Dhoni's team scales a peak

A 4-0 blanking was definitely not a predictable script. Other than Harbhajan who also predicted England being blanked, no one seriously thought India would hand such a drubbing to Australia. Although, some may sneer at wins achieved on friendly, doctored surfaces and some (like me) may not derive a great deal of pleasure from such wins, a 4-0 sweep is a huge achievement for any Test side.

Having grown up watching the West Indies take England apart in what were known as "black washes", I had yearned for similar ruthlessness from Indian teams. Even when conditions were favorable for India to deliver such wins, our captains demurred. The 3-0 verdicts against England and Zimbabwe in the early nineties were the closest India came to being ruthless. Kambli being the destroyer in chief in those series.

Our fabled four didn't get to bask in such a series win although they did deliver rare overseas series victories on the back of strong batting performances. The wins in Pakistan and England being the most notable with the drawn series in Australia and South Africa being very engaging.

A new India team has arrived on the scene and the retirements of Dravid and Laxman have hardly caused a hiccup. If anything, it appears that they overstayed slightly in an Indian sort of way. Tendulkar's presence in the team has been rendered irrelevant by mainly Pujara and by that smart batsman Virat Kohli. Pujara's mountain of runs and consistent performances, including 4th innings deliverances have outshone even the genius that is Tendulkar. Pujara and Kohli's consistency gives India the perfect cover to groom a replacement for the master.

Obviously, the hope is that this team takes baby steps overseas and does not get destroyed like Azharuddin's side got drubbed in England in 1996 or Tendulkar's team got blanked in Australia in 1999. Pujara and Kohli have sufficient pedigree and more miles in them than Dravid and Ganguly did on those two tours. Hopefully, the results are better. While a series win in South Africa this winter may be far-fetched, a fight would be well respected. Taking test matches into the fifth day will be a great beginning for a side lacking the quality that Zaheer Khan brought to overseas tests as well as the spine that Dravid provided the batting.

The jury is still probably out on the opening combination. Dhawan's magnificent and confident debut augurs well, but more needs to be seen from him before anointing him successor to the mad genius that Sehwag has been. Vijay has done very well to cement his place. Although at times he has not looked convincing outside the off stump, he has gutted it out. He has heart and that is a critical ingredient to succeed overseas.

Jadeja will likely play as the second spinner even overseas with Ashwin being the main spinner, which means Jadeja has to clock more runs. His 45 in the Delhi match was a promising start hopefully to more consistent batting. Umesh Yadav, Bhuvaneshwar Kumar and Ishant Sharma are likely to be first choice seamers overseas.

All of this means that Dhoni well and truly has steered India through a difficult transition with minimal fuss. All the batsmen barring Tendulkar who delivered the 4-0 away series drubbing are now out of the side. A new look team has emerged and is demonstrating a ruthless streak never before associated with Indian teams. It's a matter of time before a Tiwary or a Sharma or Chand or Rahane or other take the master's place in the side. Kohli will likely take the number 4 position in the lineup. And like all the transition that has happened till now, that too may become a non-event. Maybe that's the greatest contribution that Tendulkar will make in that he didn't leave the team in disarray with his departure.

We are fortunate to have Dhoni who has now led India to World Cup victories and a "brown wash". A series win in Australia and South Africa are the holes in India's resume. Will those happen on Dhoni's watch too?

Yesterday's 'smart' is today's 'obstructing the field'

What was once a smart thing to do as a batsmen, will get you out, today. Pakistan's Mohammed Hafeez found that out the hard way. He was ruled out 'obstructing the field' for running straight in between the line of the fielder's throw and the stumps as he attempted to reach the non strikers end. This happened in the 4th ODI against their ongoing series against South Africa

I don't have the patience to actually read the changed rule. I was aware of it when it was announced and I vaguely know it singles out batsmen who alter their line of running, while taking a run, and deliberately come in between the  line of the thrown ball and the stumps.

I remember not being very impressed with the changed rule but that is true for many of the new rules especially in the ODIs

Watching cricket in the 80s on Doordarshan, and even on Channel 9, we were constantly reminded by commentators that it is the batsman's right to attempt to block the balls path and an expectation to decline to run overthrows resulting from a ricochet from the batsman's body or piece of equipment. This was considered in line with the unwritten spirit of the game. And it made sense. Unless of course the ricochet results in the ball crossing the boundary in which case the umpire would signal a four. I don't know if the batting side has any means to decline a boundary. May be it can ask the umpire to signal a dead ball. I haven't actually seen that happen though, which doesn't mean it hasn't happened of course.

It was also understood that if the ricochet happens while the batsmen was not making an explicit attempt to block the path of the ball, the batsmen were well within the spirit of the game to run any resulting over throws.

The new rule of declaring the batsman out 'obstructing the field' if he blocks the balls path while running, is hard to adapt to. Its something batsmen instinctively do. When in danger of being caught short of the crease, it is natural for the batsman to look where the ball is being thrown from and once that is established and once the batsman realizes that the fielder has an open view of the stumps, its quite unnatural, against instinct, to keep running the same line when you know a slight alteration might save your wicket.

Additionally it will make the on field umpire's job more difficult because now he has to look at whether the batsman changed course of his running path, after accounting for the line of sight at the stumps for the fielder or it was a natural change in his running path. Shouldn't the umpire be looking at the business end to deliver a correct run-out decision? And are batsmen allowed to change course by guessing the line of sight for the fielder?

Its one of those rules that have come in place, I guess because the ICC Technical Committee needs something to do to justify their existence. Like the rule that prohibits runners. It seems the committee wants many decisions taken away from the opposing captains and don't trust them to work out an arrangement agreeable to both. This is also evidenced in ODI cricket and the endless power play rules. It's like the committee wants to 'captain' the ODI game to make it more interesting.

A rare Test match at Mohali

Winning a Test match after conceding 400+ runs in the first innings is rare. Its happened only 39 times out of over 2000 odd Test matches. Interestingly post 2000, its becoming somewhat of a trend. with 23 of the 39 instances all happening in the last 13 years.

400 is not what it used to be, perhaps because of the rate at which runs are scored these days. It still leaves a lot of time for the conceding team to come back, if they respond with a higher scoring rate.

Of the 23 times it has happened, in the last 13 years, India feature 8 times, 4 against Australia alone. In fact prior to 2000 India never won a Test after conceding 400 runs to the opposition in the first innings. England and Australia have won 6 times each, and Sri Lanka, Pakistan and South Africa once each, since 2000.

But the just concluded Mohali Test was, perhaps, the one and only instance where a side won after conceding 400 runs in the first innings in what was effectively a 4 day Test (4 1/4 if you go by the number of overs bowled).

This was made possible, quite clearly by one person...

Shikhar Dhawan. 

187 runs in 174 balls. 

The rate at which he scored, in a way created time for India to go for a win aided by Australia's fight back. 

At the start of Day 4, India were 283 for no loss still in their first innings. M. Vijay in his interview to the press suggested India would bat on and on and try and dismiss Australia in the second innings while still in deficit. 

Given India's traditional reluctance, underscored in Dominica, to force wins when the series can be won with a draw, whether India would have declared in time for a win is worth pondering. But Australia's fight back played right into India's reluctant hands. 

To add to the time Shikhar Dhawan created, Australia's bowlers created even more time for India's bowlers to go for the kill by dismissing India in their first innings with 115 possible overs still remaining in the match and India only 91 runs ahead. 

Ultimately, India took almost a day to dismiss Australia (90 overs) in the second innings, with 3 crucial wickets coming in the last 20 overs of Day 4. Had Australia not fought back, I wonder when India would have declared. Of course had wickets not fallen, India would have scored more runs in the same time but even so the onus to force a win would be on India. India has rarely grabbed such opportunities, or even thought it necessary to.

In sum Shikhar Dhawan and Austraia's bowlers teamed up to deliver a rare Test. A team won after conceding 400 runs in the first innings in a 4 day Test.

Conceit is costing cricket

Australia has sunk to a depth that will take a few series to resolve. Any and all blame for axing talented players or not integrating them successfully must fall with the management. Cricket and indeed all sport is a spectator sport. The public pays to watch entertaining players perform and revel when their team wins. It's that simple. Cricket's long term economic muscle improves when teams with flair do well, not machine like robots showing up on the field.

Much like India lost Kambli, Sandeep Patil and a few others, Australia are now onto their second big loss after Andrew Symonds. The conceit of administrators, sometimes selectors and coaches is amazing to me. The episodes with Flintoff, Pieterson, Symonds, Taylor and now Watson is stunning in its impact. What's also stunning to me is the number of fans that are willing to buy into this theory of "discipline".

A whole host of cricket writers, bloggers et al seem to be hitched to this bandwagon that believes in the virtues of military like discipline as a requirement to win sporting contests. Curfews, wellness programs, limits on calories, exercise regimen etc seem to have taken precedence over actual performance and results. It appears that Clarke and Arthur have successfully diverted attention from their failure to deliver by backing their methods over players' lack of buy-in into those methods.

My own corporate experience tells me that leaders fall into this trap of not taking enough ownership for the failure of strategies and instead blame employees for not delivering. It is the leadership's responsibility to bring players on board. To fire players for anything other than performance is thus self-serving and inherently stupid. It is clearly a product of conceit. Clarke semi-about face today suggests a lack of confidence in the stance he has taken. This is a further erosion of his credibility. The less said about Arthur and Howard the better.

From my perspective, the Australian selectors gave the team management the best available talent in Australia. It is the management's job to build this set of talented people into a cohesive team. Some of the management methods have not exactly convinced the players. This means management has to work harder to get the players to buy-in an perhaps show some early results of their methods without input from some of the non-believers. Benching them is a big mistake that's going to negatively affect others too. I'm not saying Australia will necessarily lose, but the public and the players will now pay too high a price for such an Australian win.

Is this really happening to Australia?

Please...someone please tell me this ain't so...

Is this really happening in the Australian Cricket team? Is modern cricket and coaching come to this? That you have to send in 2 areas of improvement; one individual and one for the team; as a benchmark for meeting 'high standards'. Since when did national cricket teams get infested with corporate ailments.

Filling out reports and post it notes are "standards" created by people in the corporate world to justify their jobs because they have no real work. I was under the wrong impression that cricket coaches were a much nobler creed. How wrong I was...

And what is Michael Clarke thinking? Does he think he is able to score runs because he fills out his work out schedule and slides it under Mickey Arther's hotel room door?  

Yes, I get it...its the little things that matter. It's the little things that add up to creating something bigger and long lasting. When people do get fired however, they should be fired for not getting the big things done. Not for not doing the small things. 

Firing someone for not filling time sheets is petty. 

It takes incredible amounts of foolishness to fire cricketers for not submitting their '2 points worth of improvement ideas'. It's foolish because it means you just fell for your own sales pitch. 

Arther and Clarke would have gained far more in respect had they fired the 4 for non-performance. 

Like India did with Virendra Sehwag.

Like Sunil Gavaskar did when he dropped Kapil Dev and Sandip Patil for playing rash strokes and costing India a Test match 2 decades and more ago. 

And I am curious, what did the 12 cricketers who did comply with the high standards set by Mickey Arthur...what ideas did they have? Daily Wellness Reports? Group hugs? Lunch and learns? Bring your sons and daughters to work day?

India's own reaction to consecutive away white washes, is now beginning to look like a model of restraint and common sense. 

Duncan Fletcher's stock in my eyes has sky rocketed.