Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Australia Gains the High Ground

Best Blog Tips

The condemnation from the Australian media, past cricketers, commentators and the Prime Minister himself was swift and furious. The ink had barely dried on Steve Smith's arrogant acknowledgement of cheating and self absolution, claiming that he was "still the best man to lead" the Australian team. This is a player who has been on a Bradmanesque run making streak. Almost single-handedly holding the team's weak batting together to give their bowlers enough to win matches.

Now we hear of a possible life ban. His deputy, Warner, often in the cross-hairs of the behavior police, and Australia's second best run-maker in the team is also being potentially benched. An unheard of fierce response to an offense that is not the highest offense in the ICC's list of things that can get you in trouble.

There's glee, schadenfreude and a merry goulash of emotions emanating from all over the cricketing world. Past players, current players, commentators, bloggers have all been piling on. The reaction from many thinking people has been one of confusion. Unclear as to why Cricket Australia and the public would be willing to dump their best and second best player for a seemingly trivial offense. That too when the perpetrator has acknowledged, apologized, received the due punishment from ICC and is ready to move on.

The tendency of most boards is to "back their players" when charged with offenses. Most recently, South Africa mounted a furious six hour defense of Kagiso Rabada to dumb down a serious charge. India has routinely thrown tantrums when their players were caught on camera messing with the ball or charged with offenses that would lead to bans. Pakistan has deemed it worthy to forfeit a match and work "posthumously" to get their captain acquitted.

Australia taking the opposite route. Not only are they not backing their players, they are throwing the kitchen sink at them. They are putting the spirit of cricket above a book of ICC rules. Australia have always been proud of playing hard, but "fair". The people had been supportive of the players as long as they felt they were not cheating. But that thin string of trust has been broken by evidence and followed up with a banal apology.

No Australian till now had ever been sanctioned for cheating (ball tampering). Siddle came close but was found not guilty by the referee. Australia has never appealed against a match referee's decision for any offense. They have lived up to the commitment to the process. Contrast that with the responses from other nations.

Australia is willing to let go of their best players to maintain the sanctity of their country's hard won image of fair play. There is no better way to demonstrate commitment to fair sport. Those who see shallowness, opportunism or hypocrisy in this are well-served to look into their own country's responses. The best way out of darkness is sunshine and the Australian PM, public and board are willing to lose the cricket games to ensure that their integrity and sanctity is not put in doubt.

Australia has refrained from spinning a yarn around this, not played the victim and is copping it on their chin. Past players have spoken with one voice. Not one player past or present has come out in support of the players or coach seeking a more lenient view.

Other countries have defined patriotism to mean that any "smear" on their reputation is to be dealt with fierce outrage and potential retribution. This approach serves to embolden perpetrators to bend rules in the name of national honor (winning games). Australia, refreshingly I may add, has taken the approach that no one is allowed to compromise the honor of the nation by cheating in the name of the nation. Australia have attained the moral high ground and the hypocrites stand exposed. India, South Africa and others would do well to follow the Australian example instead of doubling down.

Friday, January 19, 2018

Something fishy about the South African pitches

Best Blog Tips

When South Africa toured India in the winter of 2015, the Nagpur Test lasted 247 overs. A little shy of 3 days assuming a 90 over day. The Capetown Test in comparison lasted 230 overs. And yet after the Nagpur Test questions were raised about the the pitch. It clearly seemed like the pitch had played out of character in comparison to previous Tests on the same ground. A combative Ravi Shastri; the architect of the "Hirwani Test"; had argued the right of the home team to make pitches that suit the strength of the home team.

It left a bad taste in the mouth for purists and Ian Chappel, who'd rather not have host captains meddle with pitch preparation. There was no real evidence of that but Ravi Shastri's comments did not help rule that possibility out.

South Africa lost the Nagpur Test by 124 runs. 40 wickets fell and The highest score in 4 innings in that Test was 215 that India scored on the first day. India too struggled to bat on the pitch

The ICC promptly called out Nagpur for the pitch not meeting Test standards. Or something like that.

Take the Capetown Test, the first Test on India's the ongoing tour of  South Africa.

India lost the test by 72 runs. 40 wickets fell and The highest score in 4 innings in that Test was 286 that South Africa scored on the first day. South Africa too struggled to bat on the pitch.

The Capetown pitch too played out of character. Just like in Nagpur, the scores in this Test at Capetown deviated from the norm. Yet the reaction from commentators which included ex-players was that this was a great Test match. No one questioned the pitch. Just that it had "spice". The ICC is unlikely to sanction the pitch.

The shortness of the Test even compared to the short Nagpur Test was perhaps masked by the fact the official 3rd day in Capetown was washed out.  Another factor could have been that India gave a much better account of themselves and thanks to some sparks from Hardik Pandya, and Bhuvaneshwar Kumar did not get blown away, like the South Africans were at Nagpur. Yet another factor that masked its shortness and prevented any questions about the pitch was that the scoring rate at Capetown across the Test, was 3.3 runs per over as compared to only 2.6 runs at Nagpur. So the Capetown Test was indeed more exciting than the Nagpur Test. There was more attractive cricket.

The single biggest factor though I feel that the pitch was never brought into discussion and assumed to be true and sporting was that India did not make an issue out of it. They had promised not to do so because otherwise it would have been hypocritical.

India seemed to have boxed themselves into letting South Africa and popular opinions; which do not always lend kindness to a traveling Indian team; run away with dictating the narrative of the pitches. So much so that in the second Test, they let Morne Morkel get away with setting the narrative that the Centurion pitch was "like playing in the subcontinent". India did not counter. They could not.

The rivalry between South Africa and India has deteriorated to a point that both sides are scared of losing at home to the other and not confident of winning in typical home conditions.

India started it.

I was hoping South Africa would take the high ground which would lead India to follow suit.

Monday, July 17, 2017

India Coach: Kumble has himself to blame

Best Blog Tips

When Anil Kumble was plucked out of nowhere and inserted as coach of India's national team, he was staring at a 13 Test home season and a mildly strenuous tour of the West Indies. 

He was in charge of a team that was already the best in the world in Test cricket. He had friends in high places who had put him as coach in the first place, removing his predecessor Ravi Shastri on what can be called a technicality. In Virat Kohli, he had a captain who had in the previous year and a half showed a willingness to play for wins at all times. A captain who seemed to have developed specific ideas on how to go about doing it. 

A 5 bowler strategy; albeit which was occasionally sacrificed, banking on pace - no more just bowling in the "right areas", a premium on scoring rate; which put Cheteshwar Pujara's spot under pressure early on and lastly fitness by example. Those ideas were already bringing in the results. India's batting had a memorable tour of Australia in 2014/2015 and when India's fast bowlers joined the captain's vision, they won an away Test series in Sri Lanka for the first time in 23 years. 

All Kumble had to do was to understand this blueprint and build a rapport with the captain, his team and treat them as equals. More importantly, treat them like adults. Ravi Shastri before him, tends to do just that. He becomes one of them. This is not to say that this is an ideal strategy for a coach. For another team, for another time, Shastri may just be the wrong man for the job.

It is pretty hard to argue though that this particular Indian team with abundance and variety of skills, a professional approach to fitness led by a captain with definitive ideas on winning and early results that validated his leadership; needed anything more than a catalyst coach. A coach who would focus on removing any roadblocks with the board and help the team execute this blueprint. 

If Anil Kumble now finds himself out of a coaching job, it is quite baffling that he has botched up a very easy assignment. What really irks me about the whole Kumble episode though is that he has managed to walk away with all the sympathy and the media and ex-players have tried to paint Virat Kohli as the "spoilt brat". The people, the experts and the media seem hurt that a legend was treated unfairly. Is being a great leg spinner for your country an insurance against future job firing, without your value even so much as considered.

There are however 2 things one must credit Kumble for. 

One of that is the pitches. Ravi Shastri is a hawk when it comes to over engineered pitches. His only Test has captain and the few Tests with him as the Team director (coach) for home Tests have coincided with pitches that were minefields. There is admittedly no evidence of a coach having an influence over pitches but Ravi Shastri has wholeheartedly defended India's right to engineer minefields, claiming that "everyone else does it too". Under Kumble the pitches have been true and Kumble has a higher sense of spirit of the game than Shastri. The later is more like an Australian; willing to challenge norms if not the rules outright. 

Secondly, he seemed to have played a role in getting Chetashwar Pujara back into the team after he lost his place to what Virat Kohli claimed as an inability "to force the pace". Pujara is a valuable player at a crucial spot and his dropping may be a case of Virat Kohli being too aggressive for the sake of being aggressive. Notice how England have been struggling to win Tests without a solid number 3. 

In sum though, Anil Kumble has probably only himself to blame for his inability to forge a working relationship with Kohli and to get on board with his blueprint. This is after all Kohli's team and the choice of Kohli over Kumble in a situation where the 2 are not on talking terms, is the most logical one. It should have been made without showing Virat Kohli in bad light.

And what of the Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC)?  Their job is actually easier than Kumble's. It also comes with no apparent accountability. How do we know for sure the CAC is doing its job well and what's the consequence of not doing it well? Who is to tell Sachin Tendulkar not to show up for work and face the wrath of crazed fans and a worshiping media? 

This committee exists to advice on the selection of a coach. It is understood by most reasonable people that an advice is kind of a recommendation. On the 2 instances they were tasked with the mundane job of finding a coach; a job most boards and the BCCI themselves carry out without much fanfare; the CAC have raised eyebrows. 

The CAC consists of Sachin Tendulkar, Saurav Ganguly and VVS Laxman. Very important people and big names all. Just because a job is carried out by important people doesn't make the job itself any more important than what it originally is. It was to simply recommend a coach. 

Instead, the first time around they offered the job to Anil Kumble who had not applied for it; removing Shastri because he chose to interview via Skype and the second time around they seemed reluctant to give Virat Kohli, the coach he wanted and when they did offer it to Shastri, they  seemed to sneak in 2 more of their classmates as batting and bowling coaches. 

Leaving their on field exploits from their playing days, aside the CAC have not shown the maturity, the ability to rise above personal friendships, remain on the sidelines and do what's right for Virat Kohli and Team India. There is no bigger conflict of interest in cricket today than the CAC recommending their classmates for important jobs in the day to day functioning of the cricket team. The committee, if needed at all, needs to be more diverse and educated on the basics of cricket administration. Right now its just runs and 100s heavy. 

That leaves Virat Kohli and his role in this episode. So far he has played it with a straight bat, like his new coach would have liked and managed to stay above the immaturity shown by his seniors in using the glory of their playing days to garner sympathy and writing letters leaked to the press playing the victim.

In my books Virat Kohli comes out of this episode the clear winner by simply staying out of it and knowing how to get what he wants to execute his strategy to win Test matches for India. 

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

The Mistakes are Piling Up

Best Blog Tips

Virat Kohli arrived like a breath of fresh air as captain in 2014 and has delivered on nearly every front. I was sold on his brand of cricket. It was the brand that I had wanted from the Sachin generation, but never materialized. I was disillusioned when Sachin quit as captain and gave up on wanting to mold an aggressive team that would play to win. Kohli had reversed all that. Losses didn't matter. What mattered was the brand of aggressive cricket we played. We played to win, not draw and as a result we probably lost some matches we could have drawn.

The recent home season in India continued that brand of cricket. New Zealand and England were put to the sword in an almost Australia-like manner. Umesh Yadav, Mohammed Shami and Ishant Sharma were unleashed and spinners too bowled aggressive, attacking lines. Batsmen, led by Pujara and the captain himself bossed some of the best bowlers in the world.  This was a never before seen exhibition of big cricket from an Indian team. Gone seemed to be the days of percentage cricket to minimize losses and attrition methods to swoop down on the opposition with a spin attack when the chance came.

All of this came to screeching halt in the second test versus Australia. The opposition won the first test by besting India in its own conditions. The captain himself was tamed and Australia romped to a well deserved win. The first signs of mistakes started in the second test. Kohli was pouting about sledging, his runs deserted him against a well-thought out strategy by Australian quicks and spinners and he seemed to have no answers. Instead of backing his original strategy and demanding execution from his team-mates, he caved in and gave up on the three fast men strategy. It was only in the final test that India returned to its Kohli roots and Umesh Yadav's blistering spell opened up the Dharmasala test for India to win the series. But a lot of unanswered questions remained.

Who backtracked on the team composition? Why did it take a test played under Rahane (Kohli was injured) for India to redeploy the plan that had worked so well for most of the season? Why did Kohli retreat to a "draw first" mindset? Why did Kohli sulk and pout about sledging when he knew what is always in store playing versus Australia? Shades of the Anderson-Jadeja "pushing" saga where India promptly lost the remaining tests? Kohli's inability to cope with Australia's bowling plans too was pushed under the carpet following a productive IPL. Clearly, Kohli didn't work on these weaknesses as we will see later.

On the ODI front, India are a team that is rebuilding. However, the approach in the Champions Trophy didn't reflect that at all. The loss versus Sri Lanka should have opened the captain's eyes to India's weaknesses. As much as people want to make it about bowling, it wasn't. The weakness was in India batting. The batting line-up is being re-built with Yuvraj, Dhoni in unfamiliar roles. Kedar Jadhav and Hardik Pandya as finishers too was a new set up. In the first ODI versus England at home, Yuvraj and Dhoni both failed in pursuit of 350 and it was Kedar and Hardik along with Kohli that brought India home. A first sign that experience didn't count for much when chasing big runs. Perhaps. In the last ODI too India failed to reach the target by five runs, but it was Jadhav and Pandya that nearly pulled it off and not Dhoni and Yuvraj. Including both these veterans was clearly proven to be a mistake.

It's safe to say that India over-achieved in the Champions Trophy. On a day when Jadhav and Kohli have off-days, India cannot chase much is what it feels like. Yuvraj and Dhoni are not the answers. The real shocker though wasn't the decision to chase with an unproven batting line-up. The biggest mistake was once again perhaps on the bowling front. Excluding Umesh Yadav to bring in the "experienced" Ashwin was probably the biggest blooper that no one wants to talk about. Yadav has demonstrated his shock value in pressure situations. Where both teams are under pressure. In the final test versus Australia when they had to force the situation in order to gain the Border-Gavaskar trophy back, Yadav broke open the game with a blistering spell. Perhaps the best ever by an Indian bowler in my life time on Indian soil (with due respect to Srinath). Yadav proved this again in the first game of the Champions Trophy where he broke the back of Pakistan's batting. He was dropped based on his performance versus Sri Lanka, though the real issue there was Yuvraj's inability to fire and help put up a total beyond Sri Lanka's reach on that featherbed.

Speaking about Kohli's failure in the final. He fell exactly the way Australia plotted his downfall in the test series. Played on his patience outside off-stump with away swinging or angling deliveries and forced him into a mistake. Kohli didn't have an answer then and no answer versus Amir either.

Add to this Kohli's spat with Kumble. The first cracks became visible in the curious case of Cheteshwar Pujara. Pujara forcing his way back into the team on Kohli's terms was a heart-warming event. And Kohli said the right things about Pujara and his re-invented batting style. The first mistake was perhaps Kumble speaking out of turn to suggest that his word about Pujara mattered more than what the captain felt.

Apparently, the duo wasn't on speaking terms for six months. Yet, Kumble claims that he only came to know from BCCI that the captain didn't have confidence in  him. Ridiculousness at its worst. A captain deserves a coach that he can work with. We dumped Chappell who didn't do well with Sachin (though he wasn't captain). No one knows where Dravid stood on that. Luckily Kumble excused himself though the hypocritical Committee wanted him to continue. Hypocritical because this was the same group that rebelled against Chappell and got him canned.

We really don't know who had the final say in team selections or the strategies. It's clear that a number of mistakes have been made that have produced bad results and is souring the team's relationship with ardent, thinking fans, who have yearned for an approach like Kohli seemed to have been advocating. Hopefully, Kohli will reflect on these last few months and usher in the few minor changes that are needed to reduce mistakes. I hope that the new coach is supportive of the captain and is willing work with him to make his vision a reality. The ODI team has a few leaks yet before it can be deemed ready for the World Cup. The test team has fewer holes, but some disturbing things have happened.

It's time to eliminate these mistakes and play to potential  A well fought loss (like the ones in 2014 in Australia are more exciting than dull draws and pusillanimous cricket. Cheers once again to the new India.

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

India's ODI Template is Outdated

Best Blog Tips

The vibrancy that is India's Test team is not reflected in its ODI and T20 outfit. The promise that every Test will be played to win is Virat Kohli's most refreshing and welcome quality. The days of hiding behind processes and being almost demure about going for wins is thankfully behind us...

...In Tests.

In LOI cricket however, the hangover of the previous generation persists. Virat Kohli, so far, has either been unable to shake it off or he is less confident of imposing his own fresh, new vision. When India's squad was announced for the Champions Trophy, it seemed a good one to win a World Championship if it were held a decade ago. IPL performances were ignored and the middle order and spin slots were treated as long service appreciation or servitude awards. Virat Kohli is clearly behind the curve when it comes to LOI cricket.  

The captain of a country that is home to the most explosive T20 league in the world that throws up innovations every few years said,  
"Explosive cricket is not our brand"

There is something not quite Virat Kohli in India's LOI team. This still seems very much Mahendra Singh Dhoni's team. His vision. Something that worked in 2011, 2013 and to some extent in 2015 but clearly not good enough for the Fakhar Zamans and Shadab Khans of the world. Dhoni is a once great LOI master who probably doesn't have it in him to outsmart the bravado and fearlessness of the next generation of Pakistan Super League stars. He increasingly resembles a dead man walking, constantly checking around to see if he has done enough to keep his place in the side. 

The win for Pakistan was a good one and for cricket romantics... even a heart warming one. India's LOI approach has been outdated for a while now and it would have been a tragedy if it wasn't "found out" in a global event of this scale and in the humiliating margin that eventually separated the 2 teams. It clearly calls for a fresh approach. 

Pakistan, a country that is internationally isolated when it comes to cricket and doesn't have access to the IPL, shed its aging heroes and trusted the talent the Pakistan Super League threw up to leave the reigning Champions shell shocked and humiliated. If this were a 100 meter race, India wasn't even in the frame when Pakistan crossed the finish line. If this were a game of soccer, it had parallels to Brazil 1 - Germany 7. 

India's approach to maintain the LOI supremacy it gained in 2011 have been to indulge in half measures so far. There is plenty of local talent to be found in the IPL only if India is willing to ignore the past achievements of our middle order and spinners in particular. None of whom had a half decent IPL but were still picked to maintain status quo; as if to assume that the opposing teams have stopped evolving themselves. 

India's Test team is far more mentally strong. Right from the Adelaide Test in 2014, Virat Kohli's first Test as a stand in captain, the team has promised to play for wins and have delivered on that.  It has lost matches going for improbable wins and set up wins from hopeless situations. Its a joy to watch them because no other Indian team has played such a positive game. 

India's LOI side however, still has one foot in the old world. 

India have world class talent emerging every IPL season but strangely unwilling to trust its own platform that throws up these stars. Why were IPL non-performances ignored when it came time to defend the Champions Trophy.

Its not like I think Pakistan will sustain their success over a period of time. Come the 2019 World Cup at the same venue, they will obviously start as favorites but if Virat Kohli is fully entrusted with the reins for LOI cricket, I have a good feeling about 2019.