And on the selection panel

And in continuation of the previous post....Jai also had also asked about Prem's opinion on the new selection panel...and here is Prem's reponse on that one, which again I found worth posting here in full


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The selection panel: There are actually two issues here. Firstly, the fact that most of the new entrants have not had much international experience is being framed in context of Sourav Ganguly – which underlines my central premise, that these days, pretty much everything has to be viewed through the prism of one player.



Sanjay Jagdale, for instance, first became a selector in either 2002-03 or 2003-04 (I am typing these responses on the fly without doing any search, so can’t pin the date down off hand. I do remember that in 2003, when Dalmiya won re-election, Jagdale (as also More, Roy etc) were among the selectors he immediately reconfirmed. And consensus at the time was that SJ was one of the better selectors we have had. Strangely, no one ever fussed about his cricketing credentials then – but now, his re-entry is greeted with a hue and cry? Is that because of his credentials, or because of some mystical connection with the SG affair?



Interestingly, throughout last year, no one has ever had any comment to make on VB Chandrasekhar, no questions were asked about his international credentials – which are actually less than Bhupinder Singh; VBC has played ODIs, BS has played both Tests and ODIs. Not much of either, sure, but like I said, more than VBC.



All of this leads to my primary point – we really have to stop obsessing about SG and tying everything that happens to him; it does SG, more than anyone else, a disservice.



One final thought: Every media report that emerged following the selection of the Test team made one point – that Pankaj Roy and the two Sharmas worked, from the start, with the one point agenda of bringing SG into the Test team. Let us leave out the question of whether SG needed to be included or not for the time being (not ducking the question, merely focusing on the one under discussion).



So, put bluntly, here you have three selectors who, from the outset, worked with a one point agenda. SG has to be picked. Drop VVS if you have to. Do whatever, but pick SG.



Is that a fair description of what happened? If yes, what is your honest assessment of any selector or selectors who come into a meeting with such closed minds (again, forget SG – we are now discussing the process of selection). In the end, what exactly did this troika accomplish? Put bluntly, the complete humiliation of Sourav. No one – NO ONE – would really have been in a position to argue, had the selectors come out and said, okay, we picked SG as a batsman because he hasn’t done anything, in his last Test series, to warrant his omission; he has a tremendous record as a cricketer and leader and in all fairness and in the interests of natural justice, this team and this country owes him a chance to show that earlier form slump was merely a blip, and that he still has what it takes.



That statement was what the committee OWED Sourav. Instead, what did they dish out? We considered Zaheer Khan and Sourav Ganguly, and decided to drop Zaheer and pick Sourav since the latter is an all rounder!!!???



Excuse me? Does such crap really do honor to a player of Sourav’s stature – or does it signal that SG got in through the back door? I doubt SG would personally have ever asked the selectors to get him in by WHATEVER means; had he been consulted before coming up with this ludicrous pick, he would IMHO have gone thanks, but no thanks – he is a proud guy, conscious of all he has achieved, and this crap did him no favors whatever.



That in sum is what the three guys who have been dropped have in reality achieved. In doing that, they have shown that they are amenable to outside voices. We spend all our time carping of selectors who buckle under regional, or other forms, of pressure – and now make martyrs out of a bunch that clearly did just that? Why precisely are we mourning their exit again?



There is of course a larger question – do I agree with the composition of this selection committee? Of course I don’t, dammit – starting 1996 when I first started writing on cricket, I have consistently argued that the entire structure of the committee is flawed; that (1) you cannot pick zonal selectors and still expect them to represent national interests and (2) that a committee whose components are depenedent on annual election results can never be counted on to do the right thing, as opposed to doing what ensures their own survival.



I have, too, suggested what to my mind is the ideal solution. We have a large roster of players who have played both forms of the game; within that, we have any number of players of proven integrity. My selection panel will be two-layered. The top layer, which actually picks the teams, will be comprised of three former India internationals who have (unlike VBC and even Gopal Sharma, for that matter, more than token expertise. These men would be picked with care, and given at the least a three year tenure (with the codicil that bad performance would entail dismissal); they would be paid to do the job they have been given, not have to fudge accounts to make money.



Below that is the second, equally important tier – of five former India internationals who will serve not as selectors, but as talent scouts. At least two of them will mandatorily be present at every domestic game; at least one national selector ditto. At the end of each game, the scouts and the national selector will need to draw up a comprehensive report on all the players, pros and cons; this needs to include recommendations for future action (for instance, if you spot an Ambati Rayudu who has in the past done well but seems to be fading, the obvious recommendation would be that the BCCI cricket committee talk to the lad, find out what his problems are, see if they can be resolved, and ensure that he gets what he needs, by way of coaching/a trip to some foreign academy/the sorting out of problems within his zone/whatever, so that his potential, underlined earlier, is not squandered.



These reports would go into a central database available to all selectors and to the captain, coach and other members of the team management, so that when they come for the selection meetings, all are well informed about the options available out there.



There is more, but that is an outline. And IMHO, that takes much of the current heartburn out of the process of team selection. In the interim, to moan that a Jagdale has no international experience (a point no one saw fit to raise for the three years that he has in fact served as selector, unquestioned) is IMHO merely picking firing over a handy shoulder.

GC's gesture and SG's status

One of our participants on the DG, Jai, asked Prem about his opinion on the whole controversy around GC gesturing to the crowd. Below is Prem's response (all this via email) which I thought was worth posting here in the full.

Also relevant is is the portion here written in context of Saurav's selection into the team (my emphasis added on that) which is, sort of, in continuation of the theme carried in Dileep's cricinfo article I just posted about:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Firstly, I *had* in fact spoken of the Chappell finger, and related issues, earlier. Here is the link.


http://prempanix.blogspot.com/2005/11/moving-finger-writes.html


To paraphrase: Yes, I find the action of flipping the finger reprehensible, and worthy of condemnation; this is unequivocal, there are no ifs and buts and maybes attached. And I do not believe that ‘provocation’ justifies reaction, if the reaction is not within the bounds of decency (A personal example: You won’t argue, I hope, that much of the bad behavior we saw in the comments field before it got shut down was deliberately intended to provoke, just as my being blocked from the comments field was. And yes, it was upsetting, it was hurtful – and on more than one occasion, I have been tempted to answer in the same language that was used to me. I doubt, though, that had I lost it and used vulgar abuse in my turn, such a course of action could have been ‘justified’.)



So, item one – what Chappell did, and I don’t for a moment buy that stuff about an injured finger, was beyond the pale.



That said, a few other things equally need saying (and please – let’s stop debating things in isolation, when we all know that everything that happens is linked – a butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon rain forest, et cetera).



So – while condemning the action, and also stating that provocation does not justify reaction (I remember once, I got into a street fight because I was going for a walk with my sister and someone said something I couldn’t take; my dad’s only response when he came to know about it was, ask yourself this – a pig lives in the gutter, that is his natural habitat; what exactly are you doing, when you descend into that gutter to speak to the pig on its terms?), other acts equally need condemnation.



The booing of an Indian captain, whether in Bangalore or in Kolkatta, merits condemnation. And here, as with Chappell, no ‘provocation’ – loss of form, wounded regional feelings, whatever – justifies it. We can disagree over who represents us, but once someone walks out onto the field wearing the captain’s armband, and the national flag on his cap, he happens to be our visible representative; to boo him and abuse him before foreigners reflects no glory on us; it merely creates a handy wedge for the alien to exploit – as, in fact, Graeme Smith sought to.



Some of the more abusive acts – like holding the funeral rites of someone who is alive (and that this has been done to Sonia Gandhi and others is, again, no ‘justification’; precedent does NOT make something right) is among the more reprehensible acts I have seen in recent times. Those rites have a religious significance, and a deep emotional connotation for those of us who have done that, in sorrow, for loved ones we have lost; to use it as a means of flipping a metaphorical finger at someone you disagree with shows a want of grace, of feeling. I notice many people – including a few politicians and officials – suggesting that flipping the finger is counter to our culture. Is then the holding of a shradh for a very much alive More or an equally alive Chappell an act that has been enshrined in our cultural idiom?



All of this actually underlines the situation we have arrived at – we are now two groups, confronting each other across a barbed wire fence of anger, distrust, hate. Neither group is prepared to see things from the other side’s viewpoint. Neither side is prepared to accept that there might in fact be a middle ground. Instead, what we do – ALL we do – is closely scrutinize every single action, every statement, every thing done and not done (the team failed? Bring back Ganguly – without even asking whether the one player would have in fact made a difference say on that Gardens track. The team succeeded? Enough, force Ganguly into retirement – without considering whether that one player and his skills, when at their peak, may not in fact add vital value to an already good side) and sift it for ammunition to use against the other side.



How does any of this help? Admit this – for all the screaming, for all the boycott calls and shradh ceremonies and sacking of selectors and flipped fingers, Sourav Ganguly is the master of his own destiny. If he makes runs (and yes, he will play against Sri Lanka, recent ‘informed sources suggesting he won’t notwithstanding’), if he plays in the fashion of his pomp, there is no power on earth that can force his ouster. And if he fails – I don’t mean in one game; IMHO a take on SG the Test player can NOT be taken before the end of the Pakistan tour – all the screaming, shouting, and saying GC flipped a finger therefore Ganguly should play, is NOT going to earn him a merited place in the side.



If we had to protest, we should have protested the day the ‘inquiry committee’ came up with its short-sighted band aid of a conclusion. On that day, on Rediff, I wrote a piece asking then president Mahindra what his statement meant? Was GC lying? If yes, I said, sack him now. Was he not? Then clarify what your conclusion is on the charges, let’s have some closure.



Was that not a logical thing to say? Were we not entitled to being told the truth? Did we not deserve closure on what is clearly a hugely emotional issue?



If the answer to that is yes, then why is it that no one – no ONE – demanded honesty from those who had set themselves up as arbiters on the issue? Where were the protestors then? How many shradhs did we perform for that ‘committee’, how many fingers did we flip in its direction? Surely an honest enquiry then would have ensured that the unedifying spectacles we have been treated to since would have been forestalled?



By allowing ourselves to be seduced, thus, into a pointless discussion that has gone on ad infinitum, ad nauseum, we do no one any favors: not us, not our team, and most certainly not Sourav Ganguly, who does not deserve to be, when the history of this period is written, painted as the man, the force, that divided the team and the country.

Return of the Prince(-worma)

Very interesting take by Dileep Premchandran on cricinfo around Saurav's return to the team today at Chennai. The stress was on the fact that, despite tumultous battles being fought over his status in all corners of the world, his return was anything but.

Dravid was first to have a chat, and then Ganguly spent five minutes behind the nets having a tête-à -tête with Chappell. There was no sign of rancour, just two professionals getting on with the job at hand.

And there are hints of how the world seems to have changed around him which, to me, is the most significant development in the prevailing context.

The coterie that once surrounded him, and contributed in no small measure to the media disenchantment that cost him the top job, stayed at a respectful distance, and Ganguly then set about showing the team management just what he could do if selected in the XI on Friday morning.

And knowing Saurav's determination, Dileep who himself has been a vocal detractor in not so recent past has this word of caution for all

And given how often he has proved his detractors wrong in the course of a career yielding over 15,000 international runs, you'd have to be inordinately brave - or foolish - to write him off. As Simon and Garfunkel put it so poignantly in The Boxer, "He carries the reminders of every glove that laid him down or cut him ... but the fighter still remains".

Prem - status update

Prem would not be on the blog till 4 p.m. his time...busy with meetings.

India-Pakistan T1-Day6(-worma)

Yes, Bhajji and Kumble can be bowling in tandem to Inzy and Sami on a day 6 pitch. ICC is considering the option of increasing the length of test matches in Pakistan to 6 days, going by the amount of time lost in the tests of the ongoing English series. And this because both the morning and evening conditions have made it almost impossible to recover any lost time.

Playing in floodlights is still a valid option, but Jonathan Agnew highlights the problems with that provision.

Since there is always a team on the defensive in a Test match, this meant that as soon as the artificial light took over from the natural light, it was in one team's interests to go off the field.

Ofcourse the new 6 day rule is still being considered for matches in Pakistan, no hints yet of how soon they can come into force.

Update: Saurabh Wahi, one of our regulars, says that ICC is once again shying away from addressing the actual problem(slow over rates) and in the process creating meaningless changes into the game.

As a proof, here is a *small* list of test matches played in Pakistan(and some of them not very long ago) where more than 450 overs were bowled in the match (and presumably these were also played in the same winter time frame)

	Vs	season	Ground		Balls
450 overs or more
	NZ	1955/56	Lahore		3189
	Eng	1961/62	Lahore		2711
	Eng	1961/62	Dhaka		3142
	Eng	1961/62	Karachi		2975
	Aus	1964/65	Karachi		2855
	NZ	1964/65	Lahore		2718
	Eng	1972/73	Lahore		2753
	Eng	1972/73	Hyderabad (Sind)		2864
425 to 450 overs
	Ind	1954/55	Lahore		2595
	Aus	1998/99	Peshawar		2605
	Aus	1998/99	Karachi		2662
	SL	1999/00	Rawalpindi		2599
	Eng	2000/01	Karachi		2582
	SA	2003/04	Faisalabad		2646

He also umm..asks...'does the ICC not have computers'?

PawarPlay 2(-worma)

Sunny Gavaskar is being replaced by Mr Dungarpur as the NCA chairman. And before even going into the merits/demerits of such a move, can we atleast know what great role does the NCA chairman play in the development of Indian cricket?

Is he responsible for spotting talents in the academy...nurturing them...promoting their case...honing their skills...what? Does he have a well defined link to the selectors (regional or national)..does he give inputs to the national coach on specific strengths of the new talents?

No seriously...I'm not sure what's his brief...anyone?

And another one(-worma)

Sambit Bal at cricinfo tries to analyze the possibility of a change in the Indian cricket scene as linked to that at the top. First the word of caution why its not advisable to be over enthusiastic about terms like professionalism, transparency at the arrival of essentially a career politician. At least, not yet.

Of the men who have replaced them, Sanjay Jagdale is an old hand, and despite his lack of Test experience, served his previous terms with distinction. He should have got the job on merit, but would he have got it hadn't he, in his capacity as a voting member of the Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association, switched loyalties and voted for Pawar? There isn't much to judge Bhupinder Singh (Sr) and Ranjib Biswal by. Like Jagdale, they too might prove that you don't need to have worn the Test cap to judge Test credentials. That will be Indian cricket's good fortune. But the process of selecting the selectors remains politicized and it is likely to remain so in the foreseeable future

Although he is ready to give the benefit of doubt to Pawar who was probably driven, at this stage, by compulsions of pre-poll promises.

But, on balance, I feel the reason for optimism, as detailed here, is much more crucial

Pawar has managed the system to garner the votes, but now he will have to challenge it if he wishes to take Indian cricket forward. In a sense, he is ideally suited for the task. Of all the BCCI presidents in the recent past, he is least dependent on cricket for the sustenance of his public life. What he achieves with Indian cricket can enhance his public profile, but the matter of his reelection wouldn't matter to him as much as it did to Mahendra, a politician of much lesser consequence, or to Dalmiya, a successful businessman who has never hidden the fact that he enjoys the spotlight cricket conferred on him. That he has a much bigger life outside cricket is his biggest strength.

So what's he in it for(-worma)

More on Pawar...who's still making all the news today with his BCCI elections victory yesterday. This report in Telegraph tries to look into the reason why a man who was, until recently, gunning for the top job in the country has decided to enter sports administration in a big way.

The political situation in his home state, where not a day passes without some partymen crossing over to the Congress, has contributed to his “disinclination” towards politics. Battling illness and a diminishing political base, Pawar is unwilling to toil without getting the country’s top job.

This is one of the explanations being cited for his tilt towards cricket. When his associate N.K.P. Salve was heading the BCCI some years ago, Pawar would often rib the chartered accountant, asking him why he was '“wasting time' on a leisure pursuit identified with the maharajahs of Patiala, Vizianagaram and Gwalior.

And there's a surprise cricketing connection in the family as well

With cricket, of course, Pawar has family ties: his father-in-law Sadashiv Ganpatrao Shinde was a leg-spinner who made his debut at Lord’s.

SL test series(-worma)

With the Chennai test likely to be severely affected by rain (as many of you have been pointing out in your comments), this may be good news for India.

Kanpur is the kind of flat track which would have played to the advantage of SL lineup that, I feel, would play more for a draw in the match and series which, by all indications so far, is India's for the taking.

Chawla calling(-worma)

The U19 World Cup is scheduled for February next year in Sri Lanka. Going by recent form (and personal preferences :-) Piyush Chawla and Gaurav Dhiman are to be tracked closely.

This could turn out to be the final step before the big league call-up for Piyush?

More from the elections(-worma)

And then there are these 'right' noises from 'the camp'(as read here and here)

Farooq Abdullah, one of Pawar's closest supporters and former chief minister of Kashmir, promised a new transparency in the way Indian cricket is run.
And he also said they would be keen to work with Dalmiya an an attempt to end factionalism, adding: "We dont want Dalmiya to feel defeated, he has been a great administrator and we want his expertise and hope he will cooperate with us."

and

"A man like Dalmiya, with such a vast experience of running cricket affairs, will always have utility for the BCCI," Shah said after Sharad Pawar upstaged incumbent Ranbir Singh Mahendra to become the new president.

One would be almost forgiven for thinking there was a smooth transition of power! And this part also worth highlighting in Niranjan Shah's interview

On Sourav Ganguly's fate, he said, "It will be decided by the selection committee and it is not that he will be opted out just because Pawar holds the reins."

The English Spin(-worma)

Paul Collingwood used his lifeline today to ensure atleast a slightly bigger window of opportunity for him in test matches. Although I would have waited a bit more before hitting away at the critics

"People are going to have a bit of a dig - I've played five Tests and not made a hundred or anything. I can understand there's a few critics.

On a day when the English top three threw away their wickets (and with it the carefully gained initiative with 101/0 at one stage) to the innocuous spin of Shoaib Malik on a day 1 pitch, he still maintains that the English team plays spin well enough

"OK we lost a few wickets but generally we've played spin very well over the last few years and I'm sure we'll continue to do that.

And all I can say is...good for us(team India) if they live in that denial!

Sharad Power(-worma)

Yeah the title, around Mr Pawar's win, is a bit on the expected lines....and so are the first few moves from his camp.

The newly-elected Indian board today made three changes in the senior selection committee headed by Kiran More.

Bhupinder Singh Sr, the former Indian medium-pacer, was appointed as the North zone representative in place of Yashpal Sharma while Ranjib Biswal was named from East Zone in place of Pranab Roy. Sanjay Jagdale made a return to the committee replacing Gopal Sharma as Central Zone member.

Any guess on the..ahem...claim to fame of these three gentlemen being replaced?

And btw...guess who else is back

Meanwhile Raj Singh Dungarpur, the former president of the Indian board who is part of the Pawar camp that won the elections, stressed the need for giving voting rights to the captain and coach in selection committee meetings. "Captain and coach must be given voting rights," he said. "It is the coach who has a big role in making policy decisions and it is the captain who implements them on the ground. So they must have a decisive say in selection meetings."

The advantage down under(-worma)

Its an era of neutral umpires, so where is the scope for complaint? Ultimately, it evens out, doesn't it? Right....so I suppose West Indies team should celebrate their victory for the *next* Aussie series? And Lara should celebrate the flurry of fourtune-strokes he would generously receive in his next tour? Only there would be no next tour for him, and even if there was, he has copped enough bad ones in Australia for repentance to be out of scope for a single series.

And the knowledge that all four of yesterday's mistakes went against a team which has been soundly outplayed and therefore needing any morsel of luck it can seize only breeds disillusionment among fans desperate to witness a genuine contest.

Some blame it to the Aussie's aggressive style of appealing (equated to a 'wardance' in a famous article I cannot find the link to :-)

An over after the loss of West Indies' batting mainstay Brian Lara and with its innings teetering at 4-96 (an overall lead of just 73), Sarwan was struck flush on the foot by a fast inswinging yorker delivered by Brett Lee.

The fact that the ball was sliding down the leg side and all three of Sarwan's stumps were visible did not dissuade Lee from charging down the pitch with his arms raised in triumph without even bothering to address his appeal to the umpire.

Did someone mention 'overappealing'...or 'match referee'?...nope?

Subcontinental battle - last chance for Eng(-worma)

Osman Samiuddin again takes an interesting look at the crossroads at which the Pakistan team stands prior to the Multan match.

England last lost a Test series in December 2003, in Sri Lanka. Pakistan won their last Test series one month later, in New Zealand. Something, you feel, has got to give

And Pakistan go into the match with Kamal replacing Younis at 3, and Raza getting Afridi's place at 6...with Inzy ruling out a promotion for himself, something which has been criticized at various points of time.Osman doesn't lay the blame on him though, given the situation the less than impressive showing of the team in recent times. But in the long run, to me, it seems like an inevitable move.

The approach is revealing of his captaincy; he is more willing to crisis-manage from lower down than perhaps imposing himself from one down. That delicate balance, between first ensuring safety before even thinking of attacking surfaced most apparently in Faisalabad and has marked his time as leader. It's difficult to assess given the personnel Pakistan has, but also difficult to argue against given how his batting has flourished.

England meanwhile go into the game with the pressure of their first potential series loss after 6 wins in a row. And with the additional burden of playing without Strauss (who is not in best of form, but still has been one of the stronger pillars in their successful run) and with a struggling Giles (who again is off-colour this time around, but cannot be underestimated for his significance in the winning formula of Eng).

Meanwhile a friendlier pitch and conditions seems to be in store for the English pacemen, although playing Anderson/Plunkett instead of Udal was a decision likely to be taken in any case. Although the helpful conditions are likely to pose an additional question for England, should Vaughan win the toss(for a change!)

But it will be interesting to see what Michael Vaughan does if he wins his first toss of the series.

A strengthened pace attack on a damp pitch points to fielding first, but any serious worries about the deterioration of the pitch should always make you bat when it is at its best.

And unlike Inzy, Vaughan is ready to lead from the front...typifying the front-on approach that has been the hallmark of this English team in recent times..although not always for its best.

Tresco is impressed with Akhtar's showing in this series.

There was a lot of talk about Shoaib's fitness but he's impressed me during the series. He's kept running in and has put in good spells at crucial times. He's mixed it up well, bowling yorkers and bouncers, as well as that outrageous slower ball that makes tail-enders freeze because they think it's a beamer. He's very effective in these conditions and stands out in their attack.

And understandably so since Akhtar, along with Inzy, has made the difference between a potentially good Pakistan side(like WIndies is showing in Australia) and a match-winning one. Interesting snippet about fighting boredom Killing the hours when you are not playing or practicing can be a problem.

My computer's been taking the brunt, especially the web cam, which allows me to speak to my wife and baby.

I've never been much of a book man, but I've got a Playstation and loads of DVDs. Between us, we've got about 300 different films and documentaries, so there's no need to watch any repeats.

Hopefully in India they would have more to do...and see..what with BCCI ensuring they travel to all corners of the country ;-)

The early signs(-worma)

As Prem said...'distraction' is what the SL test series looks like, if early signs are anything to go by. Not only were they completely demoralized and outclassed in the ODI series, it looks like they are still struggling to pick themselves up against the BP XI match.

Ofcourse this is cricket, with all its uncertainties, and the SL squad was not complete (with Murali and Atapattu rested) but still, SL would have been looking for an early confident start after the ODI drubbing. And the biggest plus, from an Indian point of view, was that they struggled against the spin of Parida and Mishra (the so-called second line of spin behind Bhajji and Kumble). The only escape route visible to me, at this point, for them is a flat, dead batting beauty of a pitch (which they're likely to get in Kanpur not in Chennai) early up.

And with the Indian team finishing the SA team on a high note, with most of the players back amongst runs (incidently, Sehwag is our second highest scorer of the series, despite all that talk of struggle) the job of SLankans gets all the more difficult. Here's a nice profile/interview of Dravid the captain by Rohit Brijnath on BBC. The end note is on perfect pitch

We don't know Dravid the captain yet and neither does he, it will be months before we can decide if his philosophies have been embraced, determine his progress. But one thing we do know. Good teams are painstaking constructions, they require patience, commitment, dedication, self-belief, time to flower and this captain, at least he's familiar with the journey, he's lived it, as a batsman at least he knows it can work.

The final round(-worma)

Meanwhile their male counterparts are struggling to have a graceful finish to the *difficult* tour, as Mr Berry says in his latest column.

But then this is the most oppressive tour England have known, more so than the tour of India immediately after 9/11. In nine days at Faisalabad England were allowed to pay one brief visit to a garment factory: that was the only place they could go to other than the ground. Even in Multan they were able to go down the road to a reasonable restaurant; in Faisalabad they were under hotel arrest.

But I'm sure the English team had an inkling of what to expect in the tour. And they would put their present backs-to-the-wall situation in the series to failure to grab the chances, as they presented themselves(especially at Multan, but also at Faisalabad on final morning), rather than factors outside the field of play. Although Berry has a different opinion

There can be no normal sport in an abnormal society, as the ANC said; and England could claim that the edge has been taken from their game by their extremely comfortable but deadening surroundings.

Meahwhile, changes are likely to happen in both the squads. Pakistan would be missing Afridi due to his 'dirty-dancing' moves, and also now Younis Khan due to personal reasons. And the clearcut option seems to be to get a couple of middle order batsmen in their place, especially if team management has no qualms in using Malik as a bowler

"One option is to bring in Asim Kamal at number three and Hasan Raza bats at number six to fill the two vacant places," said coach Bob Woolmer.

For England Strauss would be replaced, in all likelihood, by Vaughan at the top and Collingwood coming into the middle order for probably his last test chance in a while. Although there are hints that Bell can be made to open with Vaughan playing at his regular number 3 position. Probably not a good idea, since Bell is one of the few English batsmen managing to get some runs regularly in this series.

The other likely change is Anderson coming in place of the totally ineffective(and an inexplicably strange selection)Udal.

The fun continues(-worma)

That is..the entertainment brought through the tour diaries of Claire Taylor from the visiting English Women's team. So after the chicken tikka paste, its time to get vegetarian

We've been given a great welcome, with garlands, bhindis - a red spot placed on the forehead - and strewn with flowers, everywhere we have been on tour.

But, there cricket has been much better than their grasp of Indian cultural nuances. After getting a neat enough draw in the one-off test(where surprisingly the Indian spinner did not play an effective role) they won the first ODI.

Neetu David did play a big role in restricting the English women, but our own middle order collapse ensured their victory. And the English star was also their off-spinner Laura Harper.

This is, surprisingly, their first win in India in 10 years!

Michael in the middle(-worma)

After the umpires *permitted* one Mr Lara to make some runs this time around, Australia too had a good start. And then came the usual middle order failure, which has become quite frequent in recent times.

But atleast Hussey is continuing the good form he showed at the top. Its early yet, but it does look like atleast one worthy replacement has been found in the post Ashes shake-up. While Symonds was scratchy...and it looks tough for him to make the cut in test matches.

And now, with a reasonably good performance by their pace bowlers, WI finally has some chance in the match. Unfortunately (and not surprisingly?) this is the so called dead rubber match. But still...should do well for the WI confidence.

Keeping it simple(-worma)

Is what I felt about this whole Greg Chappell's incidence over gesturing to the crowd. Of course it is almost an innocuous gesture seemingly done in the heat of the moment and probably towards no-one in particular.

This is not the first time an Indian cricketer/captain/coach(?) has faced such pressures from the public (and it doesnt matter what region or reason, for me the key thing is that its about pressures in public office...like the visiting head of state facing a protest due to some domestic policies...or a company chairman facing pie in the face for his market practices...or a cricket captain being boo-ed due to wrong tactics/bad performance of the team). To me, it was as simple as Chappell issuing an apology on the first day itself, through the media manager, and that would have been the end of it.

Now I also understand that Chappell is probably not that kind of person to get into the needlessly complex protocols to be followed at such diplomatic *crisis*. But it should not have been a big deal for the whole management to come out with a simple solution first up (and heck...atleast do that *after* looking at the video Mr Baladitya!).

Anyway...its a needless 'controversy' at a moment when team management could have done well with some un-hindered thinking around the 'cricketing' aspects...to come back strongly for the last match, and more importantly to make sure that the nascent process of building form and momentum going into the season does not get derailed.

I wish...I hope..that that's not the case.

Update (by Arjun)

Hello all,

There is good news.

For now, the blog is NOT being deleted. Prem has received a lot of feedback asking him to keep the blog on, so it stays for now, with some changes.

It wont be possible anymore to post comments on posts made on the blog by Prem or the others. That option has been disabled.

However, since discussions and debates are what makes this blog what it is, the discussion group will still be available for comments and such.

Prem wont be able to log on and visit the DG as frequently as he could visit the comments section here, but will try to do it as often as he can, schedule permitting.

Ind-SA 4th Match thread

Here's the open thread for the match...I won't be around for a while atleast, though.

Open thread(-worma)

I've got a busy day for some more time....and not much happening in the cricketing world after the thrilling Eng-Pak draw.

Will peruse the stories later and post more...meanwhile open thread...also post in what you find interesting..

Meanwhile....here's a 'boring' story to catch your attention..and to think that we are cricket crazy in India...some of us would even watch a Zim-Kenya match ball-by-ball...

But when India's women arranged to host England in the Test and five one-dayers, they couldn't even give their series away to the same producers - and their board, the WCAI, actually paid Doordarshan to show the matches. Doordarshan, which is owned by Prasar Bharati, is currently showing the Test on its sport channel and will then screen the ODIs. "We have paid Doordararshan a certain sum to have this series telecast live," the secretary of the Women's Cricket Association of India, Shubhangi Kulkari, told the IANS news agency.

This says it all(-worma)

Managed to catch some time...and besides following the draw-headed Eng-Pak match, had a look at some other stories. The England tour schedule issue is now getting the Indian tint. After Anad Vasu's take on cricinfo comes this wonderful column from Rahul Bhattacharya. And this one is probably the most balanced of it all, leaving virtually nothing uncovered.

Everybody's just been so miserable about the whole thing! The Indian board has been needlessly petty and typically incompetent and whoever will be ruling it next week ought to make a few amendments quickly. In the response of the English media there has been the conceited assumption that they're being chucked into the toilet bowl and a woeful absence of adventure.

That just about sums it up, doesn't it.

And Rahul even manages to make a sales pitch to the 'tourist' interests being put-off by the English media reports!

Look at this picture and ask whether you'd really want to pass up a chance to watch or play cricket here. Himalayan Dharamsala, Bohemian Goa, Agartala and Guwahati in the forgotten Northeast, Kochi and Visakapatnam in the tropical South, more than a week in Bombay, half a week in Delhi, a whiff of Calcutta, provincial towns here there and everywhere... They may hate some of these places, love some, stay indifferent to some, but each will add to their understanding of the country in a broader and deeper way than a hop about the metros alone. Even if not configured specifically for the twenty-first century pro-sport outfit or the Barmy Army and package tour-operators, there is much for the curious traveler. You would have thought that some voice somewhere would indicate a wee bit of excitement at the prospect. Ultimately a sense of discovery, not luxury accommodation, makes a tour what it is.

And I do sincerely hope that voices like his are heard, above the din, by all interested parties, both in India and in England.

p.s. spoke too soon about the match...this is England...its never over :-)

Too close to call yet(-worma)

It does looks like Pakistan have managed to scramble to safety this morning, what with even Shoaib Akhtar playing a patient game!

A 250 run lead, more than half the session gone, and Inzy still standing...uhh...broad :-)

What do you think? I see draw...but then this is England, and I've seen too much drama this summer.

Open thread...sort of...going to have a busy day today so no posting for a while...chat away..

Pitch imperfect(-worma)

The ongoing Eng-Pak match has seen probably the most pitch-related action in recent times. So much so that everyone seems to be getting lessons on obscure rules. Jonathan Agnew touches it in his latest column.

There was great confusion in the middle as the players were also clearly ignorant of this regulation, and Butt was sent back to the striker's end.

As confusion reigned, the very next ball from Shaun Udal struck Butt on the pads, and Hair gave him out lbw for 50.

Should any other Pakistani batsman damage the pitch on the last day, the result will be five penalty runs to England.

So far in this game, Pakistan have had Shahid Afridi banned for deliberately damaging the pitch, Danish Kaneria warned twice for the same offence when he was bowling, and now the team is on notice that any further transgression by a batsman will cost them runs.

So, it seems that there is run penalty after all...as some of you were discussing yesterday. Wow...what a 'learning experience' this match has been :-)

Shahid Speak (-worma)

Sahibzada Mohammad Shahid Khan Afridi speaks about his punishment

"I really don't know what happened or what I was doing on the pitch. On camera it looked very bad.

"I have let myself and the team down. I regret my actions because I have always played the game in the proper spirit."

and also

"I know what I did was a big mistake and it will remain a stigma for me all my life."

and this from KP

"The ICC has dealt with it appropriately. He came and apologised this morning when we were going out to bat," Pietersen said.

Also, here's a very interesting profile of Afridi.

Ladies first?(-worma)

Nothing politically incorrect...I'm using that title in literal sense. The English Women's team reclaimed the Ashes for their male counterparts to follow. Now the same team seems to be struggling against our team, on the verge of a possible defeat. Men to follow? ;-)

So..what'll it be?(-worma)

Once again its a similar story of misfortune(Afridi antics notwithstanding) and missed chances for the Pakistan team. Salman Butt was the center of attention this time. Having been denied a run on the last ball of an Udal over by the umpire (for running on the pitch) he was out on the re-bowled delivery. And usually, atleast from what I've seen, the umpires caution such a player(atleast once) before giving an offical warning.

"I haven't got much to say. It was the umpire's decision. He was just trying to tell me to stay away from patches of the wicket in my running. He didn't have a word with me before the first warning."

Also Osman's take on the day's events, mainly focusing on Pakistan's safety first approach. And the tone of his comments is pretty much in tune with the balance on this exciting match, going into the last day.

The indecision within Pakistan can be defended with some conviction. It can be argued, after all, that a Test series win - with any scoreline - is vital for a side that hasn't won any series in nearly two years. But equally forcefully, it can also be argued that, with another Test match to play, Pakistan should've pressed harder today and sealed the series here.

Never say die? (-worma)

With Freddie its rather bringing the dead back to life, almost. Over past few months he has repeatedly 'set-up' the game for his team-mates to take over and close. And today he did it again. He was England's answer today to Pakistan's revitalized Shoaib of day 3.

Andrew Flintoff is a talisman like few others. Your average genie grants just three wishes, but Flintoff keeps on providing, rub after rub after rub. Today his two-wicket burst bore comparison with a similarly totemic over at Edgbaston last summer. Then as now, England needed inspiration as their prospects were beginning to drift, and on both occasions the response was an unanswerable ramraid from Flintoff, straight through the heart of the opposition batting.

For me, his most amazing quality is his capability to dig deep into the reserves, and come out with something for the special occasion.

"We saw in the first innings how he can take a game away quickly, so it was quite crucial to get him out cheaply," said Flintoff, who had been nearing the end of his spell until his breakthrough gave him a second wind. "It had crossed my mind [to come off], but I asked for one more over because the ball was reversing a bit and I'd hit quite a nice rhythm. I felt I had another couple of overs in me and just wanted to carry on bowling."

And indeed, the English team proves again that it cannot win or lose or even draw a match in a straightforward manner.

ECB calling (-worma)

So, after much drama-through-media on yet another issue, we do get to know the official ECB stand on the Indian tour itinerary debate. And as some had suspected and argued, its a 'bit' removed from the cause that the English media is fighting for.

As heard during a t.v. interview of Mr John Carr of the ECB during the England-Pakistan match today. John Carr is also the same ECB representative who came to India for the tour related discussions with the BCCI. Thanks Ravi Krishnan for the speech-to-text transfer :-), and I add some emphasis from my side.

He said ECB was mainly concerned with logistics of travel across different venues. So they have requested interchanging ODI venues/dates to make travel easier. About the warm-up games, he was saying traveling to Jamshedpur, Agartala and Dharmasala may not be very easy (in his words - accessible) for the English team. No mention of media/tourists but just the team. Also, when asked about playing warm-ups in Pakistan, he said ECB has no intention of doing that. He said if BCCI goes ahead with the schedule as is, ECB has no choice but to accept it.

And some of the suggestions in this regard, that I had in mind and often discussed on this forum with you all, are:

1) Give them convenient practice venues. And by convenient I mean close to the 'base' of their setup, close to the test venues, or atleast convenient in travel and other facilities(and this time actually find out about those, rather than just 'checking websites for rates of hotel in Agartala').

2) Allot the ODIs such that the ones in same region get covered together..for example Kochi, Vizag, Cuttack, Guwahati, Faridabad, Indore, Goa in that order. Or another such chain can be made based on easy flight/road connectivity (whatever the means of transport for that leg of tour)

3) No change in test venues.

4) Let ECB inspect the venues and address the valid complaints.

Sounds simple...what say?

The final act(-worma)

Is of inclusion of Saurav Ganguly in the squad for first test against Sri Lanka. As the elevation of Dravid to captaincy, this one's also on expected lines, to me atleast. Whether he deserved it can be argued, but not his inclusion, because of his performance in the tests in Zimbabwe and which means waiting for him to fail substantially before dropping him. And now, the ball is most definitely, and with complete finality, in his court (ofcourse if he makes it to the playing XI).

The difference between him being selected, and Zaheer being 'dropped' (with both performing fairly ok in domestic matches, enough to suggest atleast no further decline in form) is probably that Zaheer did not do well in his last international outing. But even then, that comes as a surprise to me. RP Singh, while definitely improving, could have been tried further in ODIs.

Balaji is also missing, even from the Tamil Nadu Ranji opener. Not sure if he's fit, since last week read him saying he was raring to go.

And in continuation of slightly strange statements coming from More, after what we discussed yesterday, comes this reason for Ganguly's selection

The selectors decided that he had done well as an allrounder recently and chose to pick him as a bowling allrounder.

But probably that's how he's being judged now? I don't know what to make of this. Sure he's taking a few wickets in domestic matches (4 wicket out of 5 in recent Ranji match against Maharashtra) but this still sounds strange. If only for the fact that in the last few test seasons we've seen him as a specialist batsman only.

But I still wonder...have we heard the last of 'it all'...anyway....flame on :-)

Update: just when I thought this doesn't get any stranger, the cricinfo story is updated (and the earlier quote above is missing) with the full explanation. And Zaheer missed because of SG being chosen as an allrounder!

Kiran More, the chairman of selectors, added that Zaheer Khan missed out because Ganguly would provide a bowling option.

"We thought we'll use him as a batting allrounder in the team," said More while addressing the press. "We discussed it for a long time and after deliberations we decided to have him in the team as an allrounder. It will give more comfort to the team balance."

While justifying RP's selection thus, he again, sort of, tried to make the point that Zaheer wasn't fighting for a place with RP, but with, SG!

"RP Singh has done well in the one-dayers and we have found a few young bowlers who are promising. If they perform well in domestic cricket, they will definitely get opportunities. We missed out on Zaheer Khan also. He's performed outstandingly in domestic cricket and it was a tough call to leave him out. Also, we consider Ganguly as an allrounder, that's why Zaheer Khan has missed out."

Results, anyone?(-worma)

Nope, this match doesn't look going anywhere. Botham, during lunchbreak, on being asked about the chances of Pakistan forcing quick runs and declaring said, "why would they?"

So, if any chances of a result remain in this match, I would think they're for England to make something of it. But I won't lose my sleep(or in this case, day's work) over it :-)

Anyway, open thread...as usual...anything cricket..

Meanwhile, I'm just wondering.....could it be that, atleast at the back of their minds, a draw here is probably what both teams would be happy with?...given the events of the match...hmm..

More technology, American style?

Peter Roebuck states the need for introducing more technology after Lara received three roughies' in four innings. Allowing a captain to challenge two umpiring decisions, as in American football, is (in his opinion) a good compromise between the purists and the pro-technology sides. There is a lot of merit in his argument but for that, technology such as HawkEye should be proven to be reliable. At present, it does seem like a lot of ex-cricketers consider HawkEye as a product under development (the actual engineers do say that there have been no errors ever on any of the decisions that HawkEye has delivered). And unlike what happened during the Super Series, replaying the same images and drawing no conclusion is not the right way to include more technology.

Is he 'back'? (-worma)

Shoaib Akhtar. Is he slowly climbing to the peak? Read Osman's review of the day....rather a paean dedicated to the disseminator of boredom, the destroyer of bat; and ego....the...wait, let me not start too. But I regret missing it, for Shoaib beating a top batsman for pace is one of the beauties of modern day cricket, isn't it?

The peak was reached in his third over. In order, an appeal came first for caught behind off a short ball, a mistimed pull next that landed between bowler and mid-on, a low no-ball full toss and a good length ball which damaged Flintoff's bat. The bat change heralded a rare mid-over drinks break, allowing a mass of collective breath to be inhaled. Two minutes, a no-ball, one into the ribs, a change of pace and a slower ball later, Shoaib tore through; Flintoff, beaten for pace, length and nip, his middle stump tumbling out among the din

So, I repeat. Is he back? India...be warned!

Ofcourse I know this is Shoaib...and he's gone nearly three innings without breaking down. But he's Shoaib. (And I'm sleepy..I think :-)

The Afridi Aftermath (-worma)

So we haven't heard the last of it yet. PCB, it seems, is going to enquire into the incident, which has been a pretty embarrassing one for them. Knowing a little bit about the ways of PCB, not sure what to expect from it(if anything at all). But to me, by the looks of it, this act surely warrants an extension of that three match sentence to probably a month or so.

Btw, I wasn't of this view when I first heard it, but then some of you guys described it in detail, and then later a friend detailed out the whole thing. That sounded hilarious, if only for the lack of basic sense on Afridi's part, and yes definitely punishable more strictly than match-fee deduction or some such.

For those of you who haven't seen the video, here's a link but not sure if it would work now. And this darn tool doesn't allow direct posting of videos. Anyone knows a working link?

Btw, Prem mentioned that he won't be on the blog, has a busy day today.

Pak fluffing chances fast(-worma)

A clearly missed stumping of Bell (who had almost started the walk back to pavilion), a sitter dropped off KP...Kaneria warned twice for walking on danger area(I briefly heard something to that effect, someone can confirm?)...and a growing steady partnership between the two overnight batsmen. Pakistan seem to be squandering their chances fast.

Eng, if they can play steady for the whole day, can atleast look forward to salvage a draw out of this. And that would be a big psychological edge for them, going into the next game. But I speak too soon. A lot of cricket left in the match.

Also heard David Lloyd opine during the lunch breake that England might give away the practice of hurtling balls at the batsman, they won't want to be remembered for that. Not sure, but good if that happens. Meanwhile I would still want our team management to err on the side of caution and have a chat with Fletcher and co. when they come touring.

Anyway....this sort of open thread for now....chat away...Eng match...Indian match preview...or anything else cricket-ish.

More whining from the Empire

The Guardian now comments on the increasingly ridiculous arrangements for their tour to India. This is a sample (sorry, I couldn't locate original article in the Guardian).

"Agartala, the capital of the impoverished north-eastern state of Tripura might delight the occasional intrepid backpacker with hills on three sides, several lakes and temples and the Bangladesh plains rolling before it, but its main ground has never staged a first class match and the entire state lacks a hotel of even modest quality.
India's apparent disrespect, possibly designed to sap English spirits by keeping them permanently upcountry, should be enough for the England and Wales Cricket Board to abandon its failed policy of polite engagement and if necessary ask the ICC to intervene"

So, calling an Indian state impoverished is obviously OK. Perhaps, the Queen's men didnt get a chance to spread their influence in those parts, hence the backwardness? What about playing our world cup matches (1999) in non-descript places such as Taunton and Bristol? And now, they want the ICC to get involved. How about we get the curators from Lords to prepare the pitches at Chennai too? This is a matter well discussed by Worma and Prem, so nothing more to add. Except that they have gone to levels that I thought even they were incapable of.

Update: Here is the original Guardian article, thanks to Oracle Guy.

This ain't cricket(-worma)

Afridi is apparently(news heard on BBC, not yet confirmed) banned for a test and two ODIs. Those of you watching pretty much know why. Those who didn't....well....he, sort of, tried to dig a hole in the middle of the pitch to help *his* bowling...and, sort of, in the middle of the match...with all cameras focused on him. Not smart of him, right? Its a pity, because it could have been his match *without* this..uhh..act.

And on the other hand, Jonathan Agnew is not happy with the English bowler's habit of throwing down the batsman instead of stumps.

It is also time that the authorities acted to stamp out the practice of fielders intimidating the batsmen by throwing the ball at them.

It is not in the spirit of the game - it is open hostility, and it is only a matter of time before a batsman is seriously injured.

Ten years ago, a bowler in a similar situation to Harmison would make to throw the ball at the stumps, but would not actually let it go.

Now it seems to be open season.

I think Indian team management should take note. And be prepared when English come touring. Maybe a pre-agreement on the code of conduct on this aspect would be a good idea?

update: Ok Afridi's ban confirmed...for 'scratching' the surface (if you scratch your skin like that you'd be in jail for attempted suicide ;-)

Is ignorance bliss?

There have been comments previously, such as "That writer hasnt played a single game of cricket at any level, then how can he judge me, somebody who has played more than a 100 tests?"
Sambit Bal's comment on the Inzamam run out in Test 2 sums up the knowledge of such ex-cricketers.
For those unaware, Inzamam was judged to be run out while taking evasive action from Harmisson's throw, when the rule states as such

"...a batsman is not out Run out if (a) he has been within his ground and has subsequently left it to avoid injury, when the wicket is put down"

The focus of the column was rightly on the ignorant umpires on the field. Simon Taufel is considered the best of the lot. So, I am not sure if this is funny or sad But I am curious to know whether the ICC will come out with a statement or the match referee will express his regret to Inzamam. Ater all, players are hauled up to the referee's office for excessive appealing (Veeru, Ganguly), not appealing, pointing fingers (Harbajan), smiling (Irfan Pathan in Australia Vs Damien Martyn) etc. Dont they deserve to get an apology when something like this happens?

And I wonder how many ex or current cricketers other than Ian Botham were in the dark about the finer points of such rules.

PS: Bal writes about the famous Tendulkar run out at Eden Gardens in 1999 when he was impeded by Akhtar, in an accidental collison. I am not sure if this is accurate though. The law implies that the batsman may not be run out if he is outside the crease to avoid injury. But the Tendulkar run out was in different circumstances. It is true that the run out occured only because of the collision with Akhtar but technically, Pakistan was within their rights to appeal for it and I dont think the umpires messed up over there. That Akram could have withdrawn the appeal as sportsmanship is an altogether different issue. Thoughts?

Ind-Eng India has the upper hand(-worma)

India gained the upper hand on the first day of the test against the English squad coming fresh from their Ashes success. Yes, its women's cricket, but still a significant news...since Eng women's team is on a high.

And sorry for taking you for a ride with the headline :-)

The Ashes - final chapter (-worma)

Yes, the dropping of Michal Clarke seems to be the endgame of the whole Ashes aftermath drama. With Hayden having already started a revival of sorts from the Oval test, and Gilchrist suffering only his first major failure, Clarke was the only pending case. Hohns:

"He is a very talented player with a very bright future and we know that he has a very long future ahead of him at Test level," he said.

And Ponting:

I don't think it will be destructive but it would be a hard thing to swallow," he said.

"I have probably been dropped two or three times and it doesn't get any easier along the way, but the first time is obviously the hardest."

Now if only Clarke realised his problems and got down to sorting them out. I hope his retort to Waugh's accusations was more out of frustration than anything else.

Strike 2?(-worma)

England, at the mid point of day 2 of the test, seem to be staring down the barrel. With Pakistan crossing the 450 mark, to me it looks highly unlikely that Eng can win or even draw this one. They may be able to match, or even surpass Pakistan in this innings(although they would really have to play out of their skins for it), but chasing anything above 150 on the final day of this track, with Afridi giving company to Kaneria, would be next to impossible for them.

Their only chance...pile up a huge mountain of runs today and tomorrow. Anyway...sort of open thread for discussion...mainly around the match...but also anything else cricket.

Winning the Lottery(-worma)

..called Shahid Afridi. That's what it is with him, isn't it. He came when Pak were looking to regroup, and what does he do? Tonk three boundaries of the first four balls he faced :-)

Afridi is well known for his big hitting, of course, but the ferocity of his onslaught surprised everyone because Pakistan's priority was to steadily and patiently bat England out of the game.

This from Jonathan Agnew's report for the day. No doubt his game in fun to watch, but it makes better entertainment when built on a platform. As it was today, after that wonderful partnership between Mohd Yousuf and Inzy.

His calm and resolute partnership of 128 with Yousuf provided the perfect platform for Afridi to launch his attack. Dancing to the crease without a care in the world, he treated all of the English bowlers with disdain and contempt; he scored 12 runs in his first four balls, and raced uninhibitedly to fifty from 46 balls

This from Will's bulletin on cricinfo.
But what of Yousuf himself? Played with such indiscretion last time around that Inzy had to officially come to his defence, and then he comes up with this gem today! And that too prematurely ended by a dubious decision, caught off Bell

Yousuf airily drove back to Bell, who dived low and took a fine catch - or, at least, it appeared to be. The replay proved inconclusive.

Well, to me he looked not-out, the catch not clean. But the bigger point is, it wasn't even referred to the t.v umpire! Talk of using more technology. His innings is the centerpiece of Osman's review of the day at cricinfo, and it does seem that his approach at Multan hasn't gone un-noticed, behind the scenes as well

Somewhere between Multan and Faisalabad, a paisa seems to have dropped. Mohammad Yousuf's first 57 minutes at the crease today - from three minutes past eleven till lunch - fetched him less runs than his 19-minute stay in the second innings at Multan. Pressure here had two sources; not only were Pakistan teetering as they were in Multan, Yousuf's own performance was under enhanced scrutiny. Yet as a template to start an innings under such circumstances, it was as exemplary as it has been rare, and one that should be referred to through his career

Fletcher can go ahead and praise his bowlers for working hard on a flat track, but if they don't control this pair in the first hour tomorrow, or if they let Pak pass 400 in the innings, they may as well say goodbye to that series win.

"But credit to the bowlers, they tried very hard on a flat wicket." "At one stage we got three wickets for a reasonably low score. We could have got through them but we didn't and we still have a lot of work to do."

And here's Andrew Miller's view from the English side...he give due importance to that slip from Vaughan when he spilled an easy chance off Afridi at 34.

Vaughan was in more or less the same position that Kevin Pietersen had been occupying when he spilled his infamous chance off Michael Clarke at Lord's last summer. And then, as now, the upshot was a bout of intense pyrotechnics. "It's unfortunate, but now and again a catch will go down," said Duncan Fletcher afterwards, as he attempted to put a brave face on a difficult day. But there was no escaping the significance of Vaughan's slip. At 245 for 5, England would have been a new-ball burst away from exposing the Pakistani tail. At 300 for 4, on the other hand, with Afridi going like the clappers, the more likely scenario was that the new ball itself would burst.

And also touches on the ineffectiveness of the English spinners.

Today Giles was carted for four sixes in his first eight overs - and that was before Afridi had even put his whites on. Given the murmurings about the hip condition that may force him to miss the one-day series, Giles's inability to hold up an end is a concern for England. "The ball's hardly spun, even Shane [sic] Udal has struggled to spin it," added Fletcher afterwards. It is debatable whether Kaneria will find the same problems.

Although IMO this was always on the cards when their pacers were not at their best.

Update: Couldn't resist this one...from Osman's take on Afridi's game today..

With tongue wedged firmly in cheek, another asked whether he can ever play defensively to which he replied, earnestly, no. "Even if someone was to offer you a million dollars?" A little pause, a smile, then, "maybe." But even then, implied the smile, you wouldn't bet on it.

In summation(-worma)

In continuation of the recent post by Ruchir on the issue, here's an excellent summation of various aspects involved in the English tour itinerary drama by Anand Vasu at cricinfo. Not sure if Vasu was following our discussions here :-)....but this is something I'd been hoping for a long time. That our Indian media should appropriately respond to the rumblings in the English media (yes, not the ECB).

At the time of writing BCCI sources told The Wisden Cricketer, "There has been no official complaint from the ECB about the venues allotted to them. The press has been moaning, but that has nothing to do with us. If the ECB complains, then we will discuss things with them.

In summary, Vasu agrees that having so many venues in a country like India is unwieldy, and that there is scope for improvement. But also that there is a rotation system in place, and that means there's hardly any preferential treatment meted out to some favourable countries, as certain section of English media would like us to believe.
But do read the whole thing, very interesting indeed.

Pakistan's dilemma(-worma)

The biggest one is how to handle the early advantage, something of a new territory for them in recent times. Osman touches the same point in his preview.

Although not as bizarre, the Pakistan team is ensconced within unfamiliarity: they find themselves going into the second Test with a lead to protect, something they haven't done in a series of note in two years.

But for me, another big challenge would be the team composition, now that they have decided to avoid the risk of playing Shabbir. Naved is the next paceman in line, but Faislabad pitch looks friendlier for spin, which means another specialist spinner can get a look in. The other likelihood is of playing Afridi instead of Raza.

Light brown and dry, it prompted Woolmer to mutter knowingly, "It certainly looks as though there is more opportunity to turn here." Not only the pitch, but the cheek behind the remark somehow deems it appropriate that Pakistan's cheekiest tweaker of situations and matches over the last year - Shahid Afridi - is in line for a Test place. With the experiment with Shoaib Malik likely, and rightly, to be extended (Woolmer was "happy with the openers, I think both did very well"), Afridi could come in at number six, a potentially damaging position. Spare a thought, though, for Hasan Raza. The decision to play him at Multan, ahead of the unfashionably solid Asim Kamal might have been untimely; the decision to drop him now could be even more so, especially for Raza's career.

I completely agree with Osman's comment about injustice of Raza's exclusion(as also his callup in place of Kamal). Add to it the fact that Pak batting itself hasn't been much better than Eng's shaky performance, and bringing Afridi instead of a regular batsman is a gamble. But probably Pak is in a position to risk the uncertainty element that Afridi carries with him.

No such luxury for Eng though. Vaughan is willing to take the risk with his injury to get his team back on track in the series, while they contemplate on which one of Bell and Collingwood is a better proposition.

"It's pretty obvious it'll be Collingwood or Bell who misses out," he confirmed. "The selectors will liaise today but it's a tough one. Belly played well, while Colly's only just got into the team."

Personally, I think Collingwood would find himself out of the playing XI, though very much in the scheme of things. And probably, if things go reasonably well for them(meaning atleast a draw) would get another shot in the final test when Strauss returns home, with Vaughan probably moving up to open.

It is not in England's nature to axe a player before he has had a chance to prove himself - especially a man who has been so loyal to the cause as Collingwood - but needs must on this occasion, as England seek the formula to haul them back to parity.

Jonathan Agnew feels the same in his latest column.

Although Paul Collingwood was above him in the pecking-order at Multan, it would be a mistake for the notoriously stubborn Duncan Fletcher to stick with Collingwood, who scored a total of 13 runs

Although, despite Woolmer's suggestion to the contrary, he thinks Malik won't bowl, and that Shabbir might be replaced by Afridi as a specialist bowler.

Shabbir's action looked very dubious from the sidelines - it is the third time he has been reported - and should Pakistan replace him with Afridi, it would bolster their disturbingly fragile lower order.

This, I feel, is surely one possibility Pak team management would seriously consider, since the pitch looks like helpful one right from the start.

When's the right time?(-worma)

Aus have the strong upper hand in the test. But, alarmingly, the Ashes after-shocks continue to rumble under the surface. Their middle order again collapsed, and guess who had a horrid brief spell in the middle again? The calls for dropping Michael Clarke would now surely intensify. But an important point, amidst all these worries, is that not even a single of these calls have been for permanent axing. Even his fiercest critics is sure he's the future of Aus batting.Craddock, in the report linked above, has this to say

Our prediction stands that Clarke will captain Australia and play 100-plus Tests, but - like Mark and Steve Waugh, Mark Taylor and most others - he may need to be axed from the team before he fulfils his potential - even though he has set himself a goal of never being dropped from an Australia side.

And is very similar to what Waugh had to say about him last week. Which is why the angry retort from Clarke himself was surprising and uncalled for. Wonder if he's even acknowledging he has a problem?

And Craddock also feels that it may help Clarke

Those who fight back almost always return better players. Ask Matthew Hayden, Damien Martyn, Ricky Ponting, Justin Langer and Steve Waugh.

Although Slater, who's been in this situation himself, feels otherwise.

"At the moment, the selectors are persevering with him and I hope they keep the faith because dropping him would not teach him a lesson.

and this

"Why can't you learn about your game while playing for Australia?"

Which is fine, as long as the team is winning, as it is now. But when they weren't, these failure were hurting them, as they can again soon when they come across their next challenge which is a bit more..umm..challenging. Which is as soon as the SA visit early next year.

The interesting aspect of this innings was that both Hussey and Hodge, debutants resulting from the post Ashes shake-up, were amongst runs. And so was Hayden. Which is why when Langer returns for the final test, the only way to accomodate Hodge and Hussey would mean using Clarke's spot. If Aus do get a second innings in this match, chances of which are rather dim at the moment, it can be one final test of Clarke. Another loose innings and he may be out for a while.

Talk like a Laxman(-worma)

Ok...again garbled (and probably inflammatory) title....but here's Hayden, fresh from mauling a potentially talented but undisciplined and increasingly down-and-out attack, calling for a return of his ODI spot! This from a man who was looking for a place to hide after repeatedly being found out by quality (and some average) attacks for more than a year.

Sure its nice to be ambitious, and always work towards what he desires, but IMO its too early. He should wait and prove himself against better challenges, and for a longer period of time.

Although, IMO, the Aus selectors are most likely going to ignore his claims for a forward-looking approach. And mainly so because the ODI team, unlike the test team, is not even going through a minor crisis of resources.

Hoggy the genius(-worma)

And staying with England, here's a nice post match analysis from Hoggard. Interesting to read, towards the end, how sometimes we analyze a simple situation too much.

IT WAS very nice of Bob Woolmer to suggest in The Times yesterday that I bowled “the ball of the match” to dismiss Inzamam-ul-Haq in the second innings. I trapped him leg-before when he padded up to the second ball I sent down in the first over with the new ball.

The Pakistan coach said that I held the ball as though it was an outswinger, used my wrist to change the direction and foxed one of the era’s great batsmen. Well, I might have fooled Inzamam, but I also fooled myself. I was certainly expecting the new ball to swing, but on that occasion, I fell away slightly in my delivery stride, so the ball went straight on. So I got it in the right place but, other than that, there was a bit of luck involved. But if Bob thinks I’m a bit of a genius, who am I to disagree?

Upper cut(-worma)

From Boycott who is, as usual, pulling no punches. Some obvious facts, interlaced with good observations.

Well they're in real trouble this time because they're 1-0 down against Pakistan and if they continue with their gung-ho batting approach they will be down further.

And as for the usual 'we bat like this only, and often win' line from the English camp, he has this to say

You might argue that is the way the top order play, and that they have won Test matches that way.

But if a slowcoach player blocked out one end in a tight run-chase, people would play merry hell.

A good cricketer is a thinking cricketer and there was some unsound thinking this week.

And quite true too. Subcontinental cricket is a whole new ball game for this undoubtedly talented and successful team, and it seems common sense to atleast gauge the right approach, I would think? Or atleast learn from the Aussies, who did the same mistake on Indian tour...and made amends in 2004.

Meanwhile Pak has decided not to risk playing Shabbir, lest he be called again. Probably Naved would come in place, as Inzy hinted. But it can even he Razzaq or Afridi played as a specialist bowler. With Inzy still showing faith in Raza, and rightly so IMO, this is probably the only way of getting Afridi in. Btw, look at the picture in the article closely. Wonder what 'remedial' work was done with Shabbir, and by whom...but they're playing with the career of this hugely talented bowler, if he is indeed willing to rectify.

Back to square one

In a short period where 8 ODIs were played, we saw first, a rejuvenated Indian team demolish Sri Lanka and thought that the worst was behind. The land oohed and aahed about Tendulkar being at his inspirational best, Dhoni and Pathan donning new roles and Rahul Dravid inspiring the nation with his captaincy. The nation also got an idea about the kind of coach that Chappel is. Then the Proteas land in Hyderbad and give us a dose of reality. We are not there yet but Yuvraj's century and the tail's support show that all's not lost either. But the defeat has also revived the Ganguly saga. The media is flooded with Ganguly titbits. Frankly, there isnt a lot new.

Anand Vasu has his say on Ganguly's imminent comeback. As usual, there are unnamed sources giving information. One such source said,

"If India do exceptionally well in the next couple of matches, and beat South Africa convincingly, then again it will be similar to the situation during the Sri Lanka series, and the selectors will find it hard to pick Sourav," the source said.

And finally, this:

The elections for the post of president, and other office bearers, takes place during the Annual general Meeting on November 29 and 30, and this is crucial. If the Jagmohan Dalmiya-backed Mahendra camp is defeated, and Sharad Pawar takes office, it will become infinitely harder for Ganguly to return to the team. "If Ganguly has to make a comeback then now is the time," the source revealed. "If Pawar comes into power it may be too late for Ganguly."

It is a pity that the comeback of a player of Ganguly's stature depends on elections, factions and board politics, rather than on performance and fitness. No wonder, the cricketing world uses BCCI as an object to embarass us Indians.

Ganguly makes the right sounds in a short interview. Once again, nothing of note except that he is ready to play under anybody and work with Chappel, whom he respects a lot.

Silver linings(-worma)

Some good news for Eng...Tresco decides to stay. Although his mental focus may not be 100% due to the family accident, his chances of making runs are still better than most others.

Although Vaughan is trying his best to give him company.Obviously Eng feel the situation is desperate enough to take the risk. Wonder if that may have long term implications on this winter season for Eng?

"I guess there is a slight risk if I do play but I'm willing to take that risk," the 30-year-old England skipper said.

And btw...I think he's running the risk of drawing flak from human rights organization...check out the picture in that link above!

Meanwhile...really busy day here guys...will post more, few hours later.

Portrait of an Aussie as a fighting cricketer(-worma)

Ok ok...weirdo title...end of the day for me..so..

But before signing off, wanted to share this wonderful feature of an Aus cricketer who made his debut today. Brad Hodge is the name. The sheer doggedness, the stomach for fight, to hang on...makes interesting read. Consider these facts: This is when he made his debut

IT FEELS like such a long time ago that I made my debut for Victoria in an unbelievable side that included Dean Jones, Paul Reiffel, Shane Warne, Merv Hughes, Damien Fleming and Warren Ayres

This was where his career seemed to be heading

When I made 903 runs in my first season, it was put upon me to be Australia's next young Test cricketer. Ricky Ponting was playing for Tasmania at about the same age, and I guess we were bracketed together. Now he is close to playing his 100th Test and I'm playing my first.

And this is when he finally makes the cut

There's 12,679 first-class runs to suggest I can play the game, and that gives me a lot of confidence. It would be nice to add a few more at Test level.

Puts a lot of things in right perspective, this story. Doesn't it?

A small note(-worma)

Just in case you are not aware, the Wicket to Wicket blog of cricinfo has been opened for comments. Another improvement, that atleast I noticed now, is that it has a separate RSS feed now(earlier it provided the generic cricinfo feed, although The Surfer had its own).

And btw, the latest topic of discussion there is the state of Indian cricket, with Harsha as one of the contributors...so we can all pile on our regular rants there :-)

England's miseries(-worma)

As if the defeat, and the wait for Vaughan's return wasn't enough, now Trescothick may have to travel back home due to personal reasons.

If Trescothick does need to fly home it will leave England with a batting headache, if captain Michael Vaughan does not recover from a knee injury to lead his team in the second Test in Faisalabad

That Tresco was the only Eng batsman convincingly amongst runs is ofcourse the main worry. Besides the small matter of burdening the already over-loaded Freddie with captaincy. This tour can really turn into a disaster for Eng. Ofcourse on the flip side Vaughan can recover, Tresco may not have to fly home, and they can come back strongly.

In more bad news Hoggard was fined for excessive appealing...err...not appealing...whatever the heck ICC thinks he was doing or avoiding.

Then the post-mortem reports: Jonathan Agnew on BBC although nothing we haven't already discussed. Eng's inability to read Kaneria is his focus.

Part of the reason for this is that none of the batsmen appeared to have a clue what Danish Kaneria was doing with the ball.

Although he even wonders if this was the best chance for Eng to register a win in this series.

They might very well have their captain back for the second match, but they might not get a better chance to win a game in this series than in Multan.

Derek Pringle also zeroes in on the lack of application, and over-ambitious nature of Eng batting.

They cannot claim they were not forewarned of their batting frailties. In both warm-up games the burning question had been who would get significant runs if Marcus Trescothick failed, as he did in the second innings here? The answer was nobody.

The criticism of KP is muted yet, but I can already see the buildup

KP, a monicker that doesn't yet have the same ring as WG, was never going to get the runs in singles, as he revealed when hoisting Kaneria for a six over midwicket. He is the kind of bloke who puts his chips on green in Roulette, and wins, but his team might have benefited from a more measured approach

Kind of..like Sehwag in test matches, no? Or, more correctly, hoping to be a Sehwag like case, I would say.

Then comes dear Geoffrey Boycott who, as usual, holds no punches.

If they play like that in Australia next winter they will get walloped. If that is how they play under pressure then they will never retain the Ashes. They have to learn to adapt.

He also points out their all too noticeable technical drawbacks against spin

They sweep or lap the ball or wait for a short one to punish because they can't pick Danish Kaneria's bowling. They are not confident of driving or coming out of their crease because they are not sure which way the ball is going to turn.

Although he doesn't go all the way closing the door of the series on them

I still think England's bowlers can take 20 wickets and that gives them a chance, but Pakistan will now be very tempted to prepare flat batting pitches and get draws out of the remaining two Tests. England have come back before, but they will have to bat a hell of a lot better next time

Also Jim White and Martin Johnson in Telegraph..pretty much echoing the same sentiments. Johnson's, though, the most entertaining of them all. On Pak's fear of losing

There are three types of veils in Multan, one worn by the women for religious reasons, one by the men to keep out the dust and one by their cricketers to disguise themselves in the event of losing.

And on Pak team's focus on final day

The first clue we had as to how focused Pakistan were was when Inzamam ul Haq made a diving stop in the gully. This may be routine stuff for your average cricketer, but when they get around to erecting a monument to Inzy in his home town, they won't know which is the statue and which is actually him. It is the first recorded instance of Izamam getting dirt on his sweater, or indeed effecting a piece of fielding that registered more frames per second - albeit marginally - than the slow motion replay.

Meanwhile, in the WI-Aus second test...its the same old story. Somehow...this series, in more ways than one, reminds me of our 0-3 drubbing in the 98-99 season down under.