1. Of the 6 defeats, India could have legitimately won two (the second Test against England and the first against Australia) and perhaps drawn the third ( the first Test against England). So, instead of 0-6, we could have had a 2-3 record which would not have been so bad.
2. Playing abroad is always tough. Australia has been the graveyard for most teams, and although they were beaten badly by England, they are on the resurgence with a series win in Sri Lanka and coming back to square the series in South Africa. And England were, of course, going to be tough opponents after their success in Australia.
3. Since India had played (and won) many Tests at home, including against Australia (4 tests out of 6), our expectations were raised higher than usual. Added to this was winning the ODI World Cup, which has nothing to do with the Test team.
4. India really performed well against Australia only in 2003. The 2008 series could have been worse, but the umpiring and Australia’s behavior in the Sydney Test motivated India to come back strongly. And as people have pointed out, Australia’s bowling did not have Warne or McGrath.

I am not sure if this sounds like excuse making and a whitewash should have been expected. To the contrary, I think what it shows is that a whitewash is not an accurate indication of what this team could have achieved and what the gap between India and her opponents are. But at the same time, it is also remarkable that after a good competitive start, the team has gone into full-blooded surrender mode instead of trying to make a strong comeback (such as the West Indies). The best example of this is Sehwag’s swish that landed him a pair in the 3rd Test against England, but you can find quite a few other examples.

An aside: I see that Mike Hussey still remembers Ishant’s spell to Ponting from all those years back.

It was probably the birth of Ishant Sharma, who bowled unbelievably well in that Test match. I remember a spell to Ricky Ponting, which was just phenomenal bowling.

What is amazing is that apart from the West Indies tour, Ishant has nothing to show for himself after all this time and he is still in the team. A 40+ average in every country other than India, West Indies and Bangladesh does not sound very good for a fast bowler.

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.

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.

First is that the New York Times is totally, completely, absolutely wrong when it says, “a slugfest that takes forever to finish makes sense; a game that goes on and on with only six, or seven, runs doesn’t quite compute.” Hello, does anyone remember the 2004 ALC Series? The Boston Red Sox down 0-3. So what do we have in Game 4?  12 innings and Red Sox winning by 6-4. What about Game 5? 14 innings and Red Sox winning by 5-4, the match taking almost 6 hours to complete. The turnaround finally culminated in the Red Sox finally winning the World Series after 86 years and the matches became part of history. Does anyone think that those matches would have been better if the Red Sox had bludgeoned the Yankees into submission?

The thing that makes sport meaningful is narrative. If you don’t know soccer, when you see a soccer match, you see two teams running back and forth on a ground and you think what an aimless sport where they cannot even put the ball in a big net most of the time (I mean, how could they when their main aim is to break the legs of the opposition players). Or if you don’t know basketball, you see the opposite. Each team goes and puts the ball in the other’s basket and the other side repeats this. Ad nauseum.

But if one of the sides is your home country and it is a knockout match at the World Cup or the Olympics, suddenly there is meaning. You cheer every forward movement by your team, you yell at the referee for not punishing the opposition’s foul hard enough (why not a red card, you scream), every advance by the opposition sinks your heart. Even if you know nothing about the sport, you learn everything you need to know during the match.

There are different ways why a match might acquire more meaning. As mentioned above, a home team or an important match could make it so. For example, you might have watched Spain v Netherlands in the World Cup final even if you didn’t care about either team. Another factor is the opposition and how you factor against them. India v Pakistan is always a huge draw not only because of the politics involved, but also because each team is capable of defeating the other on its day. For the same reasons, Sri Lanka v Bangladesh is not an attractive match.

When it comes to Test matches, the main attraction for viewers is anticipation. I remember watching Kumble’s first home Test series against England. When each ball left his hand, I would expect him to take a wicket. Or Tendulkar. Even though he never did it for a long time, I would watch him hoping that this time it would a Test double century. Test cricket is about the journey – the hope, the anxiety and the depression!

Now, one-day cricket and Twenty20 cricket have their own appeal, but ultimately the form of cricket is irrelevant to the watching experience. You are there to enjoy the sport and living life through the experiences of the sports players in the field. You vicariously enjoy their ups and downs. Sometimes it is short, sweet and a bit dirty (Twenty20), sometimes it is prolonged, draining, but satisfying experience (Tests), but it is the same thing that drives us to watch moving pictures, whether it be a 20-minute sitcom or a 3-hour feature film.

If and when America learns to appreciate cricket as a sport, perhaps when the photos of President Kal Penn playing cricket instead of golf on the weekends are plastered across the then-Drudge home page, then the cricket fans will learn to love cricket in all its dimensions. In fact, we will see American cricket lovers at that point bemoaning the cultureless creatures of the younger generation who find joy in the shorter versions of the game instead of the nuanced thrills of the five-day match.

1. Is it so surprising to see fans and media angry after losing 3 consecutive Tests against the same opposition, especially as the performances have grown worse as the tour progressed? This was supposed to be a closely fought series for the No. 1 Test spot and what did we get? Mostly a rout. And the Indian fans are supposed to be happy about that?
2. India were happy to proclaim themselves No. 1 in Test cricket. It was a big deal! In 2009 when Tests were already in decline and Twenty20 was all the rage. Now, when we have lost the top spot, that is when Tests have become irrelevant? Test cricket is dying now? It was in good health two years ago or even two months ago?
3. OK, maybe that was Achettup’s way of illustrating how you can come up with a bad argument quickly. But in the comments, he states that similar reactions after the 2007 ODI WC ended up with India winning the T20 World Cup. So shouldn’t that mean that complaining leads to results and not complaining leads to what?
4. These complaints did not start yesterday. Many of the criticisms have been made for months now and they have only been noticed because more people have joined in and so gotten louder.

Let us look at those criticisms from the past. Correct me if I am wrong.

Tour planning: This has been true for some time now. We have lost or found difficult the first Test in many away series (in Australia, South Africa, Sri Lanka and England). This has been a pattern, discussed repeatedly by fans and whoever responsible for scheduling tours should have taken this into account. Also, backup bowlers not having visas?

Old greats need to be phased out: Once again, this has been discussed for years. With Sachin and Dravid at 38 years old and Laxman at 36 years, it opens up a huge void in the middle order. They are not responsible for the current series loss (and people should not bring it up in that context), but what happens in the future? The fact that Dravid was added to the ODI team speaks volumes about the lack of planning in this regard.

India’s Test record: It has been good, but not great. We did beat Australia 2-0 at home, but that have easily been 1-1. 1-0 away wins against New Zealand, Sri Lanka and West Indies. A drawn away series against South Africa. Good accomplishments that has improved India’s record incrementally, but no dominating stuff there. The 0-3 now is a big step backward from our previous series win in England.

Dhoni’s captaincy: In general, Dhoni has delivered both at international and club level as captain. But he has made some strange moves as well as timid ones. Start with the failure to chase a gettable target against West Indies. Then a failure to go for the kill against England during the few moments they were in trouble. Ishant not bowling, Dhoni bowling! Failure to stop the run glut. Along with his relative performance against Prior in the first two Tests, Dhoni has been one factor in India’s loss. Of course, we don’t have a successor waiting in the wings. So all this criticism of Dhoni is wasted.

Dhoni 30 matches, 15 w, 6 l, 9 d. W/L ratio = 2.50
Strauss  38 matches, 20 w, 5 l, 13 d, W/L ratio = 4.00

Unless Dhoni wins 12 more matches without additional losses, he will not overtake Steve Waugh. However, he still has a splendid home record (10:1) though the best seems to be Mike Brearley (12:0). I don’t think Strauss’s ratio will stand after a few trips to the sub-continent, but for the moment, it is his run.

In general, the way the series has progressed, it is as if England were the team under-prepared for the first Test, as they only won by 196 runs on the final day. With more of the England team members finding form, what is in store for the last Test? In the 3rd Test, Cook who was missing in action found form and how! I guess the only person remaining is Swann.

Strangely, unlike many commentators, I find myself quite calm at India’s defeat. Many have found excuses and others have found various actions of India to blame. But if you take a step back and look at the big picture, India as a collective unit has been outclassed by England. You can quibble about lack of preparation or Sehwag’s brainless batting, but ultimately the gap between the two teams kept growing as the series went on.

I would relate this to another series played by India, long back in the early 1990s against Australia just before the 1992 World Cup, which India lost 0-4. That Indian team was supposed to be the best batting lineup in the world. It had a lot of superstars too. But in the Test series, the team batting performances were abysmal. There were a few gems (including from Tendulkar and Azharuddin), but time and again, it was the lower order that lent respectability to the scorecard.

Something similar happened on this tour. Everybody knew that India’s bowling was not that great, but we all expected great things from the batsmen. Unfortunately apart from Dravid, there hasn’t been much. We don’t know what the English team’s tactics are, but planned or not, they have been able to target the Indian lineup successfully. And that has made all the difference.

Also, I was very wrong. As always with my predictions about any England series.

So yes, on statistics alone, Prior seems to be the best around now. But who was the best ever wicket-keeper batsman? The answer happens to be Andy Flower, who was the best batsman for Zimbabwe when they were in a brief ascendancy before all the trouble by Mugabe happened. You can see the analysis at Cricinfo for all wicketkeepers with 3000+ runs. Not surprisingly, most of those at the top are recent players from the 1990s and 2000s:

Andy Flower (Zim) with 4404 runs at 53.70

Adam Gilchrist (Aus) with 5570 runs at 47.60

Kumar Sangakkara (SL) with 3117 runs at 40.48

MS Dhoni (Ind) with 3071 runs at 37.45

Alec Stewart (Eng) with 4540 runs at 34.92

Matt Prior is going to end up No. 2 or No. 3 on that list, more likely No. 3 as averages usually tend to go down towards the end of a career. Adam Gilchrist had a 60+ average by this 47th Test and maintained a 50+ average till his 80th Test, but then the next 16 Tests, which were his last, brought it down to 47.60. In the long view, Dhoni seems to be doing well. But he has not had many substantial scores in several Tests now and considering the fragile tail that India has, he should be doing more.

My prediction was 1-0 England. It is no secret that both teams have a strong batting lineup and their bowling is comparatively weak. Both sides have struggled to take out oppositions in the recent past. But England has a slight edge, having recently played against a stronger team at home (i.e., same grounds) with the same team. India, on the other hand, had just finished a series against a weak team (West Indies) which was marred by rain and ended in an less-than-satisfactory 1-0 win.

When I made my prediction, I thought that India would be playing with a different team. Ironically, many of the team members who were expected to replace the weakened team in the West Indies are having trouble. Sehwag already out of the first Test. Zaheer Khan a few overs into the first bowling innings. Tendulkar suffering from some illness. Now Gautam Gambhir hit in the elbow. The team members left standing were all part of the team in West Indies.

The outcome of the series would probably be determined by batting collapses or at least under-performing innings, such as the first India innings. I thought England was on their way to a fantastic breakdown today after losing 4 wickets quickly, but India took the shoes off their throat. Dhoni’s tactics have been very strange, to say the least. There are tactics that make sense, but are wrong in the particular context, and you can make a case to criticize them. But other tactics are spectacularly nuts (like not having Ishant bowl immediately after lunch or having Dravid keep towards the end) that it seems like a terrible waste to explain why they are wrong.

First, the analogy to athletic races is wrong. A 100 meter dash is obviously an individual event. And a 4 x 100, while being a team event, is actually a collection of individual events, the only team aspect of it being the order in which the sprinters run and at the moment they pass the baton. Each sprinter is supposed to run as fast as they can in their leg. And when they are doing their stuff, the other persons in the team just watch. It is just aggregating the individual performances.

But a cricket match is not like that. It is a match played by 11 players with different players having different roles and contributing at the same time to the outcome. This is especially true and obvious while fielding, but also true during batting. How many times have you got run out because your partner was ball watching? How about when a team tries desperately not to give away a single off the last ball of the over so that they can get the worse batsman on strike?

In a Test match, the collective performance of the team matters a lot. As the match is spread across several days, you see the strengths of the team members adding up. 1 + 1 becomes greater than 2. That is the reason why a strong team like Australia rakes up whitewashes after whitewashes while Bangladesh cannot win a match to save their lives. In a Twenty20 match, an individual lucky performance can make a huge difference regardless of the team’s capability. That is why you saw Zimbabwe beating Australia in a Twenty20.

Why is that? It is because of the shortened time duration. In Tests, you have an option to “do nothing”, i.e., don’t score runs and just wait, or don’t try to take wickets and bowl wide. But in Twenty20, you don’t have that option. You have to do the maximum off every ball. If there is a small chance you can hit it for a six, you better do it. Whether the ball deserves the treatment or not is completely irrelevant. Even if a bowler is bowling the perfect line and length, the batsman has to do something. That increases the element of luck. It is true that talented batsmen like Gayle and Tendulkar are doing well at the IPL, but you also have someone like Valthaty scoring more than Sehwag, or Dhawan scoring more than Gilchrist.

The length of a Twenty20 can confuse this issue sometimes. You may look at a 90-minute soccer match and think that a T20 match is similar to a soccer match. That is not so. Since soccer is a continuous game unlike a ball-by-ball as in cricket, you cannot compare the two. In regular time, the teams have enough time to appraise their opponents and look for strategic openings or rapid counterattacks. If you treat a regular-time soccer match like a Test match, a Twenty20 match is like an overtime half of a soccer match using a Golden Goal eliminator. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its own charms, but it is a different game altogether.

Contrary to some commentators, I didn’t think that Strauss made any mistake in letting Bell get to his century. At that point, it seemed that there were too few overs left in the match to bowl out a team that had already made 400 in the first innings on a pitch that allowed both teams to surpass 400. And England had only 3 full-time bowlers. Should Strauss have denied Bell to make a point about being a tough captain determined to win at all costs? How would that helped in having a motivated team?

In the few instances where captains have tried to make such a point, it either went nowhere or did not matter to the final result. For example, when Dravid declared and left Sachin short of a double century, India won the match against Pakistan 12 balls into the final morning (i.e., lots of time left). When an England captain last declared with someone on 98 not out, he didn’t win the match. I am also reminded of Mark Taylor’s declaration on 334 not out (that equaled, but didn’t exceed Bradman’s score) in a match against Pakistan that they didn’t even come close to winning.

As for the match itself, what to say? This once again illustrates how despite all their achievements, Sri Lanka has never truly broken into the top tier in Test cricket. Just as they are showing promise, they deny themselves a breakthrough. This was the case against India in their last tour. It was the case today after doing so well on the tour matches and in the first couple of days in this match.

I also agree with Slipstream Cricket’s take on the England team. This is a team that can beat anyone, but can also be beaten by anyone. Michael Vaughan’s side looked formidable, but Strauss’s side seems fragile. Even if they have been racking up impressive results such as the three innings victories in Australia.

As for England’s proclivity for matches in recent years that end with the last pair at the crease trying to save a match: 3 of them with England saving the match, 2 with their opponents:

• India in England, 1st Test, 2007: Dhoni and Sreesanth. Match ended by rain.
• West Indies against England at home, 3rd Test, 2009: Powell & Edwards
• England v Australia at home, 1st Test at Cardiff, 2009: Anderson & Panesar
• England in South Africa, 1st Test, 2009/10: Collingwood & Onions
• England in South Africa, 3rd Test, 2009/10: Swann & Onions

Also technically, not a last pair, but England were 2 wickets away from a win (and series draw) against West Indies in that same series in the final match.