The Low-Down On Indian Selections

It’s funny to read about the various Indian selection critiques (why did they pick four seam bowlers when they knew they would only use two in the match, etc.) because for so long, we’ve had such a stable line-up. Ganguly, Tendulkar, Laxman, Dravid — they made things rather easy for the selectors, and for us. The prospect of their retiring — at some point in the next year or two, surely — means we’ll get to do that most Indian of things: pick apart the selection committee, choice by stupid choice.

But maybe the future won’t be that contentious. On the whole, I wasn’t too unhappy with M. Vijay or S. Badrinath. The former should have stuck around longer, and got out to an absolutely foolish stroke, but he looked solid. As did Badrinath — I’m amazed that he’s the oldest debutant Indian batsman; the man’s only 29 (that would be considered quite young in Australia). I’m not sure why he lunged at the Wayne Parnell delivery outside off-stump; otherwise, he seemed to show a straight bat, head over ball, textbook kind of approach.

I’m not yet sold on Suresh Raina for Tests; I prefer Rohit Sharma (Bombay boy, don’t you know) even though he keeps letting me down (an average of just 25 after 41 ODIs just doesn’t cut it). My heart remains set, though, on Irfan Pathan. Watching him lose his way was among the most heartbreaking affairs of the Chappell Era, and I’d like to see him make his way back before the rest of the young ‘uns settle in.

Did Paul Harris Just Take Vijay’s Wicket?

Let me ask this again: Did Paul Harris, nobody’s idea of a good spinner, or even really a bowler, just take a wicket? Down the leg-side? After Murali Vijay spent nearly an hour playing himself in, again reaching 30-odd runs? That too sweeping for at most what could have been one run?

I don’t know how Harris takes wickets, but it always enrages me when he does. Even Graeme Smith knows this guy isn’t supposed to take wickets: he sent Harris to throw down some balls on the leg-side so batsmen, frustrated at not being able to score, would do something rash once the real stars of the show — Steyn, ahem, Steyn — showed up.

Argh! Did Murali Vijay just give away his wicket to Paul Harris?!

Don’t Make Any Cricket Predictions, Gentlemen

Jaywalking With Jaunty, one of my favorite bloggers, began a post on Day 2 (before the Indians caved, that is) thusly:

I apologize for the mixed metaphors but the SAffers are just that – a relic, a cliché that belongs to a bygone era of Test cricket.

Before Mark Taylor began the modern trend of batting first and batting fast to bat an opposition out of the game, the practice used to be to pile up runs at a “safe” pace before setting the bowlers loose to exploit the pressure induced by the sheer weight of the run chase. A combination of flatter pitches and more aggressive batsmen has caused teams to revisit what constitutes a safe total. Apparently, South Africa did not get that memo.

Eep. I’ve made worse predictions that went wrong (e.g., after the South Africans destroyed India at Ahmedabad, I said the Test would go down as the moment when the Big Three started to retire. Not so.). But they’re still fun to make: so far, the consensus goes that India will lose the first Test, either on Day 4 (likely) or Day 5 (somewhat less likely). There’s fringe hope for either a repeat of the magical Calcutta Test (sans Rahul Dravid or V.V.S. Laxman), or for Napier. For that to happen, however, M. Vijay or Badrinath will have to score their first Test century (that latter too on debut).

Very unlikely. Count me for an Indian loss. And feel free to make fun of me and make me eat crow if India somehow draws.

Hating On NEO Cricket’s Commentary

Achettup does an excellent job slamming Sivaramakrishnan (whom I also dislike), as well as the many cliches offered on Day 3:

Speaking of Indian batsmen, whats the one thing international bowlers shouldn’t do to them? “Oh you cannot bowl to their pads, batsmen from the subcontinent will just milk you for runs using their flexible wrists, batsmen from the subcontinent are such wristy strokemakers.” We get it. WE’RE SUB-CONTINENTALS. WE GOT WRISTS PEOPLE! MUTHAFLUCKIN WRISTS!

If only commentators were allowed to swear on-air — maybe the language might freshen up then. But, more seriously, why do we end up with these commentators? Ashok Malik had an unbelievably interesting column in Cricinfo recently about the business changes in cricket television (including T.R.P. guarantees sought from advertisers), and how they’ve stymied the commentator:

What did the cusp of 2007-08 mean for the television viewer? This was when, to quote an IPL franchise CEO, “cricket telecast began to be legislated far more closely in India”. The BCCI – and the IPL – took charge of telecast properties. Channels lost autonomy. The BCCI would now hire a production company to produce the pictures and audio and sell these in real time to the channel that paid it (the board) the highest fee.

This convoluted model had one major implication for the viewer. It reduced if not effaced the integrity and independence of the commentator. Indeed, the decline of the commentator has been the untold but unstoppable story of the decade. From being among India’s most articulate authorities on cricket, Sunil Gavaskar and Ravi Shastri have become the BCCI’s in-house commentators, signed on by the board/IPL for its cricket matches.

Sehwag Still Beat Steyn

Say what you want about the rest of the Indian batting line-up, but just for the record, Virender Sehwag went against the best bowler in the world and came out on top. I wanted everyone to note that. That’s all.

Was India’s Test Success Just A Mirage?

There’s an argument developing online, contra my and Eye On Cricket’s take, that the Steyn battering proved that India’s recent success is just a mirage, built on results against middling teams like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and England. Here’s Prem Panicker, for instance:

It may not seem like it at the time, but this series is already proving to be a blessing – we can finally put our sense of notional superiority aside and find out exactly where we stand in terms of being a high quality Test side, and start work on building the sort of team that doesn’t require a buffet of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka to climb ranking ladders.

This isn’t exactly fair. First, Sri Lanka isn’t that bad a team; we lost to them in Sri Lanka not too long ago. And neither is England — they just beat the Australians at home, and they nearly did the same to South Africa in South Africa. Second, India have also done well against South Africa and Australia (the only two other ‘quality’ teams, apparently). We drew with South Africa when they last visited, and we comprehensively beat Australia when their turn arose. Third, India has also done well outside of India, including in New Zealand, once a very serious no-go zone for Indian batsmen. (In fact, take a look at the Napier scorecard for hope in this Test — the Kiwis scored 600+ runs in the first innings; India followed-on, only to bat through to a draw.)

During this time, India faced Mitchell Johnson, Morne Morkel, Makhaya Ntini, Stuart Broad and Dale Steyn, all currently among the top 10 best Test bowlers. It’s ludicrous to think the Indians had not played ‘real’ pace before Steyn’s burst yesterday. (Besides, keep in mind that Steyn is ranked no. 1 — it’s one thing to play good bowlers, it’s another thing to play against the best in his prime form.)

The point here isn’t that India’s the best. No, they’re not, and Panicker rightly points out the flaws — a pace attack short of one good fast bowler, and a weakness against raw pace and swing. But, as E.O.C. noted, every Test cricket team has some weakness or the other, and they’ve all been exposed: South Africa couldn’t beat back England at home (at home!); Australia lost to South Africa in Australia, and South Africa lost to Australia in South Africa. Things are in flux, and no one dominating team has emerged.

Lessons From The First Test Against South Africa

Despite the Indians’ shameful batting display, Eye On Cricket argues for cooler heads given the circumstances:

What if anything, have we learned from yesterday’s collapse? Not that much. Indian batting line-ups (like lots of batting line-ups the world over) are susceptible to high-quality pace and swing. And this line-up was weakened by the absence of Dravid and Laxman (we had collapses even with those gentlemen present). Indian tails are still notoriously fragile, so its no surprise to see the bottom bit of the line-up buckle and fold.

I’m inclined to agree. Tosses are generally important in cricket, but especially so in India. Still, watching Dale Steyn bowl, I couldn’t help feel sorry for our pace attack in comparison. I realize that’s not how we generally win in India; look over the India-Australia scorecards from 2008 (which India won 2-0), and you see the crucial role that Amit Mishra and Harbhajan Singh played. But, man, the ball just seemed to fly out of Steyn’s hands (and note the way he “set up” M. Vijay and S. Tendulkar, proving he’s smart as well).

So, this is a case of strategies and fortune going against India: 1) Our spinners, the usual trump cards, didn’t bowl as well as they could; 2) We lost a crucial toss; 3) We were without the experienced middle order (and just when we needed Gambhir to prosper once more, he didn’t, exposing young lads too soon), and 4) The South Africans gambled on an old premise — Indians can’t play raw pace, and a yorker in Nagpur is as good as one in Perth (as Steyn said) — and won.

We’ve been here before (see: Ahmedabad, South Africa v. India 2007). As E.O.C. argues, this is the new cricket world: each side has its weaknesses, and it’s all the more fun because of it.

Mrs. Amla and Mrs. Smith

Quite a jarring image on NEO Cricket: a quick shot of a burqa-clad Mrs. Amla next to a white, blonde model Mrs. Smith. Daryl Cullinan then said: “See what a cosmopolitan society we have in South Africa.”

It’s interesting, because Mrs. Amla’s South African husband, Hashim, plays like an Indian, wristy and all, in a very un-Indian squad (South Africans prefer pace to spin; straight to wristy). Cullinan noted that most South Africans don’t develop that skill because of their hard, fast pitches. “That probably explains his success in India,” Ravi Shastri replied. We often talk about “Indian” or “Australian” ways of playing cricket, but it’s always something to behold the cricketing cultures transcend political borders. (See, e.g., Kevin Pietersen, hailed as a very un-English England player at the start of his career.)

Harbhajan Singh Isn’t What He Used To Be

The pressure’s on the Turbanator. You can see it in the sagging statistics, and you can hear it in the constant carping from the commentators. Daryl Cullinan had the in-house NEO Cricket statistician figure out that out of roughly 25 Singh overs, 17 began with the batsmen taking a single. Then there’s the damning graphics of where his balls pitch (not close enough to the off-stump, the consensus says).

I agree with all of it. Singh used to be a great spinner; look at his career stats around 2002 and 2003, and you get what all the fuss is about. But we’ve paid a great price for this cricketer since then. For one thing, he’s an arrogant jerk (slapping around Sreesanth; obnoxiously kissing batsmen goodbye when he — rarely — dismisses them; whining like a little baby when Murali Vijay drops a catch at short leg, as if it’s Vijay’s fault Singh can’t offer more chances). For another, he’s just not that good anymore. He bowls too fast; he doesn’t flight; he doesn’t spin all that much, and his doosra seems long gone.

Put another way: he’s no Graeme Swann. Drop him.

The Empty Nagpur Stadium

Zaheer Khan just took out South Africa’s openers with an exhilarating burst of pace, but there’s nearly no one in the Nagpur stadium cheering him on.

That’s too bad, because Nagpur actually has a great, newly-constructed facility  that looks like it would cater to the Indian spectator, unlike most stadiums in the country. (So new, in fact, that cricket administrators banned fans from eating food in their seats!) Unfortunately, whereas the old Nagpur stadium was near the heart of the city, this one’s 15 km away.

Phil Long of the BBC noted the long rickshaw ride when he covered the 2008 India-Australia series:

The Wardha Road linking Nagpur and the stadium has been earmarked as prime development land and in the future the new VCA Ground may not be the relative blot on the landscape it is now.

For the time being though it’s either an expensive slog out to the ground by auto-rickshaw or taxi or the usual helter- skelter bus journey packed to the rafters with eager cricket fans keen to make the start of play.