The decision by the selectors to choose a team for the triangular series in Australia without Ganguly, Dravid and Laxman is a brilliant one. The timing is absolutely perfect for ushering in the next generation of cricketers who would, hopefully, take India to the biggest prize in limited-overs cricket in three years’ time.
Predictably, the decision has been met with furore in the streets of Kolkata with local administrators and former players vehemently criticizing the decision alike. Such reaction is understandable to an extent. India is starved of sporting heroes and the emotional Bengalis even more so with only one cricketer having been able to break the shackles of regionalism and politics in Indian sport to achieve international accolade in the last 40 years. However, if we were to analyze this decision with cold-hearted logic we would probably discover that it serves Indian cricket’s interest the best.
If a team is to make the finals of the World Cup it needs a core group of players who have been playing together and performing successfully as a unit for a number of years. This has been proven in almost all the previous editions of the tournament and in particular from 1996 onwards. That Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid and Laxman cannot form that core for India in 2011 is accepted by even their most die-hard fans. The question then is, when do we blood the cricketers and start building the core?
Come 2011, one essential characteristic of that core group of players is that, they should be capable of beating Australia on a regular basis. To win the world cup, Australia must be beaten and this is one characteristic which the previous core lacked even at the peak of their powers in 2003-04.
The best way to find out who has it in him to stand up against the Aussies is to let the youngsters loose at the opposition’s den. It will test their mettle and sieve out the good from the ordinary. India will play Australia only once in ODIs before 2011 after this series and we should make the most of this opportunity.
Critics might point out that short-term results would suffer and the team would most likely lose badly. Well, India hasn’t exactly set fire down under even with the stalwarts at their prime. In 1992 and 2004, India won 1 out of 6 games against Australia. In 2000, India lost all 4 games against Australia, 3 out of 4 against Pakistan and failed to qualify for the finals. However, amid all that gloom, Sourav Ganguly’s maginificent 141 against Pakistan established him as India’s best one-day batsman and was rewarded with the captaincy a few months later. Yuvraj Singh’s 139 against Australia in 2004 confirmed his exceptional talent and promise. Those are the kind of rewards India must look to reap out of this tour.
It is difficult not to feel for Ganguly who has only recently staged one of the most stirring comebacks in cricket history. However, while he’s batting as well as he’s ever done in Tests, the same cannot be said of his ODI form. It is unlikely that he’ll ever recapture the tremendous form of the early 2000s which made him India’s, and possibly the world’s, best one-day batsman. In the absence of that brilliance, his frailties in fielding and running between the wickets become even more glaring. Maybe this would turn out to be a blessing in disguise for him and by focusing solely on Tests he would some truly fantastic team and personal landmarks (8000 Test runs, 20 centuries, No.1 Test team amongst others)
Finally, Tendulkar’s inclusion seems to contradict everything that has been argued so far. However, Tendulkar’s has turned a new leaf with his batting in one-dayers in the last year, much like Ganguly’s batting in Tests. He is also a good runner between the wickets and has a strong arm. At 34, he stands an outside chance of making it to the next world cup and is worth persisting with.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
To Walk Or Not To Walk Is Not The Question
Among the plethora of controversial issues that were generated from the Sydney Test was the age-old debate of whether a batsman should walk when he knows he's out.
Ricky Ponting feels, as do the vast majority of cricketers, that its the umpires job to decide whether the batsman is out and one must accept whatever decision he gives, right or wrong.
Others, mostly spectators and journalists, argue that it is against the "spirit of cricket" to not walk. Cricket, they contend, has a reputation of being a "gentleman's game" and a cricketer is expected to do what is "right" irrespective of whether it goes in one's favour or against.
The rationale behind the first argument is that a batsman cannot do anything when he is given out wrongly. And therein lies the problem.
Batsmen feel that by not walking, the good and the bad decisions even out-- certainly over a batsman's career. However, it must be noted that this balance is achieved only through mistakes, that is, two wrongs making a right. Over the course of a match or even a series the balance could be entirely lop-sided possibly altering the very outcome of the contest and resulting in the kind of acrimony that we witnessed.
Although it could be argued that there would be times when the rub of the green goes the other way and things would even out eventually, such a system is inherently unstable and to an extent unfair. What is the point of being at the receiving end of dozens of shockers against Australia and having them in your favour when you are playing Bangladesh? What about mistakes in a World Cup final? How does that even out?
If cricket is to emerge as a major international sport, the balance has to be achieved through right decisions all the time. There is no other major sport which tolerates human error from the officials to the degree that cricket does.
The obvious solution is to use all the fascinating technology which television offers to its viewers. The question is how?
ICC is proposing a system of challenges similar to that in use in tennis. Each team is allowed to make a specified number of incorrect challenges to the umpire's decision per innings.While this would definitely increase the proportion of correct decisions, there are a few loopholes. What happens, for instance, when you exhaust all your appeals with the bulk of the innings left?
I think the solution lies in making batsmen more accountable for walking when they know they are out. If a batsman does not walk, ban him for the next match. In return, give the batsman an unconditional right to challenge the umpire's decision.
If a batsman knows that he can't be given out wrongly his inclination to stay put when he gets a decision in his favour would be automatically reduced. Moreover, if he faces a potential ban for standing his ground it is extremely unlikely that he will do so. If it is just a fine, no matter how substantial, there may be ocassions where the batsman might be willing to take on the fine and win the match.
Operationally, its the match referee and the third umpire who could be responsible for monitoring the batsmen. Given that their existing workloads are failry light, that should not be an issue.
Ricky Ponting feels, as do the vast majority of cricketers, that its the umpires job to decide whether the batsman is out and one must accept whatever decision he gives, right or wrong.
Others, mostly spectators and journalists, argue that it is against the "spirit of cricket" to not walk. Cricket, they contend, has a reputation of being a "gentleman's game" and a cricketer is expected to do what is "right" irrespective of whether it goes in one's favour or against.
The rationale behind the first argument is that a batsman cannot do anything when he is given out wrongly. And therein lies the problem.
Batsmen feel that by not walking, the good and the bad decisions even out-- certainly over a batsman's career. However, it must be noted that this balance is achieved only through mistakes, that is, two wrongs making a right. Over the course of a match or even a series the balance could be entirely lop-sided possibly altering the very outcome of the contest and resulting in the kind of acrimony that we witnessed.
Although it could be argued that there would be times when the rub of the green goes the other way and things would even out eventually, such a system is inherently unstable and to an extent unfair. What is the point of being at the receiving end of dozens of shockers against Australia and having them in your favour when you are playing Bangladesh? What about mistakes in a World Cup final? How does that even out?
If cricket is to emerge as a major international sport, the balance has to be achieved through right decisions all the time. There is no other major sport which tolerates human error from the officials to the degree that cricket does.
The obvious solution is to use all the fascinating technology which television offers to its viewers. The question is how?
ICC is proposing a system of challenges similar to that in use in tennis. Each team is allowed to make a specified number of incorrect challenges to the umpire's decision per innings.While this would definitely increase the proportion of correct decisions, there are a few loopholes. What happens, for instance, when you exhaust all your appeals with the bulk of the innings left?
I think the solution lies in making batsmen more accountable for walking when they know they are out. If a batsman does not walk, ban him for the next match. In return, give the batsman an unconditional right to challenge the umpire's decision.
If a batsman knows that he can't be given out wrongly his inclination to stay put when he gets a decision in his favour would be automatically reduced. Moreover, if he faces a potential ban for standing his ground it is extremely unlikely that he will do so. If it is just a fine, no matter how substantial, there may be ocassions where the batsman might be willing to take on the fine and win the match.
Operationally, its the match referee and the third umpire who could be responsible for monitoring the batsmen. Given that their existing workloads are failry light, that should not be an issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)