.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Sight Screen

Monday, October 17, 2005

On my way out(-worma)

I got hold of this mini report card of the World XI players from down under. Do go have a look. Its not complete in all sense...a bit extra harsh on the Pak players when you compare their poor performance with that of some SA players, and no mention of Sehwag...still gives a good idea.

What it does confirm, though, is what many of us had read, thought and discussed....that there was nothing at stake...and with no accountability...its really difficult to get 100% out of each of them.


Oh...and btw...what's with the Aus selectors...how can they think of dropping McGill now? Sure its been done in the past, but then they had excellent pace replacements. So, despite dropping him, they could still abide by the 'pick the best bowlers' policy. But what now?

31 Comments:

  • Well I agree with the assesment on Inzi .... He perhaps has "THE WORLD'S MOST EXPESIVE SERIES RUN". I thnk Mohinder made 50,000 Rs for a solitary run against the Windies ... This one from Inzi tops it all ..... 1,500,000 RS for a princely run. Way to go Pak .... Take a bow INZI .....

    By Blogger indCric, at 18:30  

  • I think people are overreacting on Inzi. He didnt score much but so was the case with all other world XI players. Nobody scored. Nobody had right attitude in world XI. Also we have to note that inzi hasnt played any competitive cricket since last 6 months and he was last minute replacement for SRT so we cant entirely blame him for not preparing well enough.

    For all his showing here, we cannot take the fact away that he was one of the most consistent layer in world cricekt in both forms of game last year ( esp with captainship) and conitous matchwinner for Pak.

    By Blogger J, at 19:03  

  • I feel the world XI should have consisted of players, who are in good form. No doubt that players like, Inzi, Rahul, Lara are great cricketers but look at their recent form. I feel you need cricketers in-form to beat a well disciplined side like Australia. WXI players were trying perform miracles (which they are capable of) but they forgot the basics.

    By Blogger raul kash, at 21:30  

  • j,
    It's not Inzamam's performance in the game that's being criticized in the article, it's his work ethic during practice. Anybody can fail in a game, or even a series, but a professional is expected to be just that- professional. That means training hard during practice as if it were a real game. Loafing about in drills is an absolute disgrace. I would expect such a lackadaisical attitude from the prima dona Shoiab Akhtar, but am surprised Inzamam displayed such a poor attitude. He may very well have been upset at his non-selection, but then either stay home or show up to play. Don't come and sulk at some perceived lack of respect.

    By Blogger Sahir, at 21:31  

  • more than being out of form i do think ppl like inzy lara kallis etal were simply out of touch - they hadnt played competitive cricket for over 4-5 months. it is very difficult to come out straight into the pressure arena and start performing

    By Blogger GK, at 23:07  

  • sahir : what happened dude? How about Pujols. As i said, never count your chickens. Good luck wednesday

    By Blogger losing now, at 00:20  

  • The super series can be summed up in 2 words from a cricket fan's point of view - super flop! ICC seems to be shooting arrows in the dark trying to justify its presence and self-proclaimed goal to spread cricket around the globe - a) Zim, Bangla as full fledged test teams, b) the never ending experiments with the ICC championships, c) and now the super series.

    In all 3 cases, cricket fans have turned away from the games, which completely contradicts their stated goal to expand the game of cricket. At the rate they are going, they may end-up doing a good job of turning die-hard fans away!

    We have berated the BCCI for its unprofessional approach, but the ICC doesn't inspire any confidence either. Can Rahul Mehra expand his PIL to drag the ICC honchos to court too??? (hey, one can wish for the stars... )

    By Blogger saum, at 00:28  

  • After lossing the Ashes, the Aussies have managed to restore thier pride. Now we have to wait and see when will be the next time someone will take the task to the Aussies like England did in this Ashes series.
    I am not sure on who really gained out of this Super Series.
    Poor Inzi, we should understand the frustation he had to face, firstly not being selected and then asking him to be a replacement.

    By Blogger raul kash, at 00:35  

  • I think people are being a bit too harsh on the World XI. The fact is that after the first day, Wickets fell on both sides. But much as I like the concept to begin with, I now have my doubts about the same.

    The Aussies finally got their bowling selection right going with five bowlers (something I have been saying all along was the reason they lost the Ashes).

    But once again, they have show over reliance on Hayden, Gilchrist and Warne who won't be around for too long...

    By Blogger Saurabh Wahi, at 03:44  

  • Guys, I hate to say this but "i told you so". What else do you expect with any team with which Sunny Gavaskar is involved? Gavaskar is a master pretender. Talks a lot and talks smoothly but hasn't delivered much, ever.....except only those 10K runs he has scored....he is a pakka bania.

    By Blogger Raag, at 04:09  

  • saurabh: Yes ofcourse the Aussies also lost wickets cheaply in second innings....but I think this is how most test matches go..dont they? had Aus scored 50 more runs in their second innings, it would have been a perfect match for them.

    While the WXI never really got into the game..except that small phase of Murali Flintoff bowling in tandem.

    I think the criticism, esp in this report, is more about the approach and attitude of WXI stars...which showed that they didnt care enough for the concept(atleast not all of them)

    Btw, did Aus playing 5 bowlers help them at all? Didn't Warne come in to bowl the 3rd over of the second innings? Wouldnt Sehwag(the only good score for WXI) have found it difficult to score in the first innings had he been made to play Warne/McGill earlier in his innings?

    Yes Aus rely on Hayden, Gilchrist(and Ponting) too much. Which is why I think it was a mistake to throw out Martyn..if that means end of his test career. He was becoming their 4th repliable batsman(since last season). Clarke is not there yet. Katich, I think, may never get there(?)

    And now, with Buchanan also being retained...it seems all the more cruel that the only casualty of the Ashes loss was Martyn's test career! (Gilleslie, Kasper not being counted...since they never managed to retain their place towards the end)

    By Blogger worma, at 04:18  

  • except for those 10K runs... wow! when did we learn to speak about 10 thousand runs in a breath, man?
    do you know how hard it is to score even a 1000 test runs?

    By Blogger Santanu De, at 04:25  

  • The article too harsh on Inzamam. It was a huge ignominy not too have picked Inzamam first. And then you cannot have Graeme Smith as captain when Inzy is in the team. Even Smith failed miserably; why has been Inzy singled out?

    The whites have always attached a huge importance to physical drills; while the Asians have been averse to it. Its a psychological divide.

    By Blogger Santanu De, at 04:28  

  • Raag...the concept was fine...the execution was flawed.Why blame Sunny for that.Not sure what commercial interests he had in this??
    And Santanu De is right. Why 100 runs...try scoring a fluent 20 in club cricket and one will tend to appreciate the acheivements of all these people who we criticize, sitting in the nice atmosphere of our air conditioned offices / homes

    By Blogger Ravi1010, at 05:26  

  • Worma,

    I think the Aussies will err in not bringing back Martyn. As you mentioned, Clarke's batting seems to be going in reverse. He now averages 38 in Tests (30 in the last 15 tests). And Katich looks out of sorts at this level. Wonder why they don't try Hussey in Tests.

    As for how having 5 bowlers helped the Aussies?

    It's simple; McGill would not have been in the team without Watson. I don't think the Aussies would go with two spinners in a Four-bowler attack.

    It's all about having options, and Watson gave them exactly that.

    By Blogger Saurabh Wahi, at 06:21  

  • Did anyone see how gilly faced Flintoff .. in ODI's as well as Tests... Gilly just demolished flintoff.
    I have been repeatedly saying that Aus lost the ashes because they were defensive and not because they were attacking .... There were lot of short pitched wide deliveries which Flintoff gave on a platter to Australians ,but because of self doubt and reverse swing Aus did not take advantage of that .. in England whereas here gilly depatched them very clearly ..
    Flintoff is a great bowler, but one who will always be expensive and one whom a ste batsman can tear apart because of his waywardness ... (Commentrators will say that he was too gud,tight etc ... but u could see 1 loose ball per over from flintoff - outside off stump,short and wide along with 1 or 2 very good balls. Flintoff's waywardness is not highlighted by the comemntrators as well as bloggers because we tend not to find faults with the flavour of the season)

    By Blogger rajesh, at 06:35  

  • Martyn was the scapegoat.
    Martyn should be out of ODI team and not the test team.
    In ODi's martyn will not be required at any stage as tehre are guys capable of doing what martyn is doing at the ODI level like Hodge and Just look at their ODI team ..It is just overflowing and martyn is surely not needed
    AG,sk
    rp,as
    mc,mh
    sw,white
    3 bowlers

    In Tests Midlle order sucks for Australia ... where martyn has scored lot of runs in the last 1.5 years prior to Ashes (Actualy was teh chief person responsible for winning in slanka and india)

    By Blogger rajesh, at 06:40  

  • Flintoff is not a great bowler as he is made out to be. He pales in comparison with Harmison and Hoggard. Remember how SG tore into him in the Natwest final.Flintoff did not know what hit him then.He may have improved since then,but so have the batsmen who face him

    By Blogger Ravi1010, at 07:08  

  • rajesh, donno where you coming from regarding Flintoff, especially in Tests?

    He took 7 wickets on a pitch that was suited for Spinners!!!

    Agreed Gilchrist went after him, but when he is on song, he will slay anyone...

    By Blogger Saurabh Wahi, at 07:59  

  • Ravi010, you may have a point about Flintoff when it comes to ODI's but in Tests I don't agree with you....

    By Blogger Saurabh Wahi, at 08:01  

  • Saurabh..about the earlier point...Aus using Watson to get McGill in...I have read that opinion(in fact its there in the link in the main post)..and yes its true to some extent. But I am yet to see the 'value' that Watson brings in the team? Ofcourse he needs to be tried further....but then one day Aus might again face the reality when McG or Warne pulls out of a crucial game and Watson is exposed. Even now they can anyday miss the extra batsman they 'loose' in playing Watson rather than the bowler they 'gain' with him. Dunno if I made it sound too confusing :-)

    I would think Aus is probably making too much of an effort to sqeeze allrounder life out of Watson...instead of letting him grow into that role well enough in ODIs as a permanent member.

    Btw, as i said on the main post, even if Aus revert to a specialist batsman in place of Watson...I would expect them to play McGill...atleast in the more crucial games...where they can afford to 'groom' a newcomer bowler like Tait or Clarke etc

    By Blogger worma, at 08:22  

  • oops...it should read "..where they can't afford to groom..." in the last sentence

    By Blogger worma, at 08:24  

  • There goes one more talented cricketer...and Zimbabwe goes further down into the dumps

    http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/zimbabwe/content/story/222445.html

    By Blogger Ravi1010, at 08:43  

  • Worma,

    You recon they will go with McGrath, Warne, Lee & McGill it Perth!!! Not on you life. But, I repeat, they might do it if they have an allrounder in their side.

    Now is Watson that all-rounder? I don't know...

    My point is (and has been) that you need 4 bowlers and a 'bowling allrounder' to win Test matches, unless you have 4 great bowlers like the West indies of the 80's and the Aussies till about a year ago.

    Look at the fortunes of South Africa since Kallis has become a 'batting all rounder' and England since Flintoff has become a 'bowling all-rounder'.

    By Blogger Saurabh Wahi, at 08:49  

  • saurabh wahi,
    excellent post; especially point regarding need for four specialist bowlers AND a quality BOWLING allrounder. Unless, of course, a side has 4 great bowlers.

    By Blogger Sahir, at 08:58  

  • saurabh...Aus has been winning throughout their domination period with 4 bowlers...and not all four being 'great'. For example...a combination of McG, Lee/Kasper, Warne, Gillespie....has been winning them matches...right?

    Now how much is it different from McG, Warne, Lee, McGill? Ofcourse there are surfaces where Warne and McGill would be less than devastating(like there are surfaces where McG, Lee, Gillespie are not their best...as in India)...but still they persisted with their four best bowlers.

    What I say is, if their four best bowlers means two spinners..then so be it. When a less-helpful surface did not stop them from playing 3 seamers...why should it stop them from playing 2 spinners?..esp for teams like WI and SA (their next two opponents)

    Sure if you 'have' an allrounder definitely it gives an advantage. I am talking about a case when Aus dont have that allrounder yet. For example...if they decide in their 3rd test against WI that their batting is not firing on all cylinders...they need to play an extra specialist batsman instead of Watson....then who should the four bowlers be? I would still want McGill.

    By Blogger worma, at 09:09  

  • ravi010, Zimbabwe can't go down any further.

    Bad loss nevertheless...

    By Blogger Saurabh Wahi, at 09:12  

  • McG, Lee/Kasper, Warne, Gillespie Vs McG, Warne, Lee, McGill.

    The big difference is McGrath himself. He is not getting any younger or better, especially after the injuries this summer.

    As for going for Warne/McGill + 2 seamers bowlers only, I am all for it if it works and the two seamers are on top of their game, which Lee and McGrath are not...

    By Blogger Saurabh Wahi, at 09:24  

  • Sure McG is not getting any younger...but I'm talking what their strategy needs to be as of today...after all they need to win the matches now as well...and right now McG is fine.

    About Lee not being on top of his game....firstly..hes much better than what he ever was as a test bowler(yes that doesnt mean hes great or even very good...just good) and secondly...my point earlier also was that Aus, whenever they went with 4 bowlers and succeeded, weren't really going in with 4 great bowlers....more often than not one(or two) of them were just effective as 'fourth bowlers'..nothing more. Lee can do that...if McGill is at the top of his game...as he seems to be.

    Aus attack has always been 2 great bowlers...and 2 good/vgood depending on the form.....and it can be thus today as well. Thats my point in nutshell.

    Another aspect I touched earlier...Aus may need that extra batsman they are missing by playing Watson....now more than they ever did. Two reasons for that....first that Hayden is probably changed(for ever? let's wait and see)..so the opponents have more chances of getting the top order cheaply as compared to earlier when by the time they 'arrived' in the game Aus was 200/1 or 200/2 with Hayden massacre at the top. And secondly...Gilchrist would bat like he always did(as he showed in Sydney) but he would probably not bail out Aus as often as he used to...that frequency would reduce...means more collapses for Aus lineup

    By Blogger worma, at 10:00  

  • Well, another way to look at it is if your batsmen are not firing, make sure you have the bowling power to defend small totals.

    Anyway, we can beat this argument to death...

    By Blogger Saurabh Wahi, at 10:11  

  • ..alas...having Watson may not even help them in this defence of small total either!...not in the short term..

    .but agreed...it will go on...and our disagreement on the num of bowlers would also go on...we'll get more chances, I'm sure :-)

    By Blogger worma, at 10:16  

Post a Comment

<< Home