A few days ago I asked the question, “Has England let the opportunity slip in the battle for No. 2 and chasing Australia?”

A win in Mumbai is now needed for England to remain in the race. Very difficult but it is the only way England can stop the opportunity from slipping. No one said the battle was ever going to be easy!

England did win in Mumbai and showed strength in the face of adversity. The persistance was evidant in the way England batted in the post tea session on Day 4 - with planning to go for the shots only once England felt safe. The persistance was also evident on Day 5. The pitch had not deteriorated. It was playing much better than most 5 day pitches play. England kept the ball in a line which made Indians play. Ball after ball this line was maintained. There was hardly any straying. The discipline and superb bowling effort was a pleasure to watch.

Defensive mindset

India has been defensive in mind set in this series. In the first test they went for the shots very late. That was when the score line read 0-0. Here the score line was 1-0. So it was unlikely that they would go for runs and risk drawing the series. The plan would be to play out the first session and a half or two sessions and if wickets are in hand after that, see if going for the target during a small phase is a good option.

This is where I think India erred. Defensive play is never a good option regardless of the situation. Dravid almost got into a shell and Tendulkar survived a few close LBW shouts which would have been plumb had they been a bit closer to the wicket. Safeguarding your wicket is needed in such situations. But in the process playing the natural game as far as possible should not be forgotten. If you let the bowlers dominate, they will gain in confidence and get on you sooner rather than later.

(more…)

With Sehwag missing most of the time in the field in England’s second inning due to injury, he can bat only lower down the order.

Debate between Jawagal Srinath and Dean Jones occurs on who should open with Jaffer. Jones reckons it should be Munaf Patel.

No he wasn’t joking as he backed it up:

I would say Munaf Patel. If he gets quick 15 runs, India could be off to a flyer. Certainly he is wasted at number XI and should bat up higher.

Hmm.

Rahul Bhatia wrote a wonderful small piece on his blog where he fears India wont matter once Tendulkar is gone. The following is what I have to say on the same:

Some generations leave their darlings on people. Some players who are chrished a lot more than the game itself.

In these times we forget that the game goes on. It went on after Bradman in Australia and many cherished players in many eras.

For us, who have been priveleged to have our cricketing ‘wonder years’ in the era of Tendulkar, specially Indian fans as others may cherish a Lara or a Warne, and not necessarily to the same extent, cricket will indeed never be the same.

But we will look back and feel proud about being in the same era as Tendulkar. Our love for the game wont decrease. We are likely to appreciate many finer aspects of the game once there isn’t a Tendulkar. We often have done the same (appreciate the game a lot more) when we watch tests of other nations for example.

That said, I am confident it is not over for Tendulkar.

After the news of the FIR against Jagmohan Dalmiya comes the news that Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) will not host any Champions Trophy matches. A CAB representative wasn’t even present at the meeting. Was it because of the FIR and thus a means of protest? Also was the reason to not distribute the match because the CAB wanted the latter matches? Did CAB put strict conditions because of the FIR? Did CAB put strict conditions at all?

We might never know.

The English Team was at cross roads in Pakistan. I had written on the same nearly 3 months ago which can be read here. I titled it facing adveristy. In the period which has followed since then, England has enountered a lot of adversity. A menacing Shoaib Akhtar in Pakistan and a series of unfortunate events leading 4 of their first XI to withdraw from the tour of India being unquestionably the biggest external adversities. The internal weaknesses they have shown shouldn’t be forgotten.

With the collapse in Pakistan and throwing away a match England should have probably drawn in India in the second test of the series in Mohali, it has probably let slip the opportunity to challenge Australia for now. From being the unquestionable number 2 side, it has gone down a step in the close battle of the number 2.

In fact, it also finds itself at a position inferior to Pakistan. Pakistan appear to have lost Shoaib Akhtar for the immediate future. However there is some time to go for Pakistan’s tour of England. If Pakistan can manage even a draw in that series, it would mean that Pakistan has set itself above the current English side.

And what about South Africa? South Africa played superbly in Australia. It is now involved in the home series versus Australia. If South Africa can manage a victory or even a draw, it can be accepted as a strong team despite Glenn McGrath not playing in the current series and despite what Chris Fogarty has to say regarding only the Ashes mattering, test cricket is about more than just The Ashes. John Stern analyses the current situation and the mouth watering prospect which lies ahead of us much more judiciously.

India may be finding bowlers (Munaf Patel, Piyush Chawla) who might show some potency in times to come. However, with it playing just 2 test series in the run up to World Cup 2007 and having lost the series to Pakistan (despite it being like a 1 test series), India finds itself behind the pack in this chase. Did New Zealand not go behind a huge distance in one session in their home series versus Pakistan where Shoaib Akhtar wrecked them? It did India no favours that for them that the home series versus England was always going to be The Nothing Series. India in fact loosened their noose in the tussle they failed to win their last series in the West Indies. That they lost the home series versus Australia did them no favours. They have been chasing as a back runner since then and will have to keep persisting. They do not find themselves in the picture before the pyajama cricket - World Cup 2007 is done and dusted with.

Climbing up the ladder is difficult. It requires consistent brilliant performances. New Zealand is finding it out the hard way. It is doomed in mid table for the time being. Has England let it’s opportnity slip by two collapses, one in Pakistan and one in India? The importance is not in that England lost. England would be respectable losers after drawing their first test match in India. The importance was in the manner in which a match which should have been drawn was lost. A win in Mumbai is now needed for England to remain in the race. Very difficult but it is the only way England can stop the opportunity from slipping. No one said the battle was ever going to be easy!

Pakistan does have a small lead ahead of the rest of the pack - England, South Africa and India. South Africa has the best chance to contend with Pakistan. While all this is going on, Australia cannot work out who the right players are for their international side. A side which boasted of depth finds itself bringing back older warriors who were discarded after the Ashes war was lost. The batsmen are not showing consistency. There is no sign of a future Glenn McGrath or Shane Warne. Most importantly, Australia has set such high standards for themselves that they will themselves find it difficult to maintain these levels. Even if McGrath and Warne do manage to play for a few more years, it will be very difficult for Australia to not slip from it’s high intensity performances is now characterized with. Some would argue that the slipping has already started.

Very interesting times to be a test cricket fan.

More than whether Tendulkar scores runs (which hasn’t been great in tests lately), there is disappointment at large at the way he scores his runs.

I think this is where people are largely mistaken. He can’t score runs the way he did in 1998. I remember he was even more aggressive in his early days and used to get out so much more in the 1992-1996 period.

I do see Tendulkar has curtailed the risk in his batting and removed getting out shots a lot. Despite this he is getting out. So people say he should play in way x, way y. I think it should be left to him to figure out, or him to consult who ever he wants, if he wants.

Just to speak about batting styles, Dravid comes to mind. His one day batting was highly criticised. He has been such a good one day player because he has the batting base required to adopt.

Tendulkar too has the batting base required to adopt. Has his body deteriorated so much that he cannot perform at test level? I strongly don’t believe it but we can only ascertain after he finishes his career for sure.

I do not buy the logic that he has lost it mentally. Maybe he is doing things wrong mentally, maybe he isn’t. But how can a player who has one of the best cricketing brains lose it mentally when mental prowess is bound to increase over a cricketers career.

India had a go at the target much later than they should have. Winning matches when the smallest of windows exists is what makes a great team. With 40 overs to go and 250 to chase, why did India not go for at least quick singles so that they would be in a position to chase the target later on?

They made a dash with 8 an over required and when it was too late. A lot of praise in the media was heaped on them. I wasn’t impressed by the lack of steel which would have been required to go for the target earlier.

Unfortunately, I didn’t highlight this aspect earlier engrossed in other sports. Thank god Tim de Lisle does the needful in his latest piece.

The selection panel keeps making a joke of themselves. I had spoken regarding the inconsistencies which they are displaying. It keeps getting worse.

First, Mr. More decides to state that Sourav Ganguly will not find a place in the squad in the tenure of the current selection panel:

We took a decision that we have to look ahead. We decided that so much has been said on this issue, that we wanted to send a message across that, this is what we are looking at, and as far as this committee is concerned, this is what we have decided, that we will not look back at. We are definitely looking beyond Ganguly even if he were to perform well in domestic cricket.

How can they say the selection committee has shut the door completely on any player? We do not know what a player will do in the future, what situation the team is going to be in. If Ganguly decides to carry on playing, which he has, it is his right. To rule out any player, despite his age or just because he isn’t performing to satisfactory levels of a panel speaks of autocracy. The statements made by Kiran More have been irresponsbile. They show an irrational streak and lack of judgement - lack of qualities which show a chairman of a selection panel cannot do the job at hand with discretion and maturity which is required.

Other teams have looked ahead in the past and it is not uncommon to look beyond specific players. Australia have done it with Steve Waugh Mark Waugh, Michael Bevan, Darren Lehmann and Matthew Hayden. India may well have done it with V.V.S.Laxman and Anil Kumble recently. Even during the captaincy of Ganguly, Robin Singh was discarded on the same lines.

But a player discarded can make a come back. Michael Kasporqicz and Colin Miller have done it in the recent past for Australia. A team may be going through a run of losses. It may face a severe injury crisis like England is at the moment. Which player will be needed when, no one can predict. It is this reason why a selection panel member, not least the chairman, does not make such outlandish statements. I am hearing rumours from some quarters that Ganguly might go to court over this. I do not see what other option he has.

And now the comes news that the selectors have included Munaf Patel in the squad to play England for the second test in the place of V.R.V.Singh. The tour game between England and the Board President’s XI (BP XI) was in progress. The selection panel rushed into announcing the squad for the first test in the middle of the game. They chose V.R.V.Singh over Munaf Patel. In the tour game, Munaf Patel took 10 wickets and helped BP XI to an eight wicket victory. V.R.V.Singh managed one wicket in the match.

We find that for the second test, V.R.V.Singh is out of the squad and Munaf Patel is in. Makes you wonder why they couldn’t have waited for the tour game to finish before announcing squad for the 1st test. If they did have a strong enough ground to chose V.R.V.Singh over Patel, why not stick to their decision. Inconsistency, finnicky nature and short sightedness come to the fore here.

The selection panel keeps making a mockery of itself. The absence of accountability has been a bane from time immemorial. I have never seen the randomness and lack of planning in selecting sides like I have witnessed for the past few months though. I am not highlighting a specific player being there or not. The issue is larger - that of the lack of any logic used for selecting teams.

If the BCCI was indeed a professional organisation rather than a money churning body existing in the monopoly which is Indian cricket, there is no doubting that the current Indian selectors would have been sacked. Sadly, with the demand-supply mismatch, the five wise men, commonly known as the selectors, also referred to as a bunch of jokers by Mohinder Amarnath are running amock.

I do call for the sack of the selection panel here. I doubt if any one is listening though.

One word which charecterises this English team and separates it from teams of the past is fight. Whatever the match situation, whatever the crisis situation, the team will give it their best shot. A sharp contrast to the frequent collapses we saw from English teams of the past. You will say that they did collapse in Pakistan but that was a one off rather than a norm.

I doubt if any one expected England to fight back the way they did after being down 246/7 at the end of day 1. No one certainly expected them to end up with 393. Bravo Paul Collingwood. He showed a few English batsmen who let a situation of advantage (winning the toss and thus having India to bat last on a crumbling pitch) slip the worth of staying at the wicket and limiting stroke play for the larger team cause. The support from the tail was admirable. It highlighted that word again - fight.

Of course the highlight of the match so far has been the youngsters coming to the party. If it was Alastair Cook showing common sense yesterday and Sreesanth showing that he has loads of talent, swinging ability (not related to his break dance ability) and yes, common sense. Its funny how in test cricket loads of talent means nothing if you do not have common sense. You don’t need to be flashy, you don’t need to be a Sachin Tendulkar or a Brian Lara. You can be a Paul Collingwood, a Sreesanth or a Alastair Cook and still do a good job. The saying - test cricket is as much played in the head as in the field - is very true.

Coming back to today - I have a strong feeling we are seeing the future of both these teams in this match. If Suresh Raina and Piyush Chawla get a run later on in the series, it might well be looked back as the series where certain people showed their mettle for the first time. Like India in Pakistan(1989) is looked back upon for instance.

Two more stars shined today. While Steve Harmison and Andrew Flintoff could not do a good enough job to help Monty Panesar strangle the batsmen at the other end, Panesar showed enough talent in his short spell. He is patient. He has variation. And he can keep coming back at you. The English fans will be delighted. Ashley Giles might be a tad concerned. Blackwell wasn’t expected and could not put any pressure.

After Sehwag drove too early, fooled by the slower ball from Hoggard, into the hands of Pieterson, the Indians were standing on thin ice. Another wicket would mean staring at trouble. Chasing any thing above 250 batting last is going to be tough on this pitch. With Panesar bowling some testing stuff, it was a crucial period to last. Luckily for India, they had exactly the men for the task.

I have been a fan of Wasim Jaffer from before he was first selected for India. So it was a delight to see him make an unbeaten 73. He batted with assurance, patience and authority - all at the same time. Jaffer and Dravid left several balls; played only when they felt the delivery could be scored off or a defensive shot was necessary. Dean Jones rightly said during commentary that it is important to leave balls as much as to play them to make big scores in cricket. It is no surprise then than Wasim Jaffer has made big scores domestically and Dravid has done the same internationally.

The match is rivettingly poised with India at 136/1. India would want a lead of at least around 75-100 to feel safe. England will be looking to restrict India, realistically, to a lead of not more than 50.

On a slightly different note, Chappell has spoken up on Ganguly and Ganguly has reported it to the BCCI. Why should Chappell speak on this? He wasn’t required to. Chappell and Ganguly have always been controversial individuals. So once they get entangled in a controversy, it will continue. If one of them stops stirring, the other man will start off.

England’s tour to India was always going to be a big series. England, coming off a series loss in Pakistan, had it all to prove in India. A Test team has to show that it can compete in all conditions and circumstances – then, and only then can it be recognized as one of the better teams of an era. India, having just lost the series in Pakistan, needed to set things straight - mouth watering prospect for a cricket fan.

Then Ashley Giles, England’s number one spinner, gets injured. Marcus Trescothick withdraws for personal reasons, Michael Vaughan, England’s inspirational captain, gets injured and finally Simon Jones, vital in the scheme of things in the subcontinent, decides to join the injury brigade.

So England’s pace attack is left with Steve Harmison (who hasn’t been as effective off late) and Matthew Hoggard (who relies on movement and wasn’t going to be the most important player in the subcontinent anyway). James Anderson, Liam Plunkett, Shaun Udal, Monty Panesar and Ian Blackwell aren’t exactly expected to set the world on fire in India. How will England then get 20 Indian wickets? It is certainly an uphill task.

A win looks improbable then. How about a draw? The English openers are likely to be Andrew Strauss (in poor form) and Alastair Cook (making his Test debut and again, not expected to set the world on fire). Kevin Pietersen still has a lot to prove. Owais Shah or Paul Collingwood (whoever is selected) do not compare to the Indian batsmen. England would have to rely on Ian Bell and some heroics from Andrew Flintoff. The more you look at the English squad, the more you realize how weak it is.

England’s only hope would be that the young bowlers India has chosen do not fire. Two of R.P.Singh, Piyush Chawla, V.R.V.Singh and Sreesanth would be selected if India decided to go in with five bowlers. If those two do not do a satisfactory job, it will be tougher for India to take 20 wickets despite Kumble and Harbhajan being there.

The English supporters are dismayed and are expecting a 3-0 whitewash. The Indian supporters aren’t pleased either. All the pressure is on India and England has nothing at stake, as Nasser Hussain so aptly puts it:

I’m quite happy for England to have these injuries because it puts the pressure back on India. They should beat England come Wednesday, so England have absolutely nothing to lose. They just need to keep their control, and keep the pressure on the opposition for as long as they can.

Even if India win the series 3-0, little credit will come there way. After all, it was only a vastly understrength English side. If England manages even a draw, it will be a great achievement for them in the face of adversity. So, Team India have nothing to gain and find themselves in a thankless situation. The supporters from both camps are exasperated at the prospect of this nothing series.