Sportolysis – The World Sports Blog

This comes as a complete shock. I was lucky to meet the man and spend time with him talking about cricket a few years back. Mumbai had come to play Bengal and he was the Mumbai coach. He was kind enough to spend time with me talking about the game that splendid day at Eden Gardens. He was a genuinely nice man from whatever I came to know of him. He was also regarded as some one who had one of the best minds on the game in India.

Will be deeply missed.

RIP.

Disappointed on two fronts with the Indian team selection. Firstly, our two reserve fast bowlers, Ishant Sharma and Pankaj Singh, seriously lack in experience. If one of the 3 fast bowlers get injured, we might have to play one of Sharma and Singh in a test in Australia.

Munaf Patel would have been a better option IMO. He may be like Akhtar in that he finds it difficult to play all tests in a series but if we used him properly, he could have been a good reserve option at least. Inzamam talked in an interview how he used to save Akhtar for crucial matches and not play him every time. Perhaps we need to do some thing similar with Munaf. Pankaj Singh is a tall fast bowler who has taken 5 wickets v Mumbai recently but really, do we want to blood or try some one like him on a tough tour like Australia.

If I was Chopra, I would be pissed. This guy has been making runs after runs after runs and yet, he can’t get into the Indian test team. Sehwag hasn’t done any thing of note recently to deserve a place in the test side right now. He doesn’t fill me with confidence. Given that he is Sehwag and he might deliver some of his old magic, it is okay if the selectors feel that they should select him. However, they should have then gone for a reserve opener in the form of Chopra (or Uthappa).

They should have been brave enough and dropped one of Karthik and Dhoni from the team or taken a fast bowler less. If Sehwag doesn’t work, we would have the real possibility of Karthik opening again and that doesn’t fill me with any confidence. Just don’t open with Dravid – I am hearing every one talk of the real possibility of Dravid opening (Chetan Sharma mentioned it yesterday). Even trying out Yuvraj to open (though I am not adverse to the move of Yuvraj opening) for the first time is not an ideal scenario in a tour like Australia but that is what happens when you do not choose some one like Chopra in the side.

Over all, this team might work if people are firing. The weakness with the squad, however, is that the bench options – a strength of India over the past 12 months, is not solid enough. So if the first XI or the 12th option doesn’t gel, we would have to look at carrying a player like Ishant Sharma or Singh in the XI (Forget Singh, even Ishant Sharma, while he might be a decent option for the future but really, do we want him to play in a first XI in a test in Australia) and that is inviting trouble as Sri Lanka found out by playing Fernando in the test XI.

Today’s two dismissals by Aleem Dar reiterates why it is time we use technology in cricket. Sure some one can say that Aleem Dar is a poor umpire but some one being a poor umpire shouldn’t mean that games are affected like they are. Even the best umpires make mistakes as they are only human. The problem is larger.

Cricket is a sport where dismissals are a key element. In test cricket, there are a maximum of 40 dismissals. A batsman given out when not out or vice versa can have a huge impact on the way the game shapes up. So why should we not use technology where it can help us conclusively where decisions are concerned?

Kasporwicz was not out in Ashes 2005 if we go by the rules. However, there was no way the umpire could have judged the same with the angle he had and made the best decision he could have made given how he saw things. If we can get a decision like that right within a minute (which is practical given we can see replays on the screen instantly), why should the thid umpire not talk with the umpires officiating and immediately get the decision right?

Do such decisions waste too much time? Let teams use referrals – 3 or 5 in a game. Every time you use a referral incorrectly, you have one referral less to use in the game. Simple.

Would it undermine the authority of the umpires? Not really. We would cut the pressure from the umpires this way more than any thing. At the end of the day, we should strive to get decisions right wherever we can. It is ludicrous that the whole world can see what y decision should have been and yet we have the scenarios of x batting when he is clearly out or x sitting in the pavilion when he is clearly not out.

Is Tendulkar a match winner? S.Rajesh puts forward the fourth inning figures.

How many times were matches really winnable by the time the fourth inning was played? For instance, in this match in South Africa, we had to make 430 plus to win in the fourth inning. So this stat – a poor fourth inning average is not a criteria for proving match winning ability.

More often than not, matches are won and lost in the first and second innings where Tendulkar averages 72 and 51 respectively.

The mascot of the inaugral Twenty20 World Championship – Dr Beat.

I have watched loads of ODI cricket and have major problems with it. It is monotonous, formulaic and basically gets boring after you have watched it forever. Except important matches, you aren’t usually interested to watch it except in exceptional circumstances or when you have a general mood to watch the cricket and test cricket isn’t on.

Twenty20 on the other hand, you have had a hard day’s work, you go home, can get the satisfaction of watching a cricket match in it’s entirety. It is like a movie versus the book which is test cricket. Nothing beats a good book but when you don’t have the time, a movie can do.

Twenty20 is also not being deceptive. While one day cricket is neither here nor there, Twenty20 is unapologetic about being a short hit fest. You go to either your wife (test cricket) or the prostitute (Twenty20). Why go down the middle path. (No offence to Buddhists) One day cricket is neither here nor there.

A common misonception is that Twenty20 is just wham-bam-thankyou-mam type of cricket. In truth, you have to safeguard your wicket for a few overs. If you go to hit right from the outset, there is a danger of losing 2-4 quick wickets in the first few overs and being on the back foot sooner than you realise. Even in twenty overs, there are periods and you need to structure your innings. Every thing just happens faster but that doesn’t mean that it is just slog-slog-slog.

So I prefer watching Twenty20 to one day cricket basically.

…but some times, people take it too seriously. Just not worth it. Sigh.