Tendulkar is out of the tests to be played in Zimbabwe as well and early optimism based on the return of Tendulkar hinging on hid selection into the 13 man squad has been dashed. The maestro, once regarded as God in India is now being treated with disdain by many fans which is infuriating. If Tendulkar would have played in the series, and scored a century, they would have chanted ‘Tendulkar can score runs only against the weak teams.’ Now they will chant ‘he is injured and past his best.’

Tendulkar, it seems, can never satisfy the unearthly expectations of his fans. I am glad Tendulkar is taking as much time as he deems fit before making a proper come back. As fans, there should be as much support as possible for the player in what is the most difficult phase in his career. Sadly the fans are doing the opposite.

Between work 10 AM to 8 PM the sport action I have been able to catch up has been the excellent Ashes contest and the football.

The Ashes have truly surprised me. I did not give the English a chance to win even a test even though I was sure they would give a good fight. I have never seen a close Ashes contest and feel luck I am able to catch the best Ashes contest since 1989.

I managed to catch three Premiership games over the weekend. Liverpool and Gerrard could not score but I liked the well fought out match nevertless. Arsenal vs Newcastle was scratchy but the backup strength of Arsenal looks good. Chelsea vs Wigan was a classic and a heartbreak when Crespo scored.

Too bad the net connection in my room has been non existant for the past few days resulting in a dormancy in posts in the blog.

I am lucky that I have been exposed to baseball fairly more than most Indians very early. The first introductions came while playing a video game on media which I loved. It helped me get familiarised with the rules. Then went on to the best sports shop in our city at around the age of 11-12, bought a baseball bat and ball.

In the cubs (the junior form of scouts which I later joined) group in our school, we had cool ‘brothers’ who were adaptive as well. We played baseball a few days, the only time I have had experience of playing the sport in the evenings, in the night camping in school. Great days camping during holidays in school as a kid.

Okay coming back to the topic, the point is I like baseball like I do many other sports. It has got its own appeal, own specific skills required. With cable, internet and more advanced EA sports games, I understood baseball more. I would watch a live baseball game on tv as I would watch most other live sports.

The thing is cricket is unique, has far more variations than any other sport, why just compare with baseball. While every sport looks to eliminate the inconsistencies of nature, like the same court in basketball, switching of court sides in tennis, change of tennis balls after specific number of games, playing indoors - basically bringing in uniformity, cricket does the opposite.

In cricket, you have the pitch which consistently deterioates(Far less now than on uncovered wickets). The ball becomes old. (The changing of balls after 80 overs was not always there), the batsman can face a full toss or a ball on bounce, and millions of other intricacies.

Test cricket - as it originally was spanning a time (if you notice, the earlier innings were counted on minutes, the concept of counting balls only came in after advent of one day cricket), not uniform (australia and england having different rules for eg the aussie 8 ball over) and stuff makes it a unique sport. It is completely contrasting when you compare with other sports.

Now in the past 25-30 years we have had some uniformity but if you watch two simultaneous live test matches, one in australia, one in the subcontinent, you will think you are watching a different game.

Test cricket is from another age. It is less remixed than any other sport. We have the remix in the one dayers and the Martin Crowe Max cricket and now the twenty20 cricket and the double wicket tournaments and the sixes and the super 8s and stuff.

But cricket is more uncertain, has more aspects than any other game.

I LOVE playing basketball and I have had fun playing baseball and football is such a simple beautiful game (it has its own charm) but never can any thing replace the joy of bowling leg spinners for me. Some other craft for some one else may carry the same fondness.

Every sport, every game has its own aspects. Even the recent twenty20 cricket requires specific skills. I refer to it as different as it is so contrasting to the original test cricket. We can enjoy them all.

Basketball is my other love for its own reasons. It carries a passion in me like rugby does in some people. But there is no denying the uniqueness of cricket compared to baseball, tennis, basketball or any other sport.

As the Ashes draw near, the first XIs of England and Australia are not clear yet. Specifically one place for both
teams.

First Australia

The batting is settled but for the 3rd seamer spot its a close call between Gillespie, Kasporwicz and underdog but fast gaining in ground because of poor form of Gillespie - Shaun Tait. I would hope Gillespie can gain back his form and play the first test match. Otherwise my feeling is the Australians will play it safe and opt for Kasporwicz and if Kasporwicz or Lee performs poorly in the first test, Tait may come in the second/third test. It would be too much of a risk to go for Tait in the opening test of the series.

The dilemna is amazing for the fact that not many were giving Lee a chance 2 months ago. I have always backed him to play because Australia needs a strike bowler to perform rather than a stock Kasporwicz kind of bowler to fill in the overs like in India.

For England

The remaining batting spot has a battle between Pieterson and Thorpe as indicated lucidly by the selectors some days back. Bell has been confirmed to play for now atleast. Thorpe is dependable, Thorpe is consistent. Yet he finds himself with a possibility of being omitted. This shows England players are in form more than any thing else. Its the first test and I put that argument again to play Thorpe despite a possible good showing by untested Pieterson in the remaining two one dayers because of it being the first test and risks in selection not the best thing to do at this point of time.

Coming to the West Indies

Its a question of who is available and not whom can we omit. West Indies cricket is doomed as they dont realise such tussles only mean the public - from whom the money comes (the real shareholders of a sport) lose interest. If they go, the sponsors go (Digicel is showing apprehensions already) and then there is no money to dispute any thing over!

Ambrose presents a very interesting view point. How can the players demand more money if they dont perform? Every one has been jumping the gun on blaming the WICB but it may be the player’s fault as well. For me, it doesn’t matter whose ault it is. It is like a company suffers if there is a trade dispute. In this case the company is the West Indies Cricket.

Mianad in saying Pakistan should cancel the English tour of Pakistan has got it spot on. Should cricket teams cancel playing in Lords or other cricket venues just because there was the terrorist attacks?

Its sad Pakistan Cricket Board has not insisted on England playing in one of Pakistan’s trditional venues.

If you get a hold of Pundits From Pakistan by Rahul Bhattacharya switch over to the chapters where he describes the enigma of Karachi - the city. Switch over then to the pages which show the atmosphere after the Karachi one dayer in 2004. Jagmohan Dalmiya declares that when India next tours Pakistan, the first test match will be held in Karachi. This after India’s refusal to play in the venue.

Such was the brilliance of the match in which nearly 700 runs were scored in a day, described so aptly in this archived piece by Bhattacharya that I remember I started cheering for Pakistan beyond a point. And when Md. Kaif took that brilliant catch, and every one in Cafe Coffee Day rejoiced, I quickly sank back on my seat.

Now we have England refusing to play a test in Karachi. Samiuddin, who is fast becoming the young voice of Pakistan cricket, voices his anguish. It is more to do with the fact that people, not players, not PCB officials have done any thing when a lot could have actually been done.

My stand is simple. If India and Pakistan can play a one dayer in Karachi some time after Musharaff had life threatening attacks, England has no case. If Pakistan guarantee player safety, England have no case. If specific players wouldn’t like to play in a specific match, in this case a Karachi test for fear of family and self, they can be allowed to opt out but I doubt many England players will try to make a stance in a crucial series in Pakistan like some did in Zimbabwe. In Zimbabwe when players opted out, though the scenario was different, and yet the English toured the country, the case brought up against Karachi is unnecessary.

After the controversial disqualification of McEwen in the earlier stage of letour, McEwen made a late spurge to beat Boonen.

BBC Sport reports:

Robbie McEwen claims victory on the line in front of Boonen. The Australian sat behind the Belgian and sprung off his wheel to take the sprint by half a wheel at most. Thor Hushovd was third with Stuarty O’Grady fourth.

The best answer on the face of adversity : Success

The substitutes bring in many possibilities as I pondered over the thought of how they can be used a few days ago. Most of the arguement against it has been the fact that cricket is traditionally a 11 a side game. But if we look at the history of the sport, there was 12 a side games, 13 a side games, games of all kinds - even 22 vs 11 a side games until uniformity was set in.

We always resist change and thus my conservative view on the substitutes when the law was brought into place.

Derek Pringle, one of the most intellegent cricket writers around, analyzed the situation perfectly in yesterday’s Telegraph UK. I knew it would be relevent soon and thus book marked it.

With football allowing the use of three subs, and basketball allowing entire teams to be replaced, it is surely just a question of time before cricket follows suit now the first breach has been made. With players expected to play and travel more, multiple substitutions could be a way of prolonging careers.

In the next few days, we will see the cricket world analyze how England and Australia used the substitutes in the Natwest Challenge which begines tomorrow. But we will also see more comment from every one on the question of how many can/will be used by cricket in due course. John Buchanan, who always likes to speak on changes which are made on cricket and always excited with new possibilities believes 15 players to be used a game is realistic thing in the future:

At the moment all touring teams travel with parties of 15, so the concept could be that we actually play all 15

Its to be accepted then that one day cricket which has existed since Kerry Packer, for nearly 35 years, is going to change more than ever before in the next two years. Surely the game has evolved in the past (Greatbatch - 1991, Jayasuriya and Kalluwitharana - 1996) but it is a totally different ball game now.

I am happy with my 5 days of test cricket and twenty20 and one day cricket will be taken as masala remixes of the game I call cricket. I have never given much weight to one day cricket and till they dont tinker with tests or encroach into the schedule of test matches(which is my real fear), I have no qualms.

Play 12 a side, play 15 a side, play 30 a side. Its nothing new ICC.

Another centimetre added to the world pole vault record and she says:

I don’t know how high I can jump, maybe 5.10 or even 5.15. I just don’t know my potential

It is the 14th time the 23 year old has broken the record and the slower she reaches her potential, the better it is for her. Why? because the Olympic champion receives a $50,000 bonus each time she breaks a world record. So whats the great hurry!

Sergei Bubka beat the record 35 times. And she has set herself to beat that number.

25-14= 21 times $50,000=$1,050,000!

If that comes along with the olympic medals, why not!

Whether we like it or not, substitutes are going to exist in one day cricket, for a while at least. I spoke on the topic some time back and the cricketing world, including me (a fan is a small part of the cricketing world I would imagine ) are getting on with it, so to say, and finally thinking of the strategies which can be used.

Angus Fraser was one of the first few people who suggested an all rounder to be the best option as a substitute when every one was pondering over whether teams will chose batsmen or bowlers. An all rounder is definitely the safest option as he can be brought on at any point of time in the game, if the team is in trouble.

There is much more to it, however, as one ponders the thought. Faaip, a fellow cricket fan, has pointed out the possibility of a batsman who is a very good fielder being used:

Scenario: Australia picks all five specialist bowlers in their team, in Hogg, Kasprowicz, McGrath, Gillespie and Lee, and wins the toss and bowls. Glenn McGrath sends down his 10 overs straight up, leaves the field and is replaced with Hodge, who excels in the field, cutting off runs and so on. When Austrlaia bats, they have 7 specialist batsmen, plus a couple of bowlers who can bat a bit.

Alternative scenario: Australia picks the same team (or Watson instead of Kasprowicz would be fine too), but loses the toss, and is sent in to bat. If Australia is going along fine and bats out their 50 overs without losing more than 5 or 6 wickets, Hussey/Hodge stays in the pavilion and takes no part in the game until a bowler who is weak in the field is bowled out. If Australia get 5 or 6 down and need a batsmen, the switch is made for Australia’s weakest seamer… probably Michael Kasprowicz. Hodge/Hussey can then bat and field, and Australia will need to send down 10 overs from Symonds and Clarke.

The case for the bowler as a sub is also feasible according to me. The vital aspect of a sub is to boost a team and it depends vastly on how the first XI of the team is when you want to consider your sub.

A team like South Africa which batted deep down in the 90s till say Symcox would not require a batting sub in most situations. They would rather have had some one like Brett Schultz as their sub. A team which has a weak bowling line up but a decent batting line up, like India for example, would go for a bowler as well (also they do not have a decent all rounder but even if they had this would be a legitimate option).

A very weak team like Bangladesh for example who have nothing to lose in a match versus Australia can take a bit of a gamble with their subs. They can go easily for a specialist batsman or a bowler which may not pay off if the toss does not go favourably. However if the toss does go favourably, they can make the most of the sub in an attempt to scale the balance.

So the possibilities with the sub have opened up as Fletcher seems to think as well. We have all criticized the subs. But one good point of them is it gives the teams a second chance. If test cricket has a second inning, one day cricket now has subs.

It is here to stay I guess as the more we think of the possibilities, the more interesting it gets. It changes totally from the game we know as one day cricket I think to a new one day cricket we are looking at now though.