Listing Details
| ID: | 988 |
| Title: | Eye On Cricket |
| URL: | http://eye-on-cricket.blogspot.com/ |
| Category: | Recreation: Sports: Cricket |
| Description: | The world of cricket, as seen from Brooklyn. |
| The DRS should Eliminate Howlers. And Those Alone - Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:33:00 +0000 |
| By Vineet Goyal Much has been written and debated about the effectiveness of DRS and it is fair to say that the jury is still out. Recent comments from Jacques Kallis are a good indication that the majority of players are not entirely comfortable with the system. However, most agree it is quite effective in eliminating blatant errors and the game is better off with some sort of DRS in place. Eliminating howlers was in fact the primary intended purpose of the system. So why is there still opposition to the system if it serves its primary intended purpose so well. The answer lies in not what it does but in what it does not do effectively. It is completely ineffective in marginal decisions – the current technology used in DRS especially for predicting the trajectory of the ball in an lbw decision is not accurate enough for players and administrators to feel confident. But marginal decisions! No one was worried about those anyway – at least not the players. All we wanted was to eliminate the howlers for which DRS seems to work quite well. The problem however is that once the system is in place, we cannot ask the players to use it only in cases of a howler. The players realize that the technological shortcomings of the system can be exploited and therefore, they can use the DRS strategically to get a decision in their favor. This is very discomforting from everyone’s perspective. The objective of DRS should instead be to eliminate howlers and just that. It would be futile to formally define a howler but in principle from the perspective of the batsman, we can think of a howler as a decision where the batsman feels (in his mind) that grave injustice has been done to him in giving him out. Now, an lbw decision where the ball was perhaps just hitting the top of middle stump is not a howler (assuming there was no inside edge and impact was inside the line of stumps) – in this case, a batsman would be disappointed but in his heart knows that he was beaten and perhaps out. Clearly, we cannot have a system where by rule the players can ask for a review only in case of a howler. This should happen by design. Here is a proposal that I feel should achieve this: 1. The batting team is allowed only ONE unsuccessful review for both the innings. 2. The bowling team is allowed two unsuccessful reviews per inning as in the current system. The asymmetry in batting and bowling reviews is because of the asymmetry in knowledge between batsman and bowler. The batsman knows whether he nicked the ball almost surely but the bowler may not. So lets see how this system would play out. A batsman will review only if he is absolutely sure that he is not out. Except lbw decisions, the batsman knows whether he is out or not. Anyone who has played cricket would know that you feel the vibrations from the faintest of nicks and you know it. If the batsman didn’t edge the ball and is given out, the review will certainly reverse the decision – none of the technologies including hot-spot and snicko give a false positive. So non-lbw decisions will be ruled correctly. It is a bit more trickier for the lbw decisions because the batsman does not know whether the ball was going to hit the stumps or even whether the impact was in line or not. It’s amazing to see the performance of umpires on the elite panel currently – even the players would testify that the umpires are extremely accurate about things like estimated path of the ball and line of impact. Of course, they are humans and making real-time decisions, so they are bound to make marginal errors of a millimeter here and there. And I think the players are ok with such errors. If Kallis is beaten to an incoming delivery that is crashing onto the middle stump and hits him a millimeter outside the off-stump, I don’t think he will feel cheated if he is given out. The howlers in lbw decisions happen (at least these days) when batsman are given out after an inside edge which is easy for batsman to detect and then review. But since batsmen have only one unsuccessful review for two innings, they will not review marginal decisions. What about the bowling team? Can they use it for marginal decisions? Since there are two unsuccessful reviews allowed, they might like it happens in the current system. However, this should not be a problem. This system does not produce false positives, i.e., if the batsman did not edge, there will be no hot-spot. So if the batsman is indeed not out, the system would rarely reverse the on-field not-out call. However, in case of a blatant error, the decision is reversed. Therefore, the DRS essentially comes into play only in blatant errors and has no impact in marginal decisions.  |
| Indian Cricket From Across the Border - Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:52:00 +0000 |
Guest Post by Kamran Wasti In a watershed moment in Indian cricket history, Saurav Ganguly led his team out to play England at Leeds. Already 1-0, Ganguly faced the prospect of leading a potentially dysfunctional team playing England on a green wicket under the traditional cloudy Headingley skies. Other than having more fast bowlers, the temptation to include the opener Shiv Sunder Das, who had just hit 250 in a side game, was also there. He did not play and has not played since. Instead, the limited but gutsy Sanjay Bangar was included as a makeshift opener as Ganguly played two spinners, won the toss and batted. The rest is history – Bangar rose above his abilities to join Rahul Dravid who played possibly the greatest innings of his career as they defied England bowlers and made things easier for Sachin Tendulkar and Ganguly himself to rack up aggressive hundreds before Anil Kumble spun England out for a landmark Indian victory. As a university student living in a hostel, Ganguly’s decision to bat first reminded me of Mark Taylor’s call in the 1997 Manchester Test. Taylor reportedly had wanted Shane Warne to bowl last in conditions which seemingly looked ideal for fast-bowling. Like Taylor, Ganguly knew what his strengths were – he put the onus on his batsmen to survive the testing conditions and the spinners, his best bowlers, to do well on a track completely different from the raging turners at home. They delivered. Ganguly’s era followed by the Rahul Dravid’s and to some extend even Anil Kumble’s was a rare phase in Indian cricket where the team backed its strengths rather than camouflage its weaknesses. As a result, India’s achievements were greater than the sum total of the ability of its players. Other captains, including Mahendra Singh Dhoni, exemplified Samir Chopra highlighted in his very well-written article,India never cultivated aggression, even when they were No. 1. I remember reading a Kapil Dev interview from 1985 after a farcical tournament at Sharjah where no team Pakistan failed to chase 125 after Imran Khan had taken 6 for 14 against India and England were led by 45-year-old debutant Norman Gifford. India had earlier won the World Championship of Cricket in Australia where Sunil Gavaskar had handled his limited bowling resources brilliantly, as aspect of India’s success surprisingly lost on most critics. In short, India, were having a high in one-day cricket. Kapil Dev, in that interview, announced that his focus area was one-day cricket and that he ‘would like to see who placed the West Indies ahead of India now’. There was one slight irony though in both these tournaments: India had won every single match they had played but had yet to face the West Indies even once. When they finally did, in the three nation Rothman’s Cup in Sharjah later that year, West Indians walked away with an easy win as they did a year later and indeed after the 1987 World Cup, where they won 7-1 in an ODI series. All through this phase, the West Indies were not the ‘official’ World Champions. India, while they were, never won a single match against them. The point was as lost on Kapil Dev as it is on the Indian team today: It is Test Match cricket that matters. Consider further examples: Pakistan won the 1992 World Cup. They had a good test team but were not the ideal one-day side. They had a wretched run in one-dayers in the lead-up to their most important test assignment, the 1993 tour to the West Indies. The selectors knee-jerked and replaced Javed Miandad by Wasim Akram, dropped experienced batsmen like Shoaib Muhammad and Salim Malik and packed their side with a host of rookie fast-bowlers. What they had missed out on was that Pakistan had continued to do well in test matches. Predictably, they were blown away by a rampant West Indian side in the tests. Wasim Akram celebrated his return to captaincy with a similarly preposterous take when he took the 1995 tour to Australia as preparation for the World Cup defense as unsurprisingly, Pakistan suffered humiliating defeats. India learnt this lesson the hard way in 1983 when the West Indians routed them at home and are learning the hard way now having exposed completely in England last year and now in Australia. Where has it all gone wrong? India failed to back its traditional strength which is spin bowling. Regardless of how good Zaheer Khan may be in the eyes of his fans, his prime has seen him take wickets at around 27 or 28 runs per wicket – much better by his standards but hardly world class. Across the border, Waqar Younis averaged 5 wickets per test at 22 till the end of 1998 and even a wretched last 32 tests meant that his final cumulative career average was 23. Wasim Akram, for 7 years, between 1990 and 1997 was the top bowler in the world again averaging 5 wickets per test at 20 and Imran at his peak did the same at 17. On the contrary, India’s most consistent bowler during their prime years was not a fast bowler but the venerable Anil Kumble. During some of India’s greatest moments, like the series wins in Pakistan and the West Indies, it was Kumble who won them matches. The Leeds test, played on a green wicket, was again an Anil Kumble masterclass and even on the 2003 tour to Australia, it was he who took the wickets. Admittedly, they don’t have a replacement for him and you very rarely get an Ambrose for a Garner within a year but didn’t India realize where their strength is? India’s other humiliating tour to Australia was in 1991 – a year earlier they played Anil Kumble on the soft, slow English wickets but did not take him to Australia at a time when Australia had not played quality leg-spin at test level for a long time. This time they played their leg-spinner in England but did not realize that he would be more useful, in fact critical on the bouncy Australian wickets. To cap it up, they failed to realize that R. Ashwin, their spinner, with his 3-test career had done little wrong but critically lacked the controlling support of Pragyan Ojha at the other end where invariably, Ishant Sharma would be playing the benign pie-thrower in Australia. This would never have happened during Ganguly’s times. In this regard, Ian Chappell has an interesting story - he was being forced to play Terry Jenner and he wanted Ashley Mallet for the Perth test; the next tests were at Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne and he knew that Terry Jenner (I think he was talking about the 1974-5 Ashes) would be able to get a few wickets at Perth and then it would become difficult to justify not playing him on wickets where he expected Mallet, then the best spinner in Australia, to play a crucial role. He had his way and Mallet took a bagful of wickets (considering that it was the signature Lillee-Thomson series). This can never happen with this management. It may not happen with Duncan Fletcher either; remember how he used Ashley Giles and how he kept Monty Panesar out. Panesar had bowl really well against Pakistan in 2006 and yet when they landed in Australia, Fletcher played Giles who had not played for over a year. When Panesar finally played, ironically at Perth :), he immediately got wickets. The best bowlers should always play; Derek Underwood would be deadly when the pitched helped him. When it didn't, he offered great control. And the West Indies used Joel Garner as a stock bowler till 1984. When Roberts retired and Holding became first change, Garner terrorized batsmen all over the world. A more poignant pointer would be the 1977 Perth Test when Bishen Bedi played three spinners at Perth in a narrow defeat and himself took the only 10-for of his career. The West Indians did not resort to spin in 1983, 1987 or 1994. Nothing exemplifies the importance of this principle that the last test in 1994 when, with a second-string team and no Curtly Ambrose, Courtney Walsh hurried India to defeat through pace on a slow wicket. The lure of fast, bouncy wickets is well-known but India is not a fast-bowling nation – three of India’s best fast bowlers have ordinary records and Zaheer Khan is the worst of the lot, with Kapil Dev, the best of them averaging only fractionally below 30. When you back your strengths, it automatically means your best bowlers play. If conditions suit, then India’s fast bowlers will always do better; India won the Leeds test in England in 1986 not through some great fast-bowlers: Kapil Dev averaged 40 in England. The match was won by Madan Lal and Roger Binny. They were not great bowlers but were certainly the best available and they delivered when it mattered. Additionally, England fell to Maninder Singh and Ravi Shastri in the second innings. Would one have expected MS Dhoni to make such a move when he didn’t play two spinners even at Adelaide where Nathan Lyon was able to take crucial second innings wickets? I do not think so. But ask Misbah ul Haq if he would play at Perth with just Saeed Ajmal and he won’t. As far as India’s standard attack is concerned, Zaheer Khan obviously makes the cut till he is fit but I have my doubts about Ishant Sharma. After half a decade, his achievement is 20-odd wickets against a very poor West Indies and a few good spells here and there, including the Ricky Ponting one delivered 4 years ago. After the emergence of Umesh Yadav, Sharma sole contribution perhaps was to keep either a revitalized Irfan Pathan or a second spinner out of the team. Sanjay Manjrekar was clinically honest in his appraisal– Sharma just isn’t good enough. With Yadav around, he is not their second pick. In my book, with the way I saw Irfan Pathan bowl recently, he isn't even the third best and with one spinner around, he should not be in the team anyway. Ian Chappell and Imran Khan recently criticized India’s obsession with Tendulkar’s hundreds. The same was valid for this number one position as well. The moment India went number one, the team started getting rave reviews with the die-hard fans drawing similitude with Australia’s recent run. Nothing could have been far from reality. As far as I can recall, I have not seen an Indian team win by a two test margin in an overseas series even once (save for wins against Zimbabwe or Bangladesh) since Kapil Dev’s team won in England in 1986. India’s major achievements included 2008 and 2010 wins over Australia: These were pretty misleading too; particularly if you consider the 2010 series, Australians were fielding a side that had been bowled out for 88 and then defeated by a very poor Pakistani team. Compared to the 2004 series that they won in India, not a single player remained save for Ponting and Clarke. The same team was blanked by England. Were Indians really honest about what they were 'achieving'? Indians beat South Africa in a test but that they had done even during their Greg Chappell days, which are unanimously termed the worst in recent Indian history. Honest supporters would have realized that South Africans were always bound to lose at least one test in an embarrassing manner - they just do it. What was more critical was the way Indians failed to win the third. I was sitting with my friend in Lahore and wondering how can they claim to be number 1 with such an approach? Predictably, an opportunity to win the series was lost. Similarly, the series against the West Indies reminded me of Zaheer Abbas's captaincy when he would draw tests that were easier to win. Samir Chopra's take on India’s lack of aggression (cited above) is something I have known since I was a child. Almost all Ranji Trophy finals are decided on the first innings lead. I wonder why? The Pakistani Cricketer used to have a Facts&Figures Quarterly in the mid-80s. My first flavour of Ranji Trophy was through that and I followed the 1986-87 version; I think Arshad Ayub (the off-spinner) hit 174 and it was a high scoring draw with 400 runs being made in the three completed innings. The trend has continued pretty consistently. Even this year, I think one of the teams took some 300-run lead and yet batted on. For India’s sake, I wish that Tendulkar gets his hundred and not one but two in the triangular. Why two? Because the first one would take him to his 100th and immediately the fans would want the 50th one-day ton too! This is the level of obsession that they have with figures. Even after India’s 4-0 disaster, CricketNext experts were discussing why it was good that Tendulkar did not get his 100th and why it should come in an Indian win. So let us hope he gets those two and then India can look forward to the future. When England tour India next, don’t expect them to be a cakewalk. They will be wounded lions for this team is willing to learn. For the first time, they have taken a subcontinental defeat seriously and they did manage to win a test under Flintoff – they might just do that again. I just hope Indians are not playing a batting line-up with two 40-year-olds. A younger batting line-up would mean closer encounters but would be a long-term investment. We might get to see Rohit Sharma debut as well! One good thing that happened for Pakistan after the 2010 England tour was the decision to drop Muhammad Yousuf for good. His best years had come half-a-decade earlier and at 37 his peak years were history. By doing so Pakistan gave an extended run to Asad Shafiq and Azhar Ali who played crucial back-to-the-wall knocks in the recent series against England. Indians should do the same with Tendulkar (after he gets those hundreds – because otherwise you’ll have riots), Dravid and Laxman and, even more importantly, Harbhajjan Singh who is in terminal decline. At 31-32 you expect a spinner to peak but he has surprisingly, consistently grown more defensive and flatter. Unlike Pakistani off-spinners, his normal trajectory was never a flat one but he has continuously followed that route. As a neutral (if you believe me), I saw him bowl what were termed 'magical' 4-over spells in the 2007 T20 World Championship - sickeningly, he was bowling flat yorkers outside leg-stump to prevent batsmen from hitting out. That, in short, sums up his state. He has occasionally produced decent spells, like Ishant Sharma, but that's about it - a regression analysis would show that he in decline and unlikely to rejuvenate. Indians must look towards new spinners and I think dumping Mishra or Chawla was a bad call. Ojha is another good bowler and Ashwin isn't bad either. So basically they have four spinners who can become really good bowlers. They won’t be the Bedi-Venkat-Chadra-Prasanna quartet but they form very good bench strength and a hundred times better than some of the ‘supreme’ fast-bowling talent.  |
| Angry Kohli - Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:30:00 +0000 |
From the perspective of the Indian fan, the second session of the third day's play in Adelaide, when India lost only one wicket and that too at the very end, was probably the most satisfying couple of hours in the India-Australia series so far. I certainly enjoyed it. Not very much happened: no blistering strokeplay unleashed, no mountain climbed, no dominance established, just survival and a semblance of grit. That tells you something about how we've had to revise our expectations. After tea, Virat Kohli got his hundred, and a very good hundred it was too, even if it came in hot weather on a fine batting wicket on which Ponting and Clarke had just hit double centuries. But Kohlicelebratedlike he had just reached 300, and appeared to call somebody (probably nobody in particular) abhainchod. Frankly, it was embarrassing. Earlier, upon reaching fifty, he had acted like he had scored a century. A fifty used to be worth a nod and a little jab with the bat; now Indian batting has fallen so low that Kohli did a full pirouette. Bradman cometh, mofo. I have nothing against a certain amount of emotional release on the field. (Ilikedthe fact that Ganguly did a strip-tease at Lords.) Kohli seems to be a promising batsman, he has a personality, and a bit of fist-pumping and swearing is just fine. But there has to be some perspective. When your team has performed like a bunch of lost club cricketers for a full series (actually, two full series) and there is every indication that you are going to lose the last Test as well, the excited-Tarzan act at a personal milestone only makes you look like Sreesanth: a little unhinged and laughable. We're done laughing at this team and I wish they would just, you know, go away and lick their IPL contracts where nobody can see them. The horrible thing about this series is that it's still not over. The T20 and ODI segments remain to be played, more celebrations are in store every time somebody takes a wicket or scores a fifty. These guys are very lucky that the farce will not be played out before Indian crowds. Australians are likely to be more forgiving. Satadru Sen  |