A zero for the Oval

Four out of five games played at the Oval in the Champions Trophy were won by the team batting second. The only time the side batting first won the game was when Australia fell 20 runs short of Sri Lanka's total - but that was only because they were initially trying to get to the target in 29 overs to get their net run rate up, and lost four top order batsmen in the process. Had that been a normal game, it would have probably been a five out of five result for teams batting second at the Oval. Critics are quick to pick on pitches in the sub-continent that crack up, where it becomes almost a matter of winning the toss and batting first to win the game. But there hasn't been a word of criticism for starting a game in overcast conditions in the morning in London, where the team bowling first has too much of an advantage. At least a knockout game like the South Africa v England semi-final should have been a day-nighter, where the toss would have been less of a factor. AB de Villiers and South Africa are easy targets for lampooning as chokers, but they hardly had a chance in that semi-final at the Oval once they lost the toss. Anderson got the ball to swing prodigiously both ways, and James Treadwell too made the ball turn sharply in those moist conditions. It's true the South African top order might have done better if they had been more conservative in their approach in the first half of the innings, but I don't think that would have made a difference to the result. We saw with the ninth wicket stand of nearly a hundred at a run a ball between Miller and Kleinveldt how easy batting became once the sun came out and the ball stopped swinging and turning. Anything below 275 would have been easy to chase under the sun, and South Africa would only have delayed the inevitable even if they had kept wickets in hand. Watching a seven-hour-game is no fun if the result is a foregone conclusion, and administrators should think outside the box to prevent the toss becoming too big a factor. We did have an example of that in India recently during the winter. In an ODI series with England, the day-night games were advanced by a couple of hours to start at noon. That prevented an unfair advantage to the team batting second on account of the dew factor. Evidently, the England & Wales cricket board has a thing or two to learn from the sub-continent. Had the start of the day games at the Oval been delayed, they might have turned out to be fairer contests. In Wednesday's semi-final, therefore, the real loser was the Oval as a venue for one of the big games on the cricket calendar.

How about a World Champions Trophy?

It's a pity they're doing away with the Champions Trophy, because it is the ICC's best tournament. The World Cup is too long drawn out, and its league phase features too many mismatches between the minnows and the top eight teams. So here's a proposal to combine the best of both tournaments. Have a qualifying round for the minnows, and let only the top two play in the marquee event. There would be two groups of five each and the top two from each would qualify for the semis. Right now, with four minnows among the 12 teams in the World Cup, there are too many games that are a turn-off and it spoils the rhythm of the tournament. This year's Champions Trophy has been severely affected by the English weather, but even then most of the matches were keenly contested and interesting. That's something the World Cup needs to imbibe.

Misbah's blah average

Coming down the order and plodding along at a low strike rate are what helped Misbah ul Haq end up with the best batting average in the Pakistan team. And now he is pointing a finger at his top order for Pakistan's abject batting in the Champions Trophy. This just doesn't wash. Pakistan's most experienced batsman should have taken on more responsibility, instead of passing the buck. He had to either come up the order to deal with the two new balls and English conditions, or provide an impetus lower down to help the team catch up with the required run rate. He did neither. He was happy to play the martyr, appearing to have the weight of the world on his shoulders, as he went about 'resurrecting' an innings in shambles time after time. What point is such resurrection if the team will anyway end up with a total below 200 that cannot be defended? How does Misbah remaining unbeaten matter if the required run rate is allowed to climb out of reach? It would've been better for Pakistan if Misbah had gone for his shots. They might have still lost all three games, and by an even wider margin, but at least they would have had a crack at winning. The way Misbah batted, they had no chance at all. It's not the Pakistan top order that should be dropped, but Misbah himself for shoring up his average at the cost of the team. Former Pakistan captain Inzamam ul Haq also batted at number five, but he played to win. India's MS Dhoni prefers to come out in the latter half of the innings, but he bats according to the situation in the game and the team's requirement. Misbah should shape up or ship out. The non-performers in the lower middle order, namely Shoaib Malik and Umar Amin, also should be the first to make way for better batting talent.

Lankan Rabbit outruns English Trottoise

Angelo Mathews may yet turn out to be a good captain for Sri Lanka. He pulled a rabbit out of his hat in the game with England. When bowling all-rounder Nuwan Kulasekara walked out to bat at the fall of Mahela Jayewardene just before the batting powerplay, expert commentator Sunil Gavaskar was apoplectic - he would swing and miss, Sangakkara at the other end would be denied the strike, another wicket would encourage the English... All of those happened initially, except for the dismissal of Kulasekara. Instead, once he started connecting with his robust swings at the ball, Sangakkara was quite happy to be off strike. Kulasekara is not an everyday pinch-hitter - he is a smart cricketer, with a lot of experience in ODIs. His presence of mind was evident when he turned and ran back towards the danger end when Sangakkara stumbled while going for a second run. Kulasekara picked his shots and the bowlers to target. His consecutive sixes off Swann completely deflated the fielding side. In the end, the English looked shell-shocked as Sangakkara and Kulasekara romped home to victory with three overs to spare. It's easy to praise a move that's worked, and Angelo would probably have got fried if the Kulasekara promotion had backfired. But the thinking behind it was pretty sound, actually, regardless of the outcome. Sri Lanka needed to score at nearly eight an over ahead of the powerplay when Jayewardene got out. This was a tricky situation because a new batsman would take a few balls to get set and Sri Lanka could not afford to be conservative in the powerplay. Sangakkara would have felt compelled to up the ante and might have thrown his wicket away. So the advent of a nothing-to-lose risk-taker Kulasekara also meant that Sangakkara could stick to his role of anchoring the chase till the end. The gambit was therefore perfectly timed and well worth it. And to Kulasekara's credit, he made it work and how! The Lankan victory also exposed the weakness in the English strategy of going along at 4.5 an over to keep wickets in hand for a dash in the last 15 overs. Jonathan Trott's anchor role is reminiscent of Rahul Dravid. India too lost many an ODI by playing a bit too conservatively on easy tracks. If England had played a more risk-taking game from the outset, they would likely have crossed 300 on that good Cardiff wicket as MS Dhoni's merry band had done earlier. On this track, the English tortoise Jonathan Trott was no match for the Lankan rabbit Nuwan Kulasekara. On another day and another pitch, it may well be the other way round. It shows that you can't be too rigid with your tactics.

Better than Tendulkar and Ganguly

I can't recollect seeing a more dominant top order batting performance by India in England. Tendulkar and Ganguly had a few good knocks but nothing like the total dominance shown by Shikhar Dhawan and Rohit Sharma. Against South Africa at Cardiff, the pitch was good for batting, so I was watching to see how the Indian openers would fare on a slightly more challenging pitch at the Oval against a decent West Indian pace attack. They were near perfect, finding the right balance between aggression and self-preservation. Perhaps Shikhar Dhawan is taking a few chances too many - the kind of form he is in, somebody should tell him to cut the airy fairy ones past gully and the hooks to square leg. Just not worth it. More importantly, he has to learn to weave out of the way of the bouncer at the body. Right now, he's either getting into a tangle or pulling out of compulsion. As for Rohit, he is just oozing with talent as always. Can he keep going, or will he start giving it away again after a couple of successes?

Sub-continental blues

The Sri Lankan and Pakistani batsmen haven't come close to 200 in three matches. The spongy bounce and unfamiliar conditions have contributed to it, no doubt. But these two batting lineups look rather weak for any surface that has a bit in it for the bowlers. The only sub-continental team to have made a decent score is India, but then they had a pretty good batting surface at Cardiff. We will know at the Oval on Tuesday if the Indians are any different from their neighbours.

Where Angelo feared to tread

The Lankans and their captain are getting plaudits for coming to within a wicket of beating New Zealand, when they had only 138 runs to defend. But really, the Lankans should have won this game when they had the Kiwis in a flutter at 80 for 6. It was a miscalculation by Angelo Mathews at that point that allowed New Zealand to pip the Lankans at the post. Lasith Malinga had just taken the sixth wicket, but he was taken off after one over. Angelo wanted to keep Malinga's last four overs for the end game, to polish off the tail once the seventh wicket fell. The spinners Dilshan and Herath, and then the seamers, Eranga and Thissara Perera, failed to break through, however, and the McCullum brothers settled down to a partnership. It was only when Malinga was brought back that the brothers were separated. But it was too late. Instead, if Malinga had continued after getting the sixth wicket, and removed one of the McCullum brothers earlier, the spinners and other seamers could have bowled with more success at the tail instead of to the McCullums. Angelo Mathews wasn't too hot as a captain in the IPL and his inexperience may cost a talented Lankan team a place in the Champions Trophy semi-finals.

Australia Bailey's Out

It's been a long time since we have seen a player who is primarily in the team as a captain. There was Mike Brearley for England and now there's George Bailey leading Australia. The experienced and high impact all-rounder Shane Watson should have been captain in the absence of Michael Clark, but the Oz team management has had problems with Watto ever since he complained about being overbowled. Then on the India tour they suspended him for not doing his homework. But it's the team leaders who failed in their homework for the Champions Trophy, playing only a part-time spinner Paul Voges in their opening encounter with England at Edgebaston. As it turned out, the spinners were the hardest to get away on a dry surface, especially England's James Treadwell. So now, whom will the Oz leadership suspend - themselves? Everyone took it for granted that they would be playing on seaming wickets in the early English summer, but they forgot how fickle is the English weather. There hasn't been any rain around for a couple of weeks, and we hardly saw any lateral movement at Edgebaston and earlier at Cardiff where India won a high-scoring game. If these conditions persist, it will be advantage India.

Stick with Rohit as opener

The good thing about Dhoni is that he is willing to experiment, and does not always go by conventional wisdom. Many an argument could have been made against sending Rohit Sharma out to open for India in their first match of the Champions Trophy in Cardiff. Primarily, the concern would have been about his loose technique in English conditions. With two new balls, two bouncers per over and field restrictions in the middle overs too, under the new ODI rules, the game will return to its traditional mode of seeing off the new balls, keeping wickets in hand and stepping up the run rate in the latter half of the innings. Dhoni and Rohit were lucky that the Cardiff wicket produced little lateral movement, and the new Indian opener came good with a stylish and solid half century in a high-scoring game. There was steep bounce, but Rohit is quite adept with the pull shot, even if he perished by it in the end. The real challenge will be on pitches like the one at the Oval, where the West Indies got past Pakistan's 170 all out with only two wickets standing. It would be good to persist with Rohit, however, even if he struggles on seaming pitches initially. He has the gift of timing and will get value for his shots when the new ball comes on to the bat, as it will do on most ODI pitches. Besides, the Indian middle order is packed, and it would be a shame to have such a talented strokemaker as Rohit sit out, as he has done for most of his career so far. Just give him a long rope. After all, even Sachin Tendulkar only became a master blaster on the sub-continent and Sharjah. He struggled as an ODI opener in England.

Sachin's role in ODI team

I had argued in a column for DNA that the return of Sachin to the ODI team would be disruptive in several respects (Sachin's return is mistimed). Not surprisingly, it got a vitriolic reaction from the legions of Sachin fans. The Bangalore match, however, only confirms my basic premise. It is not that Sachin does not deserve a place in the side. But is the Sachin-Sehwag opening combo better than the Gambhir-Sehwag pairing? I don't think so. In fact, if Sachin had not got out when he did, we might have fallen short of what we eventually got. In the middle order, he would lend stability, but only if we need to consolidate. On Indian pitches, that is rarely a requirement. Besides, when we've already won the series, should Sachin's place not be used to groom a future star?

Bowl first in Kanpur

After the two huge wins batting first, MS Dhoni would I assume automatically choose to bat first if he were to win the toss in Kanpur tomorrow. I believe that would be a mistake. Although this is based only on what has happened in Kanpur in the past, there is no reason to think the conditions have changed there. Once winter begins to set in, the early morning start can give the bowling side a big advantage on some grounds, especially in the north. That is probably what prompted Pietersen to pick bowling when he won the toss in Rajkot, but it turned out there was hardly any dew or moisture in the air to aid the quick bowlers. In the next match in Indore, India almost got into a deep hole after losing three wickets in the morning as the ball was doing quite a bit. Luckily, things eased up quickly and the pitch also dusted up later on for the spinners to come good. In Kanpur, I don't think the conditions will ease as quickly as it did in Indore, and batting will likely be much easier in the afternoon. This is what Rahul Dravid discovered when he won the toss, chose to bat against a relatively weak Pakistan side, and got hammered. MSD should not repeat that mistake. As for Pietersen, it will be interesting to see how much homework he has done on the Kanpur ground. I would be impressed if he were to pick bowling again, despite the hammering he got for that in Rajkot.

Anybody missing the seniors?

I've been saying for more than a year now on this blog that Indian cricket in all its three forms stands to gain, not lose, by the retirement or sacking of seniors. Dhoni's captaincy in Mohali and Nagpur, Mishra's series-turning five-wicket haul on debut in Mohali, and the rapid maturing of Gambhir into a Test opener show what is possible if the door is opened to new talent. The awesome display against England now, especially the fielding and running between the wickets, clearly shows India can be the number one in all three forms of the game if non-performing seniors like Dravid are pushed out sooner rather than later. More on this in Fast track to No.1.

The retirement was overdue

It seems churlish not to say nice things when somebody retires. And I do admit I was a little touched when Kumble walked up to bowl his final over after 18 years of international cricket, during which time he bowled India to victory more than anybody else, albeit on helpful Indian pitches. But it has to be said that he did not deserve a place in the side for this series, or even the previous one in Sri Lanka. He averaged nearly fifty runs a wicket in the last four series, three of them played on sub-continental pitches.
Kumble also has been less of a team-man than it appears. He played in the first Test, and maybe even in the third, with a dodgy shoulder. It was ironic to hear him say that he decided to announce his retirement because he did not want to play in the fourth Test without being fully fit as that would be unfair to the team. I mean, with eleven stitches in his hand, and with only a four-day break between the third and fourth Tests, there was no way he could have played anyway. And given his fitness, bowling form, and lacklustre captaincy, there was every likelihood of his being dropped from the side. So to turn the retirement into a noble gesture was a bit grandiose. And so was that last inconsequential catch he took of Johnson, and the flinging of the ball in anger to chide the team for dropping all those catches. His angry reaction to Amit Mishra dropping a catch off his bowling was equally out of wack, considering it was Kumble who started the rash of dropped catches with the vital one of Hayden off Mishra's bowling on the third day. Anyway, I'm looking forward to watching Amit Mishra now, instead of the predictable Kumble. Ever since the Lankans figured out that Kumble could be played like an in-swinger, he really lost his wicket-taking ability. Nobody played for the leg-spin, and everybody kept their pads out of harm's way. Q.E.D Kumble.

Will Bowden do a Bucknor?

Billy Bowden has cooked India's goose in the past, and I wouldn't be surprised if he does it again, although umpires may be a little more wary after what happened to Steve Bucknor. In the last Indo-Oz series in India, Bowden should be credited as much as Kasprowicz for the Aussie victory in Bangalore. There's no chance of an Aussie win, of course, this time, but if Bowden keeps turning down plumb LBW shouts like that of Amit Mishra in the last hour of the second day, then the Aussies can escape with a draw in Delhi, and who knows how the newly laid pitch in Nagpur will behave. Let's keep a close eye on Bowden tomorrow. It would be a pity if there's biased umpiring, because otherwise it's a mouth-watering contest between Mishra and the Aussies on a pitch that is still playing easy and true.

Here's to a Kumble swan song

On the eve of the Test, it looks like Bhajji's toe is Mishra's only hope of getting to play in spite of bowling out half the Australian side in the first innings of the Mohali Test. Kumble wants to give Bhajji time until the morning of the Test to see if he can "declare himself fit". One can only hope his desperation to have Bhajji in the eleven is prompted by the need for balance in the side, as he says, rather than a reluctance to compete against Mishra on the same pitch. Having said all that, I do expect Kumble to get among the wickets at the Kotla even if he is only half fit, although he claims to be 100 per cent. This is the only pitch which is rough enough for him to turn the ball past the bat. That, combined with uneven bounce on a hard surface, means he will be difficult to handle if his shoulder allows him bowl at something like the speed at which he usually does. But so what? On every other pitch, Kumble will continue to struggle to get wickets because his in-dipper is old hat, and nobody gets trapped LBW to that any more. For his sake, I hope he bowls India to a series win in Delhi, and immediately announces his retirement.

No place for Kumble in this team

Debutant Amit Mishra got 7 of the 20 Australian wickets in Mohali, 5 of them in the first innings which really set up the victory for India. This against the top team in the world, and on a flat, easy batting wicket. But he didn't get the man-of-the-match award. Worse, he can't even be sure of being included in the team for the next Test in Delhi. Instead, a bowler who has averaged 46 runs per wicket in the last 11 Test matches, and bowled 50 wicketless overs in the first Test, is "raring to go" as he puts it himself in his signed column. This is the problem with Indian cricket. We're stuck with players who can walk into the team on the basis of past records, rather than current form and fitness. Is it more important to squeeze a few more games out of a 38-year-old bowler who has already got 18 years of international cricket under his belt, or to encourage a bowler who has shown the potential to serve Indian cricket for the next 10 years? Don't you think India might have won the Bangalore Test or even the series in Sri Lanka if Mishra had played instead of Kumble?
Even if Mishra gets to play in Delhi, I suspect he will be forced to play third fiddle to the KumBha mela, and that can only be to the advantage of the Australians, who clearly have no clue to his googly. And if Laxman is dropped to accommodate Kumble, that might be just the opening the Aussies need to come back in this series because it would weaken the Indian batting. Is it more important to figure out how Kumble can be accommodated, or to decide what is the best way to ensure India wins the series? Why are the interests of an individual taking precedence over those of the team? If you factor in the captaincy, where Dhoni is clearly way ahead of Kumble, the answer my friend is blowing in the wind.
More on this in an article I wrote a couple of days back: India's Diwali gift to Ponting

Match the Aussies in pace

It was clear in the first Test that India's pace bowlers Ishant Sharma and Zaheer Khan were on par with, if not better than, the Aussie speedsters. But they were outnumbered. Two pacers can't compete against four. The captain tends to use them in long spells, rather than in shorter, attacking bursts. And they run out of steam.
It was also clear in the first Test that Kumble was even less effective than the rookie Cameron White, who at least ensured Sachin Tendulkar takes yet another Test to reach his milestone of highest run-getter in Tests. And Bhajji was not any more dangerous than part-timer Michael Clarke.
So, why not go into the Mohali Test with four pace bowlers? Or pick Amit Mishra as the lone spinner for variety. Of course, I know that's not going to happen, given the track record of this Test team's leadership to keep newcomers benched. Nor will they even consider something radical like a Caribbean-style pace battery, with Sehwag playing the foil like Viv Richards. But, why not day-dream?
Everyone knows the Mohali pitch either favours pace early on and then settles down to a sleeping beauty, or it's flat from the outset. Either way, the pacers are more likely to do damage, and India can fight firepower with firepower, as in Perth.

A captain in denial

One bad game doesn't make him a bad player, says Kumble. True. But he averages 46 per wicket in the last 11 Test matches, including three series before this one. Even part-timer bowlers in Test cricket have better averages than that. Before the Test, he had said players should not be judged by one bad series in Lanka, a similarly misleading statement. He had also said it should be performance and fitness that should matter, not age. But, performance and fitness are exactly the problems. I said at the start of the Lanka series that Kumble is a spent force, and I was right. I made the same prediction before this series, and so far it is even worse than what I thought. I don't expect him to do much better in any of the matches, except the one in Delhi. India needs a new spinner and a new captain. Although Ricky Ponting was a bit too conservative in the first Test, at least he led by example. To be led by Kumble in his current form is an embarrassment for the Indian team. I wrote about this in - A contrast between two captains.

One down, four to go

I think Sourav Ganguly made the declaration a little too late, and lost the opportunity to become a hero. Just like he lost the opportunity to win a series Down Under by not making the Aussies follow on in the last Test at Sydney.

Imagine if Ganguly had called it quits at the end of the Pakistan series in India, where he got his first century at his home ground of Eden Gardens, Kolkata, and his first double century in the next Test at Bangalore (both in drawn games played on 'patta' wickets designed to help India hold on to its one-nil lead in the series).

Now, although he deserves all the nice things that everyone inevitably says in such situations, his grand farewell has been shorn of some dignity because of his terrible current form, the talk of him being dropped for the current series, and the quid pro quo deal reportedly struck between him and the board - that he can have his last hurrah, provided he in turn announces his retirement before the series (something everyone obviously denies).

The only thing that will make it a decent exit for him would be to hit a century or at least a fifty of some consequence against the Aussies. That would be fitting for a man who took over the Indian team at a time when it had been undermined by the taint of match-fixing, who put some spine into the team to handle aggressive opponents like Steve Waugh's band of sledgers, and who backed new talent like Sehwag, Yuvraj, and Bhajji who had all been shunted by the establishment.

Now the writing is even more clearly on the wall for other current non-performers in the team, starting with Rahul Dravid. He may have a little bit of a breather because Krish Srikkanth chose to induct S Badrinath from his home state of Tamil Nadu, ignoring the claims of Rohit Sharma and Suresh Raina who are more likely to do well against international bowling, simply because they have already shown that ability in other formats of the game. But eventually, the more deserving young talent will get in and the ones hanging on by dint of their past records will have to make way.

To a lesser extent, this also applies to the Australians. I'm extremely surprised at Shaun Marsh not finding a place in the eleven for instance, despite the obvious ease with which he played in Indian conditions during the IPL. For India, there is even more proven talent available to take the place of their illustrious seniors, and I think the claim that the next gen is not yet ready is hogwash. They can never be ready because the only way you can establish your Test credentials is by playing Test cricket. What were Michael Clarke's credentials when he made his debut in India during the last series which he helped to win for Australia? I have dwelt more on this in an article I wrote for DNA - There is no alternative... Really?

Srikkanth plays with a dead bat

The selection was even more conservative than I thought. All five seniors have been included. A promising strokeplayer like Rohit Sharma, who has already played some memorable knocks at the international level, has been discarded from the Test side after warming the bench in Sri Lanka. His replacement is a defensive Badrinath, who has done nothing spectacular in the few international exposures he's had. He may well deserve a place on the strength of his domestic record, but certainly not ahead of Rohit Sharma who has already earned his international spurs. The only positive is the inclusion of Amit Mishra, ahead of the claims of Piyush Chawla, who I think lacks bite, and Pragyan Ojha, who looks steady without being dangerous. But then, Mishra is unlikely to get a game barring injury to Kumble or Bhajji, and he too may find himself out of the team after hanging around with it for a while, like Sharma.