Pakistan Cricket Back in Action

Pakistan seems to have been out of the news for a long time now. But they returned in fine form in their 1st ODI against Sri Lanka, beating the visitors by 8 wickets. They also seemed to have a good handle on Mendis, keeping him out for 7 overs, which qualifies for a mini-miracle these days. With all the domestic political problems faced by Pakistan, this should bring a smile to the long-suffering Pakistani fans.

Of course, Sri Lanka was not one to take things lying down. They came back in the second match with a huge 129-run victory, courtesy Dilshan (who seems to have kept his form after Bangladesh) and the deadly spinner duo of Murali and Mendis (let’s call them the 2 M’s). Pakistan was never going to hit the target once they were 3 for 17, but the 4th wicket partnership gave them some hope until 2M’s  took over. 

One of Pakistan’s short-term problems is that they have a young captain, who doesn’t seem to have that much control over his team. Pakistan always has been a group of individual stars, never a cohesive team. But whenever they succeeded, they had a good leader at the top, like Imran Khan and Wasim Akram. These ODI’s don’t give much of a chance to evaluate the captaincy, unlike Test cricket, so perhaps we should wait until they start playing a few series. 

I guess Sri Lanka is a good opponent for them to play a Test series in Pakistan, as Sri Lanka also suffers from terrorist attacks (by the extremist Tamil groups). England seems to be exploring the option of creating neutral venues for Tests. That may mean more opportunity for Pakistan to play, especially against India. 

On the subject of neutral venues, it would be nice for teams to start playing Tests or ODI’s in locations with high density of immigrants. People from the sub-continent, especially India, have a huge audience in other countries. A tournament in the United States could be very lucrative because of the Indian immigrant population here (who have higher spending power). Pakistan and Bangladesh always had supporters in the Middle East. But so far, only the UAE has made efforts to support cricket. Why not other countries like Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait?

Cricinfo Catches the Rediff Virus

A while ago, I had written about Rediff’s statistical determination of which the best Test team is. “Statistical” as in “lies, damned lies and statistics“. Now, Cricinfo seems to be going down the same slippery slope with their assessment on which the best Test captain is. Cricinfo makes the same logical mistakes as Rediff does.

For example, neither stats take losses against weak or strong opposition into account. For example, if India wins against Australia at home and then loses or is held to a draw against Bangladesh or Zimbabwe, then there is something obviously wrong with ranking India at the top of the charts.

Cricket Match

Cricket Match

 

Also, margins of victory are not taken into account. So a 1-run or 2-wicket victory counts the same as a crushing innings victory. For example, the difference between the winners and losers of the 1992/93 Frank Worrell Trophy was a single run. Or the 2004 Australian tour of Sri Lanka, where they trailed in the first innings each time, but managed a 3-0 series rout.

How do you weigh a captain’s performance in victories, draws and losses? Should it be discounted in losses and only considered if it helped result in a draw, as opposed to, let’s say, the weather or pitch not allowing a result? What if the captain hit a 50 in a win, but two other batsmen hit double-centuries? Is the 50 useful or meaningless?

I can go on and on about that. The point is that it is difficult to consider all the possible factors and impossible to assign the correct positive and negative weights to those factors. Cricket has so many different variables: the pitch, the weather, home advantage, teamwork, skill, luck, umpiring errors, etc. that it is impossible to pinpoint the best Team or player unless there is a huge difference between one Team and the others. For example, Australia could easily claim to be the No. 1 Test team, after beating almost every team comprehensively at home and abroad. Shane Warne could claim to be the No. 1 Test bowler against every country except India. 

Finally, even if we accept that a captain is responsible for the team’s success, I think the whole idea behind Cricinfo’s analysis is wrong. It is not about the results under the captain that mattered. What is more important is how that captain transformed the team. If the team was successful earlier and the captain merely replicates that success (Ponting) or has a lower degree of success (Richardson), then he cannot be termed as a great captain. On the other hand, if the team had been poor or average before, and the captain inspired them to greater victories (Ranatunga, Ganguly), then he can claim to be a better captain.

[Image licensed from James Cridland]

Why is a Cricket Pitch 22 Yards in Length?

According to Wikipedia and other definitions I stumbled upon on the web, it appears that the cricket pitch is set to “1 chain“. A chain is a unit of measurement popularly used in England and other English countries.

1 Chain = 22 yards = 66 feet = 100 links.

Although it make sense to have an easy memorable measurement term called “chain”, I still wonder why not 1.2 chains or 0.8 chains? Was a chain invented just for cricket? Or was it just convenient to use 1 chain? When the 22 yards is increased by even a yard, it makes a tremendous difference in the bowling speed and the angle, and complicates the ability of bowlers to pick up wickets. When the pitch size is reduced, it makes it harder for batsman to face the pace of the ball from deadly fast bowlers. Maybe during the invention of the game back in, some say, even the 13th century, the Englishmen perhaps tried with various measures and agreed to 1 chain. Wish they had a better historical record of those events.

It would be interesting to see what our readers think. Post your comment if you have other explanations.

India Tour of New Zealand

 

Bark Bay Island

Bark Bay Island

India has extended their tour of New Zealand to include another Test and a second T20. This is good news for sporting fans of both countries. As I wrote before, the series with just 2 Test matches is absurd and scornful. It prevents a proper build of the Test series which gets over just as the fun gets started.

In recent times, India have only played 2-Test series against NZ. Their recent record has been bad: 0-2 (2) in 2002/03, and 0-1 (2) in 1998/99, but part of this is because the Indians fail to get adjusted to the unique NZ weather and pitch conditions quickly enough. The batting lineup is very fragile on New Zealand pitches. Hopefully, this time, their first Test is preceded by two Twenty20 International and five one-dayers.

Unfortunately, their practice matches have been dropped. This is the same stupid mistake that the Boards made before India’s last tour of Australia. They lost the first two matches before getting into their element and winning the third. They may have had a better record if they played one first-class match and understood that His Highness Yuvraj Singh is incompetent to play in a Test that lies outside India’s national boundary. 

I am frankly excited about this tour, because this is India’s best chance to win a series in New Zealand after a long time. India has a good batting lineup, with experience and youth, and a charismatic captain. The bowling line is not very strong, but that is generally not a problem in NZ, where the pitches are more bowler-friendly. And New Zealand have not been performing well in Tests of late. India has only won one tour in NZ, their very first one in 1968. They should try to turn it around this time.

It should be anytime now that we will hear the selectors announcing the teams for the tour. Barring injuries, the India team should contain all the team members who played in the Test series. There may be room for only one spinner, though. Dravid, who closely escaped with a century in the 2nd Test against England (and then made a duck), has to shape up for the trip. If he performs badly and India lose 2-0, or India win (with everyone else performing but him), then he could be under heavy pressure to retain his place in the team. India has another tour of the West Indies in the summer, so Dravid needs to perform.

[Image licensed from mrpattersonsir]

The Joys of Street Cricket

gully-cricket

If you are a cricket fan since childhood, chances are that you started playing street cricket, backyard cricket, beach cricket or anywhere but an actual cricket ground. The popularity of a game depends heavily on whether it can be played even if you don’t have all the fixings of the way it is played professionally.

For example, tennis and golf are watched much more heavily than they are played. However, soccer, football and cricket are heavily played even under conditions that seem unlikely. Someone who is unfamiliar with cricket will ask, how can you play in a very restricted area without expensive equipment and protection? But take a look at the children in the photo – they are really enjoying themselves playing in the middle of the road at what looks like high noon (no long shadows).

Street cricket means that you have to break as many rules as possible without actually inventing a new game. Some of these made-on-the-spot rules are

  • Use tennis or rubber balls so that you don’t need any protective gear at all. Also, in many poor countries, regular cricket balls can be expensive requiring even more costly bats. With these balls, you can use some conveniently shaped piece of wood or tree branch. Contradicting my previous point, tennis ball cricket has actually become a big sport in itself.
  • Because the ball can be lost slowing down the game, you may not be allowed to hit sixes or even boundaries. Hitting sixes may land in the property of some unfriendly house-owners. So if you accidentally do that, you may be given out. Think about it – Six and out off the same ball!
  • Nobody brings a tape to the playing area. So everyone takes the best guess at measuring 22 yards with their feet or some stick. Needless to say, it isn’t very accurate.
  • 3 uneven tree branches usually make for the batsman’s stumps. No bails. If the ball goes between 2 sticks, you have to honor the word of the wicketkeeper. At the bowler end, a large stone usually serves as the stumps.
  • Very often, there are only a few children available for a game, not even sufficient for a single cricket team. So everyone is made to field. If you have an odd number of children, one team gets to lose an additional wicket. There is no runner for the batsman, which means that he could be run out at either end (or maybe not – depends on who is making the rules). Usually the lazier fielders want to become the wicketkeeper, which actually is more work if you don’t know how to catch properly.
  • No slip, but usually you have a long stop to compensate for the incompetence of the wicketkeeper. Sometimes, this is avoided by disallowing byes and leg byes. LBW’s are a major controversial subject. They are usually disallowed, but some wise guys crowd the stumps which angers the bowler. The unwritten rule is that all three wickets must be visible to the bowler.
  • When you have a motley crew of children of different ages, some of them do know how to bowl over-arm. So you let them throw the ball instead. And if someone is too big for the rest of the group, they have to bat left-handed. The key thing in street cricket is participation. Everyone is given the opportunity to bat and bowl, even if they are terrible at it. So you will have the openers “retiring” after two overs so that the other children can bat.

Informal cricket was a lot of fun growing up. I remember we playing cricket inside an apartment. This was truly crazy because we played in the living room with lots of expensive equipment like TV’s and glass vases. And the parents of my friend let us – I have no idea what they were thinking. The rules of our game was to bat so that you can defend every ball earning a point each time. You get out if you are caught directly or on the first bounce.

Also, there was a time we played on some barren open area, left unused by the owner. Two sides of the area ended in a ditch and there was an open well without any walls very close to where the batsman stood. We bought a fisherman’s net to cover the well so that the ball wouldn’t fall in. But it was not strong to stop one of us from falling in. We had to be very careful when fielding close to it. We had some close shaves in that field, with one boy sliding over the edge and another tripping and getting his shoulder broken. Luckily no one fell in the well and got killed.

Professional international cricket is, rightly, the pinnacle of cricketing excellence. But for sheer fun and excitement, nothing can beat street cricket.

[Photo licensed from enygmatic]

Ravindra A Jadeja deserves the call for Indian Team

Saurashtra all-rounder Ravindra A Jadeja, who was in excellent form in the 2008-09 Ranji Trophy Series has caught the attention of the national selectors. Jadeja has been selected for the Indian Team for the short tour of Srilanka. His all-round performance in the current Ranji Trophy (scoring 739 runs and taking 42 wickets) has been rightly recognized by the national selectors.

Jadeja who bats left-hand and bowls left-hand orthodox spin, can play the role of an allrounder in the Indian team. He has the ability to score a quick 40 runs in the middle order and take a few quick wickets in the middle overs.

Jadeja was also part of India’s World Cup-winning Under-19 squad and the IPL champions Rajasthan Royals last year. I saw Jadeja’s performance under pressure in the Rajasthan Royals’ game against Kings XI Punjab in the IPL. Jadeja walked in when his team was down 4 wickets for just 99 runs on the board. His unbeaten 36 and valuable 69-run partnership with Watson helped in Rajasthan’s first victory. Jadeja appeared to be a very patient & cool-headed player when he took an important catch at long on in the IPL championship final against the Chennai Super Kings team.

I am sure that Jadeja will start with a bang and play with positive attitude and enthusiasm.

The Surreal Tournament in Bangladesh

The Tri-Nation Tournament in Sri Lanka ends with Murali once again proving to be the match-winner, this time with a bat, an unbelievable 33 off 16 deliveries. Chasing 153 to win in 50 overs, Sri Lanka was 118/8 needing 35 runs off 30 balls, when Murali launched some ferocious shots and took the visitors to victory. Obviously, avoiding an embarassing double-defeat at the hands of the Bangladeshis.

This series has been entirely weird and surreal. First Zimbabwe beat Bangladesh by 38 runs, even after posting a barely enough 205. They then lost predictably to Sri Lanka by 103 runs, but not before restricting a full-force Sri Lankan team to 210 runs. Sri Lanka then went on to be bowled out for 147 by Bangladesh, who somehow found a way to achieve the target quickly enough to qualify for the final.

The tournament has been a plus for Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Zimbabwe, with their win over Bangladesh, show that they are still a relevant force among the non-Test nations, even though their country is going to pieces with hyper-inflation. Bangladesh, humbled by Zimbabwe in their first match, came back strongly in their remaining one-day matches.

This shows how much Bangladesh would benefit from getting more ODI experience instead of playing more Tests. When Bangladesh plays the same number of Tests against Sri Lanka as New Zealand and West Indies play against each other, something is definitely wrong. They should restrict themselves to one-off Tests.

Sri Lanka has everything to lose and nothing to gain from these matches. Their repeated Test matches against Bangladesh (and Zimbabwe, previously) makes a mockery of the achievements of their players, over whom there is always a question mark. Players, who do not perform against top teams, get another lease of life by suddenly coming into form against these sub-standard teams.

The Australian Elephants in Transition Land

Andrew Hughes has a funny post at Googlies and Jollies about the transition of the Australian cricket team.

Rick Ponting

Ricky Ponting

Here is an excerpt:

“G’day, Haydos,” said Punter.

The old elephant was sitting down and tried to struggle to his feet.

“No, don’t worry mate. No need to get up.”
“Just needed a rest, Skip. I’ll be back on form for the next mission.”

Punter remained silent.

“What is it, Skip?”

“Thing is Haydos, we don’t need you for the next mission.”
“Oh. Right. Give the younger elephants a chance. Good idea. Happy to stand aside this time, for the good of the herd.”

“Or the mission after that,” continued Punter.
“Oh.”

There was an awkward silence.

Guess this is it then,said Haydos. Punter looked down, rubbing his trunk in the dust.

“Guess it is.”
“Right. Well, I’ll see you then.”

Punter turned to walk away.

Skip?asked Haydos, for the last time.

What?
Will you do me a favour and break the news to Roy. I don’t think I can.

No worries mate,said Punter.

Andrew has just started out in the blogging world, but his posts are incredibly funny to read.

[Ricky Ponting photo licensed from nellistc]

Tri Nation Tournament in Bangladesh

The recent Tri-Nation tournament, so far, has had more twists than dough being rolled by chefs. First Zimbabwe upset Bangladesh. And now, Sri Lanka has been trounced by an amazing unbeaten 69-ball 92 by Shakib Al Hasan. Bangladesh definitely have batsmen who can turn it on. See: Ashraful, Mohammad.

ODI’s and, particularly, T20′s, are good avenues for sub-par teams who cannot compete at the Test level. The smaller number of overs allows batsmen to take more risks. An outstanding (or freak) spell by a bowler can also turn matches on their head.

Contrary to their Test performance, Bangladesh has been steadily improving in ODI’s, with not-so-infrequent wins against good opposition. The only problem with them is that they follow a great victory by a long period of indifferent performance, and so the momentum is lost.

Although I have been an advocate for removing Bangladesh from Test cricket, it is sometimes difficult to know what to do with them. They have the potential to beat strong teams in ODI’s – in the recent past, they have defeated India and South Africa. They are also, by some measure, much better than the non-Test playing nations, the odd defeats not withstanding. They have some genuine match-winners.

Since they are not about to removed from Test cricket, the best thing for the Bangladesh Cricket Board to do is to reduce the Tests in each series (essentially playing only 1-off Tests) and provide greater ODI opportunities. Reduce the long rope given to players. If a player (including the captain) has more than a 5-match slump, they should be replaced with someone else. This way, more Bangladeshis can get to play at the international level. With over 153 million people, surely you can collect more than 11 gems to create a performing team, don’t you think?