Board were in no position to rock the boat when it came to the new captain.

Which worked just fine with Saurav Ganguly.

Despite the series by series appointment as captain, Saurav Ganguly had latitude and leverage very few Indian captains have had in the past. And to his eternal credit, Ganguly used this latitude and leverage to mold a team rather than give in to parochial considerations.

The success at the ICC Knockout Trophy at Nairobi and THAT series against Australia gave the team self belief.

Seld belief - that will remain Ganguly's greatest legacy as captain.

While the team had self belief and were second to none when the going was good, there was a frailty when things were going pear shaped.

Rahul Dravid brought a whole new dimension to the way we played cricket. No longer was the team dependent on one man or one great performance to seal the deal.

Rahul Dravid's tenure saw the team play in the mold of their captain - ready to go toe to toe with the opposition and play good attritional cricket. Across the board.

While Dravid, like Ganguly, was tactically naive, and despite the fact that we screwed up at Newlands and the Oval and regressed as a One Day unit,his legacy to the team was that he molded the team in his image. Or nearly did.

Which is why I personally consider his resignation as captain a betrayal. We had a good thing going, we had a team that played good attritional cricket despite showing frailties now and again. And while he was not a good ODI captain, his contribution as a Test captain was immense.

Anil Kumble's appointment as captain was fortuitous. By accident ( or by design), we landed the right person for the right job at the right time.

What Kumble brings to the captaincy is a certain gravitas. His ability to inspire was not in doubt - by sheer dint of personality, he could make the team aim for more. What is surprising is the hard nosed element displayed by the team - like their captain, the team is getting more and more competitive with every test.

And while I think Kumble's captaincy is a tad conservative ( like his predecessors), the twin tours of Pakistan ( at home) and Australia ( away) should give him and the team enough confidence to open up the play book a little.

So, there you have it - self belief coupled with the ability to play attritional cricket coupled with the hard nosed element of being in the game at all times and we stand at the cusp of being a really really good Test unit.

With the talent that India has, it is easy to overlook the tactical aspect as natural talent can buck the tactical aspect of the game. Tactically, Indian captains have always erred on the side of conservatism ( atleast in my living memory). Also, given the enormous following of the game in the country and the subsequent pressures, playing safe is the safer option.

Dhoni, in his avatar as ODI and Twenty20 captain, has bucked the trend somewhat. Maybe that is a harbinger of the future.

A team fuelled by self belief, playing hard nosed cricket and going toe to toe with the opponent, led by a tactically astute captain and there is no reason why India cannot be the best team in the world.

A natural progression? Yes.

So,would Kumble have made a greater difference if he was appointed captain sooner? Would the team dynamics been the same with him and Greg Chappell in the same dressing room as captain and coach? Would we have played attritional cricket the way we do if Dravid was overlooked as captain for Kumble? Was Ravi Shastri the better choice ahead of Md. Azharuddin?

Questions and conjectures all.

All I know is that we have somehow hit the right combination in the captaincy progression - more by accident than by design but hey,I will take it .

Thanks Tony

for articulating what I have been thinking for the past couple of days.

The Captain speaks

Keep believing

All mixed up

is Nirmal Shekhar in this article.

1. It was the players and not the BCCI who called for the suspension of the tour. And they had pretty valid reasons for this.
2. It is a pity the BCCI had to use its financial clout to get Bucknor out. If the ICC had been half as proactive, things would not have come to this. It was not the first time that Mr Bucknor ( and Mr Benson) displayed incompetence and a blatant disregard for the rules of the game.
3. 24 hour news channels are going to play up certain aspects of the game - that is media responsibility/culpability.
4. Obviously Mr Shekhar has not had to endure an entire season of Mr Nicholas and Mr Healy on the Channel 9 commentary box.

If 24 hour news media and the hype they generate is Mr Shekhar's window to India's sporting culture, he needs to step out of the office a bit more.

And, a little fact checking will also help.