Ducking Beamers: A Cricket Blog

Cricinfo has a feature on the first matches that South Africa played after readmission to Test cricket (in the West Indies, of all places). I recently went to South Africa a few months ago, and I saw this anti-apartheid poster, which informs my thoughts on the current situation in Zimbabwe: 

With the ODI series against England now inconsequential, let’s turn to more pressing matters: “ISHANT SHARMA GETS A NEW HAIRCUT!!!”

I like it. It makes him look like a schoolboy, which, at his tender age, he should look like. Still, there were times when his hair really looked out of control, more comical than scary. Read the rest of this entry »

When Twenty20 ruled the cricket world during the IPL tournament, more than a few cricket observers bemoaned the possible end of even one-day cricket (let alone Test cricket, which most have already given up on). Seeing how full Indian grounds have been during the England-India series, I think obituaries for the 50-over game have been premature, but the best idea I’ve heard about the format came, I think, from Harsha Bhogle. He suggested that both sides should bat two innings, each of 25 overs. That would keep the pace that Twenty20 brings, but still allow the best virtues of Test cricket to shine through as well. Even I’d run to an Indian ground to watch that.

Here’s a suggestion: instead of showing the third umpire screen replays immediately after the square leg umpire refers it, should broadcasters wait for the decision first? I know that could be immensely disrespectful to the television viewer, but it might just keep that audience on its toes for 1 or 2 minutes, so they wouldn’t immediately discover the fate of a particular batsman and then have that annoying wait for the third umpire to signal his call. 

Perhaps not, though: I still feel that sense of drama when the first replay comes on the screen, when I either wish the ball to go to the stumps or the batsman to beat the physics of frames. I don’t know.

1. Does anyone want New Zealand not to bowl Australia out for under 200 runs? Come on, you Australia fans out there: after winning so much for so long, don’t you find this Kiwi team kind of cute and audacious? Not even a little bit? 

2. Does anyone think that Yuvraj Singh sounds like a ghati? He sounds so coarse when he talks, and with his unshaven face and boorish demeanor…well, let’s just say I wouldn’t take him home to hang out with my grandmother.

Finally, some sense from England:it removes Matt Prior from the top, since he hasn’t worked out consistently and isn’t good enough to be at the top (it reminds me of when India tried Nayan Mongia at the top, which was also dropped after a few matches). It then promotes Kevin Pietersen to No. 3, which is where he has belonged since he began in ODIs. The previous order made no sense whatsoever: why would you take O. Shah away from the lower-order, where he is more likely to consolidate? Geoffrey Boycott had it just right: Pietersen-Collingwood-Flintoff makes for an intimidating line-up, up there with the best in the world. 

There are some other problems: Read the rest of this entry »

We hear that phrase all the time — “X player has a good cricketing brain.” I hear it’s the main reason Monty Panesar will never be a Shane Warne, or even a Harbhajan Singh (he only knows to “bowl in the right areas”). But what does it mean, exactly?

This brings me to one of my biggest problems with commentary these days: Read the rest of this entry »

So, did people watch the 2nd ODI between England and India? Did anyone else notice how incredibly wrong the commentary team was, and how often they changed their predictions and tunes as the game went on? First, they predicted a 300-run pitch, only to reverse tunes in the preliminary overs, when India lost quick wickets and struggled on a “two-paced” pitch.

Then, Read the rest of this entry »

I don’t really like Andrew Symonds, or rather, I didn’t: I found him too aggressive, and too willing to unfairly get into another side’s face. (I also don’t like really good lower-order batsmen; they have a tendency to play spoiler, either preventing batting collapses from fully culminating, or putting the screws in already tired bowling attacks.)

But I think I’m changing my mind on this guy. Read the rest of this entry »

I began this blog with my winners’s hierarchy; a tribute to Amartya Sen’s argument that we are all, at different times, different people. One minute, fans of India, the next, eager spectators. Now, normally, I support India in all situations, but I also have a soft spot for England, largely because they were the first to topple the Australians (if only briefly) in 2005. Also, I kind of like Kevin Pietersen: I want him to succeed, because his good form means a good English team, which makes for a much wider and more exciting cricket world. 

So where does that leave us? Well, I don’t care much about ODIs, but I don’t want India to lose either. I’m hoping for a 4-3 result, rather than a full walloping. In the Tests, however, a good result would be 1-0, in India’s favor, of course. That would leave Pietersen with enough of a reputation to hold until his next series. Anyone disagree?