Points victory to Australia

Australia will come out of the first test in Bengaluru feeling confident, following the rave reviews in the press around the world that predicted India would thump the world number one team this series. While this only the first of four tests, both teams gained plenty of knowledge of the other to take into the remaining games.

Australia probably came off best in this encounter. They batted first and they made 430 (Albeit slowly and patiently) thanks to centuries from Ponting, who looked in excellent touch, and Hussey, who looked impossible to get out and completely comfortable during his stay at the crease.

India’s reply started well, then went horrendously wrong as they lost quick wickets to some clever bowling. Johnson, under pressure to keep his spot, justified his promise with four wickets. But any chance Australia had of winning the test was snuffed out in the decisive moment of the test. It seemed clear that India had no chance of winning the test, but what Australia did next was cost themselves any chance of winning.

The partnership between Zaheer and Harbajan turned out to be crucial, if either had fallen early, Australia would have won. The 80 runs and plenty of minutes they contributed allowed India time to save the match. And despite an aggressive declaration from Ponting, India played out the time for a draw.

Both teams have a lot to think about. Australia did not get a sturdy opening partnership in either innings, although they will feel pleased about Simon Katich’s contributions. And Michael Clarke also failed in both innings, to each seamer. Brad Haddin proved a good fighter and Shane Watson showed his batting ability.

Australia’s bowling requires some thought. Lee bowled fine but didn’t pick up wickets his talent deserves. Clark struggled at times, and White, although accurate, is not going to be able to take wickets with his limited arsenal. Johnson was the pick of the quicks, but all the bowlers need to take action considering they were unable to dislodge Zaheer and Harbajan, neither of whom are considered credible batsmen.

India have many problems to address, the main one is Kumble. His bowling, 51 overs for 160 with no wickets, belied a man not in good form and certainly not in good condition considering he is carrying an injury. His captaincy was dull and flat, with no real imagination, and he was unable to really motivate his team.

The bonus India probably didn’t expect was the class of seamers Sharma and Khan, both who were excellent in the conditions. This should make the selectors consider bringing Munaf Patel into the side and give Harbajan the lone spinner role. The captaincy should be passed onto either Dhoni or Sehwag, who are the best candidates. Sehwag would be my choice.

Their batsmen were average at best. Gambhir allowed himself to be tied down to easily, and Sehwag’s penchant for aggression was exploited well by the Australians. The famed middle order had moderate returns, although they all passed 40 once in the test. Dhoni was humbled by Michael Clarke of all bowlers, and may sound alarm bells considering his test batting credentials.

India will have taken note on what they did wrong and will be looking to come out firing in the next test, while Australia will be quietly confident they got the better of this draw, and will now have the concern of whether Stuart Clark will be fit for the next test.

The safe option?

Australia is in a selection conundrum going into the first test next week following the premature end of Bryce McGain’s first test tour.

Jason Krejza, the only other specialist spinner on the trip, is being belted around by India’s brightest new talents and outbowled by part-timer Michael Clarke, and it is seems the fast bowlers are taking the wickets so far on tour.

The other dilemma is the batting order. It seems Phil Jaques is going to be unluckily chopped for Simon Katich, who outbatted Jaques in the Windies and also has a terrific record against India, with his first test century in 2003 and a 99 against them in their triumphant tour of 2004. He also offers his left arm wrist spin, with which he has taken 6/65 (Albeit against Zimbabwe).

As likely as Australia is to play Krejza, it won’t be playing to their strengths. Australia’s pace battery is actually quite formidable. Brett Lee, Stuart Clark, Mitchell Johnson and Shane Watson, backed by Doug Bollinger (Who was immensely dangerous during the Australia A tour), and Peter Siddle, who has proven a handful at times with his accuracy.

Maybe Australia needs to forget the spin option and focus on its pace battery. It worked for the West Indies during the 80’s, why can’t it be a viable option now particularly when we have part time spinners who can roll their arm over if needed? Why shouldn’t the best bowlers play even if they are all fast men?

It’s something to think about come Thursday next week.

The hard truth

India will have to do some soul searching in the next few months as they come to the realisation that their much vaunted middle order reaches its use by date.

As Australia has been forced to find replacements for the genius of Warne and McGrath, India will have a near future without Ganguly, Dravid, Laxman and Tendulkar. This should not be a time of despair but one of hope as the next potential stars of this world are unearthed.

I won’t play on Indian board and selection politics because to be quite frank I don’t know enough about it. There are players vying for selection and the selectors need to consider if their team is beginning to age too much.

One of the great selection conundrums of the past few years has been that of Mohammad Kaif and Yuvraj Singh. Both have been hailed as immensely talented players, and both have made starts and then failures at test level.

Having watched Yuvraj play, I am totally convinced he is not test class. He was completely destroyed by Australia’s pace attack in Australia after he had previously flattered to deceive by scoring a return century against Pakistan, hardly the most dangerous of opposition. He remains a danger in one day and 20/20 cricket, but the shorter form is a far cry from the five day game.

Mohammad Kaif is in a slightly better position, having gone back to the first class game and become a consistent run scorer in India. He charmed with a 94 against Australia A and is showing signs of more determination and willing to apply himself. However, he may find himself overtaken by some more prodigious talent.

He faces the likes of S Badrinath, Suresh Reina, Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli for a chance to take over from the ‘Fab Four’, and against the competition, he isn’t likely to play test cricket for India again. Badrinath is on the fringes of selection and looks the goods. He comes across determined and professional, and is not likely to let his chance go easily.

But who to drop? The obvious answer is Ganguly, who has been living on borrowed time for a while now. A fierce competitor, Ganguly’s weakness against Australia will count against him and it he is likely to be a major weak link in the Indian team if he plays.

Another player in the gun sights is Rahul Dravid. Although he has made some runs in the Irani Cup match, Dravid’s problem is his inability to score at rates needed to win test matches, particularly in recent times and against good teams like Australia, which have deep batting lineups.

For a player so technically equipped, he is frustratingly unable to turn the strike over on a regular basis to keep pressure on the bowlers, which leads to him getting bogged down as he famously did during the Sydney test earlier this year. I was there and joined the crowd as it mock cheered him for his first single in about an hour and a half’s batting.

He will probably be retained for the Australia series, but if he fails he will find himself dropped. The only players I can see retained for the next 12 months will be Laxman, who for some reason has been constantly scrabbling for his spot despite being a far superior player to Ganguly, and Tendulkar, who probably will nominate when he wants to retire before being pushed.

The decision needs to be made, as India cannot afford to stay strong while their old guard scrabbles to hold on.

A sad state of affairs

Drugs are the most temperamental subject in world sport. It taints athletes and their records, and their actions can simply be described as cheating their sport and cheating themselves.

Cricket has been rocked by drug dramas in recent years, with the Ahktar/Asif controversy and now the revelation that West Indies players Xavier Marshall and Tonito Willett have tested positive to a substance that has not yet been disclosed.

The Ahtar/Asif story was a disgrace. Both players were found guilty, both were suspended and then had their penalties overturned by the PCB, an absolute insult to the cricketing community. Shane Warne was caught using a diuretic and was banned for a year, although he probably should have been banned for longer.

Although we are yet to figure out what Marshall and Willett were caught taking, they will face serious sanctions from their board that already has enough on its plate.

Drugs has rarely reared its ugly head in sport, but to stamp it out, boards and, specifically the spineless ICC, need to show initiative and either ban players for life or send them packing for a long time. It is the only way to make sure it doesn’t harm the reputation of the game.

The class divide

What separates a good player from a good one? What makes them stand head and shoulders about his contemporaries? Do statistics, romanticism, or one-in-a-lifetime performances secure their greatness?

It’s a question that splits fans of the game, and unfortunately it’s a lot like the Australian player divide known as the nerds and the julios. In terms of cricket fans, it can be called ‘stats heads’ and ‘romantics’.

Now, to stats heads, a player can be judged great based primarily on his numbers. Therefore Bradman is number one in terms of batting, followed by Mike Hussey (Average 68.38 from 42 innings) and Graeme Pollock (Average 60.97 from 41 innings). Eddie Paynter has an average of 59.23, yet rarely is he spoken of in terms of the greatest English batsmen.

The romantics love a good innings, and while appreciating the stats, judge a batsman on watching him play. Therefore Wally Hammond’s legend (Along with his formidable statistics) grows, even though there are few alive who could have seen him at his peak.

Viv Richards is also a great point. He is regarded by all comers as one of, if not the best West Indian batsmen of them all. Yet there are five West Indians above him in batting average (Headley, Sobers, Weekes, Walcott, and Lara). Why is he rated so highly, well for one reason he scored those runs in an era that was tough for runs (He faced bowlers of the ilk and class of Dennis Lillee, Jeff Thomson, Bob Willis, Ian Botham, Kapil Dev, Richard Hadlee and Imran Khan), and never surrendered the initiative.

Romantics would also like to include statistical anomalies like Mark Waugh, David Gower, or Mohammad Azharuddin. None of these have batting averages above 50 (Azharuddin’s is closest with 45.04, Waugh’s is 41.82), yet their genius was never really questioned when watched as they made batting look so simple.

A great current comparison would be Ricky Ponting and Sachin Tendulkar. Ponting is leading Tendulkar in terms of average (58.38 to 54.23), but I have no hesitation, and I have a feeling
I’m not alone in saying this, that Sachin is far superior to Ponting as a batsman.

Punter is a great batsman, don’t get me wrong. Only Bradman is ahead of him in Australia, and only Greg Chappell is equal to him (I rate Greg that highly because of the era he played in, he made runs against everyone, everywhere). Yet Tendulkar is far superior because of his ability to tear attacks to shreds with little effort, and not just weak attacks. He has consistently defied the Australian attacks that blew teams away during the 90’s and naughties.

Ponting has never had a chance against his own team, which is unfair to hold against him. Yet to average as consistently as he has over the past few years defies belief as he gets better with age. Tendulkar, on the other hand, as managed to be monumentally steady for the majority of his career.

He has declined somewhat in the last few years, but in the Australian series in 06-07, he topped the aggregates for either side. Most impressive was the fact that he never once looked like getting out as he systematically dismantled an Australian bowling attack that was hardly weak.

Ponting struggled that series as they exposed a technical tendency for Ponting to push hard at the ball coming into him, which Ishant Sharma and Harbajan exposed with glee.

Romantics appreciate the ‘prettier’ aspects of the game, and love a flashy cover drive and a player skipping down the pitch to launch a bowler over his head for six. Stats heads have a tendency to look at the game and appreciate the number crunch.

Combine the two and you have a cricket fan able to look at the numbers, appreciate them, and put on a vintage tape of Brian Lara tearing an attack to pieces.

Do you see where I’m coming from?

A critical showdown

Australia named their test squad for the tour of India, and lo and behold, the period of transition Australian cricket has reared its ugly head and led to several selection controversies.

There is no Andrew Symonds. The 33 year old all-rounder has been one of Australia’s best players in the past year, and ahead of a foreboding tour of India is regarded as one of Australia’s better players of spin bowling in what could be a series played on turning pitches. His useful medium and offspin bowling will also be missed.

There was no place for Ashley Noffke and Beau Casson, both of whom made the tour of the West Indies and Casson even managed a test, taking 3/129. And there is still no Cameron White or the rampant Dave Hussey.

There are some serious gambles whoever. 36 year old legspinner Bryce McGain has been picked as the number one spinner, supported by Tasmanian offspinner Jason Krezja, who has never taken a first class five wicket haul. Peter Siddle replaces Ashley Noffke and this is an encouraging move. Siddle shaded Doug Bollinger last year as the fast bowler of the year, and his selection is vindication of a young man brimming with talent.
Shane Watson replaces Andrew Symonds in a move that has already caused consternation.

While Watson has always been viewed as a gifted cricketer, he has garnered the reputation of being fragile and likely to get injured in a vital moment. When you consider the potential of White and other possible part-timers such as Michael Clarke, Simon Katich and even Dave Hussey or Marcus North, the selection of Watson is a huge gamble.

Brad Haddin will continue to don the gloves and remains the number one candidate. India is a big test for him and I’m confident he can rise to the appropriate level. Another concern is the inexperience of the batting lineup in India. That I’m not concerned about either, with Katich the likely replacement for Symonds and Hayden set to return.

India’s lineup looks more settled, but some big decisions remain. There just isn’t room to fit Ganguly, particularly since the revival of Mohammad Kaif and the continued good form of S Badrinath and Suresh Raina. Dravid may also face the chop, but he'll likely be retained.

Harbajan and Kumble are likely to bowl together, and I have a feeling this may be his last series. Fast bowling is likely to be supplied by Ishant and Zaheer. Zaheer hasn’t been particularly effective against Australia, but the Australians will be very wary of the young Ishant.
That said, spin is likely to be prevalent and India far outgun Australia in this department.

However, India shouldn’t be too overconfident following their failure against Sri Lanka, where Harbajan and Kumble were ineffective and they were torn apart by an unknown spinner in Ajantha Mendis.

This is a critical series for both teams to gauge their futures, Australia being in the midst of a transitional phase and India about the begin one. May the best man win.

Where did it all go wrong?

I’m taking time out from the hysterics of Bradman and the constant English focus on the Ashes to lament to decline of the Pakistan cricket team, which has fallen from world beaters to chugging along side the West Indies in a struggle to catch up.

Pakistan once boasted one of the most formidable line ups in the world. In the 90’s, they could had players of the calibre of Wasim Akram, arguably the greatest left arm quick of all time; Waqar Younis, his incomparable (And injury ravaged) sidekick; Inzamam-Ul-Haq; the chubby and dominant batsman as well as class acts such as Saeed Anwar, Ijaz Ahmed, Saqlain Mushtaq and Mohammad Yousef.

Pakistan has not won a series since 2006, and that was against the West Indies. The last series they played was against India, in which they lost 1-0, and they haven’t played since. Nor are they slated to play anyone within the next 9 months.

What happened to Pakistan cricket to bring it down the notches it had scaled to reach amongst the top three in world cricket?

As much as we would like to say cricket and politics don’t mix, it is unrealistic to believe it. Pakistan’s unstable political climate and unfortunate status as terrorism target is not conducive to attracting cricket teams, sponsors, or fans.

To further my point about politics, South Africa was isolated from world sports for decades due to its apartheid policy, a purely political reason for isolating it. A similar issue is going on in Zimbabwe, yet I have already raised my annoyance at the lack of initiative on that problem.

Their cricketers have battled controversies which have tagged along like dead weights. The match fixing accusations, ball tampering, Shoaib Ahktar’s histrionics, the drug disgrace surrounding Shoaib and Mohammad Asif, and the forfeited test have all contributed to Pakistan’s state of mind.

Their bizarre selection policies have also contributed, with players who have made successful forays overseas such Yasir Arafat all but ignored (Arafat did manage one test, in their previous series against India). Mushtaq Ahmed churned out hundreds of wickets for Sussex and helped the county to its first championships, but was not picked again.

Cricket wants a strong Pakistan team. While the board has become something of a little brother to the powerful BCCI, the health of cricket needs more competitiveness and what better time with plenty of money in the game to encourage it?

There is going to be another Wasim there, another Imran, another Javed. Pakistan needs to go and find them, not only for its own sake, but for cricket’s.