Category Archives: test match

Year 2011 in Review

Posted on by
Reply

As 2011 winds down to a close tomorrow, let me go over some of the major happenings this year.

India’s World Cup Win

Teams have up and down years, but whatever happened during the rest of the year, winning the World Cup is forever. After more than a generation, India lifted the World Cup again! Sweet memories for those who had seen the 1983 win and a first-time glorious moment for those who had not. It was a fitting tribute to Sachin Tendulkar in his last World Cup. For those who doubted India could do it (that includes me), Dhoni’s India peaked at the right time after wobbles against England and South Africa. After India’s campaign, the best memories of the World Cup were Ireland’s incredible win against England and the guaranteed (but maybe won’t happen this time) South African choke.

England as No. 1 Test Team

England have always been underrated as a cricket team because of their abysmal ODI form, but I never imagined that they would reach the No. 1 Test ranking after beating both Australia (3-1) and India (4-0) to a pulp. I am now amazed that Sri Lanka only lost 0-1 in a 3-Test series and that after a freak third innings collapse.

The Rise and Fall of Mahendra Singh Dhoni

Around the mid-point of this year, Dhoni was on top of the world. Under him, India had won the T20 World Cup, the ODI World Cup (with Dhoni hitting the winning six) and the #1 Test Team ranking. He captained his IPL team Chennai Super Kings to two IPL championships and the Champions League Trophy. Then hiccups as India failed to win two Test matches in West Indies that they could have and should have won. And a full-blown disaster as India got wiped out in England, failing to win a single match and losing their Test top spot. Then CSK crashed out early in the 2011 Champions League. After gaining back some ground with a trashing of England in home ODIs and an almost whitewash of the West Indies, things seem to have slid back with a defeat to Australia in the final Test of the year. Dhoni seems human, after all.

Pakistan’s Incredible Year

Q at WellPitched can explain this much better than I do.

Bangladesh’s Terrible Year

Name the only team (including Zimbabwe) to have not won a single Test this year. There is no excuse for Bangladesh having Test status when teams like Ireland are out. All bravado and no result, despite having a few talented players.

Zimbabwe’s Return

Won their first Test on return. Made New Zealand sweat for a win. Zimbabwe is a country with a deep cricket tradition. And these are good signs for the long-term.

South Africa Throwing Series Leads

South Africa continues to throw away series leads after owning the opposition (India, Australia and Sri Lanka). Seriously, how do you look at yourself in the mirror after losing to the opposition one Test after bowling them out for 47 or winning by an innings? South Africa reminds me of the navigator in the boat race asking his team members to slow down because he never thought they would be in front and so hadn’t studied the map.

Miscellaneous

Yes, please don’t say Test cricket is still alive. We get it: You love Test cricket like cats love fish or something like that. On the other hand, I cannot remember many ODIs (other than those in the World Cup) or T20s. Some of the Test matches were suspiciously good. And by that, I mean only three players went to jail.

Happy New Year! And hope you don’t have a long wait to see Tendulkar’s 100th century.

 

Ashwin’s Missed Run

Posted on by

Ravichandran Ashwin has an answer for his critics:

This is technically right and people who are complaining about the “one second pause” are crazy. There is no way Ashwin could have made it back for the second run even without that slight pause. But it is also not right to say that he couldn’t have done something different.

From the video, it looked like Ashwin was way back in his crease and played the shot off his back foot. Perhaps that was the only way to play the shot, but it also meant that he didn’t have much momentum going into the run. By the time he had pushed himself off to take the run, Varun Aaron was already halfway to the striker’s end. If Ashwin had been jumping out of his crease, taking a few strides and hit the ball somewhere to the side of some fielder, it could have opened up the possibility of a tight second run and because of that, put more pressure on the fielder and maybe a useful misfield.

Of course, everything is easy for viewers to say. I suppose Ashwin may have been trying to smash his way to the boundary instead of trying a tactical 2 runs. But the stroke turned out not be fast enough to beat the fielder, not slow enough to delay him obtaining and returning the ball.

From India’s viewpoint, they could have won the match easily if only they had put a better show in the first innings. A lead of 150+ and 70 overs to bowl on the last day should have ended the West Indies resistance and ensured a 3-0 whitewash. I find it amazing that despite India’s strong show at home, we still haven’t beaten anyone like that since Sri Lanka back in the early 90s.

The IPL is Not Responsible for India’s Test Woes

Posted on by

First of all, critics of India’s poor performance in England who are citing various reasons should look at their prediction before the series started where they should have said, “Because of the IPL, India is going to lose miserably.” I haven’t seen anyone say that, but after the bloodbath, everyone comes out of the woodwork with their pet theory.

Anyway, after the IPL started in 2008, India has lost exactly two series out of 13, including the present whitewash. The first series loss was way back in 2008 when India lost 1-2 in Sri Lanka, a repeat of their previous tour loss. This was the Ajantha Mendis series where he took 26 wickets in 3 Tests on debut. India made amends when they drew 1-1 with Sri Lanka in their last trip to Sri Lanka and beat them 2-0 at home.

Since that Sri Lanka series and until the England tour, India did not lose a series both at home or away. They beat Australia 2-0 twice at home, beat New Zealand, Bangladesh and West Indies away, drew with South Africa at home and away. India only lost 3 Tests in this whole time. So if you were to draw any correlation between the IPL and Test success, the IPL would seem to actually contribute to India’s success. Of course, correlation does not imply causation. But even then, the IPL does not seem to have affected India’s Test success. People who point to the recent WI tour forget that India could have secured a 3-0 whitewash if rain had not affected the Tests. And that with a second string squad. Just take a look at the scorecards and the time lost due to rain.

Now, if you wanted to make a case that IPL 2011 was the cause of this particular series loss, you may have a stronger case. After all, some of the injuries were exacerbated by the timing of the ODI World Cup and the IPL. That doesn’t mean you are completely right, though.

See, IPL 2011 ended May 28th. Three of our main bowlers, Praveen Kumar, Ishant Sharma and Harbhajan Singh played in the three West Indies Tests after that. The first England Test started July 21st. I would suppose that the bowlers would have got into Test match stride within those 7-8 weeks. And well, Praveen and Ishant did. But India did not press the advantage that they obtained in the first two Tests.

And that in a way is a key to understanding what went wrong in the series. India had a few moments in the first two Tests (especially in the 2nd Test) when they could have changed the tone of the series. They failed to latch on to those opportunities. After that, I think India just gave up. There is some failure of leadership there, considering what Sehwag did on his return, but mostly it is a collective disappointment.

Not Being Selected to Play Cricket Can Sometimes Be a Boon

Posted on by

Imagine you are the captain of your high-school team and somehow convinced some big shots to allow you to play 4 first-class matches against your state Ranji team. After you lose every match by a massive innings defeat in a couple of days, what happens? Nothing happens! You were expected to lose and so you did! In fact you are happy because you had the experience of seeing some great players in action close up. Everybody is smiling at the end. Actually not everybody because the winning team is upset that they wasted several days on some Public Relations stunt and there is no fun in thrashing some kids from school.

But when the Indian team goes and plays against the England team and loses 4-0, that is not good. They were expected to win or lose by the barest of margins or at the worst, show some fight. So something has to be done about it. They “need to learn their lesson”. Somebody ought to be punished. Something (such as the IPL) should be blamed. Which means bad news for the poor performers in the team.

In yesterday’s post, I wondered if you could really blame anyone for the defeat. It was a collective failure. But surely, a few people will lose their places. There is little chance that Raina, Sreesanth, Mukund, RP Singh and Mishra will play India’s next Test. But is it entirely their fault? Would those who would have played in their stead performed better?

Think about it for a second. When two teams play, one team loses because one team is better than the other. Sometimes one team is much better than the other under certain circumstances (home conditions, fewer injury problems, mental state) that the second team is overwhelmed. In the second team, by definition, there will be some performances that are below average and you are singling out those performances as scapegoats to blame.

But what of the players on the bench who may have played instead? If Munaf had played all 4 Tests, would he have done a better job? Or Zaheer – would he prevented the whitewash? Virat Kohli? Murali Vijay? Ojha? etc. etc. The thing is we don’t know. Maybe they could have been better. Maybe worse. But for these players, it is perhaps a good thing that they didn’t play. Because as the collective performance of the Indian team showed, it is more likely that they would have failed than succeeded. But we are inclined to give them an opportunity than to the players who were part of the losing team.

The only fly in the ointment, however, is that the next tour for India is Australia. And while Australia is not as good as in the past, the series is not going to be a cakewalk. The replacements could find it tough. So getting selected for the next tour may be a good thing. While you wish well for the team, maybe just hope that whoever is taking your place in the current team doesn’t do all that well and they turn to you as the savior.

Manufactured Controversy About Sachin Tendulkar’s Batting Position

Posted on by

So the latest controversy doing the rounds is why Sachin Tendulkar cannot open the batting when one of the openers is not doing well. Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman are flexible about their batting positions. Rahul opening and Laxman at No.3. Is Tendulkar such a big shot that he cannot change his position?

In this opinion, this controversy is unadulterated stupidity and perhaps even cynical mischief as it tries to create dissension within the Indian team. Let us look at the facts why this is a needless distraction:

Dravid has opened 23 times in 17 Tests and has made 4 centuries and 1 fifty. Obviously he has come in several times when one of the openers has gone without scoring (which was twice in the last Test). Laxman has opened 25 times in 16 Tests with one century (the 167 against Australia in Sydney). He has also played at #3 position in 23 Tests with 4 centuries, including that 281 against Australia in Kolkata. In contrast, Sachin has only played above #4 in one Test making 15 runs.

So who has more experience playing as opener? And who has more experience at #3? Should we or shouldn’t be asking people to use their experience at a particular spot instead of experimenting when India is staring at a 4-0 loss? Also question for people – if Tendulkar does not bat at #4, then who will take that position? Isn’t he the person with the most experience at that spot?

Also in this series, this is what happened when Dravid and Laxman batted at #2 and #3:

  • 1st Test, 2nd innings: Dravid (36), Laxman (56) and a partnership of 75 runs.
  • 2nd Test, 1st innings: Dravid (117), Laxman (54). Partnership 93 runs
  • 2nd Test, 2nd innings: Dravid (6), Laxman (4). No partnership
  • 3rd Test: – usual batting positions – India lose by innings and 242 runs
  • 4th Test, 1st innings: Dravid (146*), Laxman (2). Partnership 5 runs
  • 4th Test, 2nd innings: Dravid (13), Laxman (24). No partnership

In 5 tries, Dravid and Laxman have made a good score twice, made a start once and failed twice. Not a bad record. In fact, if we just take the first two times they went up the order, they were very successful. Why wouldn’t the Indian team continue with that? Why experiment?

More on India’s Bowling (and Batting)

Posted on by

Following up on my previous post about India’s supposed problem with poor fast bowlers, we should examine that with India’s record in various countries from Jan 1, 2001 to the recently concluded WI series:

  • At home: Won 24, Lost 7 (50 matches)
  • In Bang: 5-0 (6)
  • In Zimb: 3-1 (4)
  • In Eng: 2-1 (7)
  • In WI: 3-2 (11)
  • In Pak: 2-2 (6)
  • In Aus: 2-3 (8)
  • In SL: 3-5 (9)
  • In NZ: 1-2 (5)
  • In SA: 2-4 (8)

The items marked in Red are countries where India lost more than they won. So let us look at each of those lost matches. We could also analyze the drawn matches, but those are matches where their bowlers were as ineffective as us, or luck/weather saved one of the teams.

  • v Aus
    • India 366, Aus 558, Ind 286, Aus 97/1: Average batting, terrible bowling
    • Aus 343, India 196, Aus 351, India 161: Terrible batting, average bowling
    • Aus 463, India 532, Aus 401, India 210: Good to poor batting, poor bowling
  • v SL:
    • India 187, SL 362, India 180, SL 6/0: Poor batting, average bowling
    • India 234, SL 610, India 299: Poor batting, terrible bowling
    • SL 600, India 223, India 138: Terrible batting, terrible bowling
    • India 249, SL 396, India 268, SL 123/2: Poor batting, poor bowling
    • SL 520, India 276, India 338, SL 96/0: Poor batting, terrible bowling
  • v NZ
    • India 161, NZ 247, India 121, NZ 36*: Terrible batting, good bowling
    • India 99, NZ 94, India 154, NZ 160/6: Terrible batting, good bowling
  • v SA:
    • India 379, SA 563, India 237, SA 1/54: Poor batting, terrible bowling
    • SA 328, India 240, SA 265, India 179: Poor batting, average bowling
    • India 414, SA 373, India 169, SA 211/5: Good to poor batting, poor bowling
    • India 136, SA 620, India 459: Terrible to good batting, terrible bowling

As you can see, many of India’s defeats (12 of the 14) have come about when India’s batting lineup has not performed to its potential. I am using a baseline of 250, but you can also see many scores below 200. In terms of bowling, there have been fewer matches (6) where the bowlers conceded a mammoth total (500+) and at least a couple where they have done pretty well. Bringing total of 400+ conceded only adds 1 more Test to that total.

In case the moral of the story is not clear: India has more of a batting problem overseas than it has a bowling problem.

 

Quiz Question for the Day

Posted on by

It is kind of a trick question:

Which English cricketer has played at every position other than opener in Tests?

Seems that the answer is Jimmy Anderson. Since he is usually the night watchman for the England team, he comes in at odd positions for a player with his level of batting skills. Usually seems to have done a good job holding out for the necessary 5-10 overs with a highest score of 34 at #4. I also remember Anderson maintaining a record of not making a duck for several innings until he finally got out recently (in last couple of years or so).

 

India Does Not Have a Fast Bowling Problem

Posted on by

Karthikeya Date at a Cricketing View has a couple of posts bemoaning the lack of fast bowlers in the Indian lineup and attributes it as the reason for the recent England series loss. I am not convinced for a variety of reasons, especially with statements like this that apparently seems to be a problem because of the lack of fast bowlers:

India did not win a Test Match outside the sub-continent between 1986 and 2001.

There are 3 main lines of arguments against this. First is anecdotal: In the past, when you have read about India’s struggles in Tests abroad, what was the first criticism you have heard? As far as I can remember, the primary analysis has usually been “Indian batsmen do not know how to handle fast bowling because they are not used to pitches that favor bowlers“. It has rarely been “Indian fast bowlers were ineffective“.

The second is what if you use the argument for some country, say Australia playing in India. Since 1970, Australia has won a total of 4 Tests and lost 12 Tests out of 26 Tests in India. That is a staggeringly bad record. What do people advocate for Australia? Do they say that Australia needs to bring better fast bowlers? Or they should have better spinners (better than Shane Warne with an average of 43 per wicket)? No, it is taken for granted that Indians are very good at batting on their pitches and they are really good at handling spin. The problem has been Australians unable to cope with the subcontinent.

The last is looking at the record between 1986 and 2001. India actually only played 38 Tests in these 15 years outside the subcontinent – 9 against the West Indies, 8 vs Australia, 7 vs South Africa, 6 vs NZ, 6 v England, and 2 vs Zimbabwe. We lost 18 Tests out of 38, but 7 came in Australia, 3 early in the period against a still strong West Indies and 3 against South Africa. We lost twice against NZ and England.

In general, that points to the relative strengths of the teams. Beating Australia in Australia was not easy and so it turned out. During the same period, Australia was also decimating other teams and running up record consecutive Test wins. One exception also shows the rule. This was the infamous 38-run loss to the West Indies, India being bundled out for 81 while chasing 120 runs.

What does this have to do with fast bowling? One point is that it is easier to explain India’s lack of success by simply looking at the overall team strength and also factor in the usual home advantage. A 1-0 loss in 4 Tests against a newly admitted South Africa in 1992 and a 2-0 in 3 Tests against a more experienced side is fully explained by that theory. Conversely against a West Indies that had the opposite trajectory in form, we have the 3-0 in 4 Tests in 1989, but only 1-0 in 5 Tests in 1997. And solitary losses to England in two 3-Test series.

But there is another factor also. If you look at some Tests in detail, you will find that surprisingly the bowling was a small factor in India’s fortunes. The 1991/92 Australia series is a great example. India went to Australia with the “strongest batting line up ever”. But what ended up happening is that India crossed 300 only twice in 5 Tests and were bowled out for scores such as 141 and 156. The batting average for the series was 23. And that does not even show the true picture because several times, the lower order especially Kapil Dev boosted the scores. The Indian bowling was not that great, but they did not allow Australia to cross 350 in any of their first innings. If the batting had been a little better, perhaps the final scoreline may have been different. The batting in the next away series against Australia was no better, with India thrice bowled out for less than 200.

It is taken as a fact that better batting does not win matches and you need 20 wickets to win matches and therefore you need bowlers to perform. But it is also true that bowlers need a total to defend as they try to buy wickets with runs, enticing batsmen to take risks. India’s poor batting abroad has often put bowlers in a bad position. So the blame should not solely fall on the bowlers.

Cricket Stat of the Day

Posted on by

I remember it was bad, but I didn’t know it was this bad for England in the 1980′s:

Since Andy Flower came on board as England’s full-time coach in the spring of 2009, England have won 19 of their 30 Tests, and 11 of those by an innings. As a point of comparison, England in the whole of the 1980s – a decade that included three celebrated Ashes wins – won 20 out of 104.

No time to dig into how many were losses or draws. But some of that has to be bad defeats to the West Indies team. At least one series loss at home against India. And I don’t think the 1990′s were better either with England ending up at the bottom of the Test pile and not faring much better in one-dayers, either. Heck, even we beat them 3-0.

The Cricket Thing to Do is to Perform Well Regardless of Ranking

Posted on by

Mahek takes a look at how the ICC calculates Test rankings:

it’s quite clear that there is no extra weightage for away wins (or home losses). This means that if a team plays a dispropotionate amount of cricket at home, it can go up the rankings. [...]
Also, the rankings don’t take into account the margin of victory/defeat. As far as they’re concerned, a 1-run win is just as good as a win by an innings and 400 runs. Similarly, a draw with both teams scoring an equal number of runs is the same as a draw in which a team was 1 wicket away from an innings defeat. [...]
I guess what I’m trying to say is there is way too much talk of ratings & rankings when all teams and fans should be worried about is their team trying to win every test they play. It doesn’t matter if you’re ranked 1 or 10, if you pull out of a chase with 15 overs to bat/bowl just because you’re tired or think it’s impossible to score 6 an over you’re cheating the fans of a proper result.

I have written before about the difficulty in determining the order of the superiority of the cricket teams. There are so many factors (victory margins, dead rubber matches, luck, weather and team changes) involved that you cannot make an accurate judgment. Of course, some things are beyond doubt, for example, that England is better than Bangladesh, but it is not clear whether Pakistan or New Zealand is a better team today. Trying to establish a fool-proof methodology is in itself foolish.

But all things considered, if we accord meaning to the Test rankings by the ICC, then everyone has to play by the ICC’s rules. So if Zimbabwe wants to be the #1 team in the world, then they need to earn the points under that framework. Also, you are allowed to celebrate when your team becomes #1, but you are not allowed to complain when another team achieves it under the same rules.

So, for India, if they think the #1 ranking is important, they can go play and earn the points to get it back. If they don’t believe that, that is fine too. But what is not negotiable is that India should go and not perform. As an Indian cricket fan, I want to see Dhoni and Co. go beat all the teams out there. If that makes a difference to their rankings, that is a bonus. But the important thing is playing well and trying to win, if not actually winning.