Miss you Sachu...!

Finally, the inevitable happened. The most loved cricketer has put down his bat, albeit in shorter format. Sachin had already retired from T20, which I think was a very wise decision. Although he has been one of the most attacking player of his generation, the truth remained that at 33-34 he won't be the most feared batsman and it would require hell lot of energy. After playing for more than 15 years (at that time) and having a very busy schedule for that period it was important he focussed on more important version(s) of the game & not played the funny format. I strongly feel he should have retired on 2nd April 2011. That was the day he fulfilled his dream of winning the World Cup. That was the best time to retire. He hasn't added too much to his tally of ODI runs after that.

That, he has retired from ODI is not a big loss to the game because he hasn't been playing regularly in the format for a couple of years now. So it was only a surprise than a shock. Surprise, because Indian's strongest arch-rival Pak team is coming to play a few matches & it would have been good to have him play against them. He has often succeeded against them and been an important player in almost all World-Cup games we played against them. He has been Man-of-Match in 3 out of 5 WC games we played against them; 1992, 2003 & 2011. But then, only he knows what he is going through his mind. Maybe the pressure upon him would be doubled because of non-performance in earlier series, maybe the body isn't really giving him the positive signals to cope up with the ever-growing pressure. Especially the pressure of playing against Pakistan would be much higher than normal. Sadly, even after playing for more than 2 decades & being successful for most of the years, the pressure upon him is way more than others. That tells you the fact that he has always had the burden of expectations. Maybe it just got better of him now.

Over the period, he had already started choosing the ODI series to play which was a good move to retain & maintain the fitness of his body to prolong his illustrious career. But the problem was that he was playing less. For a person who has known nothing but being in the middle for better part of his life, it becomes little bit more difficult to adjust the ever-growing demands of the rigors of the game. Also, he seemed to be out of touch of batting. What he needed was more match practice. That's why I always felt, that he should have played more domestic games when "resting" from international games. He would have not lost his "form".

One allegation on him was that he was blocking youngster's place. I haven't seen a better joke for ages in cricket. Firstly, he was an opener in ODI format. Yes, Gambhir often had to sacrifice his opening slot for Sachin whenever he played. But, Gambhir didn't come to the game as an opener. It was always Sachin-Saurav or Sachin-Sehwag. Gambhir was a makeshift opener in absence of Sachin. Sachin had already made it clear, he would want to remain as an opener in ODI format. In recent times, even Gambhir hasn't been in good touch in the ODI format. He was just nudging the ball around even in the shortest format of the game. Even he was in his early 30s. So there is no question of Sachin blocking the place of Gambhir. There was another cry of Ajinkya Rahane not getting place in playing 11. But then who said Sehwag was having time of his life in recent times as an opener. Even Sehwag was failing regularly. Ajinkya could have replaced Sehwag easily. Manoj Tiwary has been warming the bench even when Sachin wasn't playing ODIs. So Sachin, wasn't blocking his place either.

Scoring 18,426 runs in 463 games with 49 ODI centuries & 96 half-centuries at an average of 44.83 is just a statistic that the cricket-records would throw. Ofcourse, these are humongous numbers and it is very difficult to believe these would be broken in another couple of decades atleast. But even if they are broken, it doesn't negate his contribution to the Indian cricket. If Sunil Gavaskar is credited to bring India on cricketing map with his heroics (batting department of the game), particularly against the giants of Carribean, Sachin has taken the name to a different level. Yes, there have been other performers with the likes of Azhar, Dravid, Ganguly & Sehwag, one name has always shone head-and-shoulder above all others; Sachin Tendulkar.

When he batted, you would rarely notice the non-striker even if it would be one of the abovementioned. When he scored, others would be over-shadowed. This was not only because he was a great batsman, but because he was artisctic, his approach seldom surrendering and his hunger/desire to excel in any given scenario was unquestionable. The way he batted was amazing, scoring shots when others would defend, placing the shots in gaps where others would give easy catching practice to opponents. He was a true master in batting even in ODI format and thats what sets him apart from other contemporaries who have graced the game. He can only be compared to Brian Lara, not even Ponting.

The only thing I can say is "MISS YOU!". Miss you, for all the joy you have given to us for these 23 years. Miss you, for fulfilling our dreams of winning games when we had lost all our hope after the match-fixing scandal. Miss you, for the unchallenged records you made & made it a routine for us who always thought our team can never win. Miss you, for the intensity & hunger you brought to the team. Miss you, for you changed the face of Indian cricket. Miss you, for the quality & ability to stay firmly rooted to the grounds despite of all the adulation & fame you have received. (Hope youngsters are listening!) It has been a well-thought and good decision. Yes, it was bit late. (Sorry Sachu, I hate to say this.) But, watching ODIs without you, knowing the bitter fact that we would never see you wearing the blue colors for India, I don't think I would be able to digest it. You are the only reason I got attracted to the game. Earlier, I was one of the countless number of people who played gully-cricket and understood only one thing, see the ball & hit it. But you made me learn the finer aspects of the game. And now that you are not going to play regularly (only Test format) I feel like disconnected from the game. There is a big-bigger-biggest void.

I sincerely hope this decision would help you prolong your Test career & you play well against the coming Aussies. The Test team certainly needs you. But please continue to play in domestic games. The domestic game has been desperately hungry for your contribution.

England should win the series 3-1...

The series is 2-1 at this stage & still one more test remains to be played, at Nagpur. However, at this point/stage it seems to be a lost series. If we draw the next match England wins the series by 2-1. Even if we win, still the series is lost in the minds. We could have played better and the result could have been better. It is obvious to analyse the team's "performance" even before the series officially ends. So here we go:

1) Dhoni: He clearly fell short of ideas, not just here, but overall in the past year or so. His ODI & T20 captaincy has been somewhat good, apart from the shoddy performance in England & Australia. Till the time Indian team was No. 1 in Test rankings & till we won the 50-over World Cup in 2011, all was good & rosy. Suddenly one England tour happened & we started losing matches & we haven't seem to recover. Winning against Sri Lanka, West Indies & New Zealand isn't something to be proud of. Sri Lanka has some new talent which is yet to be tried & tested & their bowling attack is somewhat dented by Murali's retirement. West Indies & New Zealand clearly struggled against our spinners in our home conditions. But we failed to seize opportunities against England in England & here, & against Australia in Australia. The field placements didn't really seem to be impressive either. Time has come, Dhoni hands over the reigns to someone (but who?) and relieves himself of the workload. Sometimes he becomes too defensive these days.
2) Sehwag: It maybe due to his fallout with Dhoni (arguable a imaginative news) or his desire to come down the order or maybe age is catching up fast. But he clearly seemed to be a pale shadow of the Viru we know. The Viru, who smashes the bowlers to all parts of the ground. The Viru, who shows no respect to the conditions, to the names of the bowlers, to the match situation, to the score board, to the pitch, who plays only one way and piles up runs, sometimes faster than in T20. India's winning ways were largely propelled and structured around Viru's smashing centuries & we started winning overseas once Viru established himself and settled as an opener. There is no doubt to that. But here, even in home conditions suitable to his batting, he failed except in the first match.
3) Gambhir: He has been out of form for more than a year, almost like Sachin, scoring runs here and there, but not an opener's innings. He has been seen pushing at deliveries more often than playing them. Moreover, Sehwag's failure didn't help either. He quickly needs to work out a solution to the pushing-mindset.
4) Sachin: The biggest star of the country & probably of the cricketing world failed miserably. I would still say his failure was not due to loss of form or cracks in technique. But he needs to really sort out his mindset. For the past couple of years, in test cricket, he goes into shell too often and that is not helping him. If only he can sort out the mind-demons. Else, time has come to pull the shutter down before it falls down.
5) Lower middle order: We have been left with too big a void by Ganguly & VVS's departure. Yuvi and Raina are still not doing themselves any justice. Often they go into T20 modes or in shell like Sachin; sadly their techniques not good for defensive play. Rohit Sharma loves to not do justice to his immense talent & Tiwary is selected in the team only to pass on the water bottles or bats. Dhoni hasn't been the batsman we know for long in Test arena. So the tail is exposed too early.
6) Spinners: We clearly failed to extract the pitch's help like English spinners did. The bigger reason is that we tried too many experiments. You may have a mystery ball or carrom ball, but it is virtually ineffective if you use it too often or without close-in fielders. We went into defensive mode after seeing lesser score by the batsmen and that meant that close-in fielders were rarer than what we used to have in Kumble-Bhajji era. It didn't help that Ashwin seemed to be more in T20-ODI mode even in bowling, and we never forced them to make mistakes. Only one or two partnerships happened in English team, but they were big ones and we failed to stop them in conditions that were suitable more to our spinners.
7) Pacers: Our pacers, especially Zaheer, lacked the initial sting with the new ball. It is understandable that the focus was more on spinners, more than ever. But our pacers simply didn't work at all. They toiled hard and their counterparts, the English pacers were more effective than ours.
8) Overall Batting: Indians are supposed to be the best players against the spinning ball. Well, it seemed true till the "Fantastic Four" were in operation. But over the past couple of years, we seemed to be "worst" players of spin. Although Graeme Swann and Monty Panesar are good spinners, Swann being the best off-spinner currently, we shouldn't forget that our batsman simply lacked the desire to wait at the wicket. As the old adage goes, "stay at the wicket and runs will come". Sadly, it didn't seem to be the case with us. The pitches weren't as bad as they turned out to be. We could have played session by session. But the current lot of batsman clearly & dearly lack the composure & application of a Dravid or a Laxman or even a old-Tendulkar. Sachin did grind it out in the first innings of Kolkata & showed that he still has the desire to go back to the basics when needed. But overall the entire batting line-up failed on that front. Even in England & Australia, there were only a few partnerships, where their batsmen grinded it out, waited patiently and built their innings. Take those partnerships out and even their teams struggled. Sadly, we never had any such partnerships in these 11 test matches. (4 in England, 4 in Australia & 3 here). The fact that we are performing acceptably in ODI & T20 format, the truth remains that we as a Test batting side are losing heavily. And, sadly, the future is gloomy too.
9) Bench strength: Our bench strength must have become specialist bench-warmers by now. We took Ajinky Rahane out of Mumbai duty and gave him the duty of being a replacement fielder or water bottle transporter. We took Ashok Dinda in the team, and put him on bench on his home ground. We overlooked Manoj Tiwary. Unmukt Chand is still too young to play international matches in Test format. Sadly, the list ends here. There have been numerous domestic talents. But either they are not so good when they come at international level or they look out of sorts because their first aim has become to secure a place in the national side.

After having a look at all that has happened, it is imperative that I want the English team to win. Not because I like that team & support it. Not because I don't have any faith in this Indian team. But because, time has come that we shook ourselves awake and enlighten ourselves on the fact that we are not the side which was a few years back. Because, we need to really go to the basics & have someone who plays Test cricket in Test form & not ODI/T20 form. Because, there are some tough decisions to be taken and a loss here will only strengthen the selection committee to take hard but good decisions. If we win in Nagpur, there is a possibility that the same team might play in future series & same mistakes are committed. A 3-1 result is surely welcome if we are going to learn from it. There is nothing wrong in losing by 4-0 even in home conditions, as long as we put up some strong fight, as long as we are fighting till the last ball of the match. Ofcourse, the Indian team is fighting. Not that they are not. But the way they are doing it, it looks like the desire, the killer instinct, is not there. It looks more of mechanical sorts, just doing it for the sake of it. Something really needs to be done.

From here, post this series, I am hoping for some changes, changes not for the sake of it, but for the sake of Indian cricket.
1) The biggest change expected is to have some Test specialists. In Dravid/Laxman we had named them as Test specialists and they were rightly in those roles. We need to quickly find someone who are in their mould, who are not affected by T20s. Not just in batting, but in bowling too.
2) Push Sehwag down the order, maybe at No. 5 or 6 and get a proper opener. Someone like Rahane or Tiwary can be of good help. We still need Sehwag for his swashbuckling hittings, carefree attack and big centuries.
3) Ashwin has been a good find, a good thinking bowler, but I strongly feel he is more suited to ODI & T20 format than Test. If Bhajji is good enough for Tests, which he is, we more importantly need a good leg-spinner. If we are going to continue with Ojha (he has seemed a far better bowler than Ashwin), we certainly need a leg-spinner with variations. A Piyush Chawla or Amit Mishra can be helpful, they can bat a bit too.
4) I would like to see Zaheer resting and not play Test cricket for some time. He is not unfit, but it is difficult to hide him in the fielding side and his batting is not helping either. We could play him in overseas conditions where the ball swings.
5) Sachin should think of his role. He could continue to play Test cricket, if he is retiring from ODIs. An ODI demands more energy and stamina levels for the day. Test cricket is not that demanding physically, especially when he has 23 years of experience of every ground in the cricketing world. If at he is to retire, then this is the right time. Further extending his pain and expectations, can hurt him more.

Shutter down?

Runs have stopped coming, suddenly. The hand-eye co-ordination which enthralled the world for more than 2 decades has suddenly been under scanner. The footwork seems to be missing or doubtful. The head is full of cobwebs that have formed due to constant pressure from media & the so-called pundits asking questions about his retirement. Yet, one thing has been constant. The usual drills and net-sessions. The child-like eagerness to bat. The quest for perfection on already perfect technique. Sachin Tendulkar is yet again in the firing line-up and taking all the blows, this time from his own people who loved him for more than 2 decades.

Is he really past his prime? Has he really started showing signs of age? Is he really such a big-failure that people want him to retire? First of all, who are we to ask him to retire? It's not just about Sachin alone. For that matter, any person from the sports fraternity cannot be asked to retire just because they are not performing. In this matter, there is a system known as BCCI (Selection Committee) which has the rights to do the same. They can very well drop him from his next venture. Why are we crying about it? We are not paying Sachin to perform; we just pay to see him perform. If he is not performing to our "expectations", we have the option of not watching him, be it a stadium ticket or television set. It is upto the selection committee and the captain to play or drop him from the next match/series.

It is obvious that age has been trying to catch up with him. There have been numerous players have played well beyond 40 age and have played reasonably well. The problem with Sachin is different than them. Firstly, he started playing (international matches) at a very tender age of 16. This means, although he is just 39, he still has 23 years of international cricket behind him. He has spent his most important years of life on cricket ground. By doing so, he has gained so many runs and such an experience that has left many of us dumbfounded. But that also means, the bar of expectation has been raised so high that anything below (even if it is a 70-80) is not acceptable to the people. Obviously, a single-digit score would be almost criminal.

In my opinion, there is no problem at all with Sachin's age, technique, reflexes. Talking about reflexes, he still has good reflexes that is seen when he plays his trademark shorts, when he fields. The biggest problem is that, now after all those years, it seems he is getting burdened by the expectations. He probably expects too much from himself, constantly trying to match his own standards. He is at a stage where he should be relaxed and enjoying his game, not thinking about other things, almost like how Sehwag plays. That surely doesn't mean he has to play like Sehwag, but if only he can keep the burden aside, he can play like he did in 2009-10.

He has time-and-again proved that he is human, he gets bogged down when he nears a landmark. He failed miserably when he kept thinking about 10000 Test runs, about getting past Lara's record, about scoring 35th Test century, about scoring 50th Test century & about 100th century. He has to keep all these thoughts aside and stick to what he always says, you should continue to play, records happen alongway. The more he thinks about these thinks, the more he is going to fail. One failure will put more pressure and then second, then third, and so on. The first thing he probably needs to do is to find some psychological help, someone who can help him overcome his anxiety.

The second thing he needs to do is to stop over practicing. Every time he gets out cheaply he heads towards the nets and practices like anything. He has the most perfect technique anyone can have and that has been tried and tested and polished over two decades. He doesn't need to worry about his technique, its all in minds now. He needs to just do the normal drills and net-sessions.

The third thing he needs to do is to stay away from everyone, no matter who he is, former player, current player, media, anyone. He can even go for a small holiday after the test series, relax, freshen up and come back rejuvenated for the ODI series.

As Lara said, he still has a year or so in him. Who knows, the prospect of reaching 200 tests might ignite another spark in the fading light and he will retire on a higher note. Kapil Dev rightly said, he should have retired after World Cup win. But if he hasn't then we just leave it to him. If he underperforms, he can be dropped or rested. But let us stop talking about his retirement. I have seen many people who have been pathetic in playing the game, but they are now so-called experts. One piece of advice, if they were asked to stop playing, they shouldn't take revenge on Sachin.

Is Virat Kohli the next big thing?

Virat Kohli has been in superb form with his batting in 2012, having already scored a good number of ODI centuries. More importantly he has tried to be on the wicket till the end, succeeding in quite a few attempts. Everyone is going gaga on his form, temperament, attitude, technique. Many are saying, he is the next big thing in Indian cricket. So is he? Well, I am penning my opinion based on what I have observed. So here we go...

No doubt, Virat has emerged as an exciting new talent, and has already started making an impression, although it has been somewhat darkened by his so-called arrogance and antics on the field. Afterall, he has tasted success at a very young age, and the breed of people who taste success at raw age and still keep their feet on ground is fast vanishing. Perhaps, he should learn some tips from the most famous cricketer of our age how to keep himself cool and calm and take the success in his stride; referring to "aapla Sachu".

There are four main things that I consider in a sportsperson, more importantly a cricketer and even more importantly a batsman, as that's what Virat is known for.
1) Technique
2) Temperament
3) Attitude/Approach towards the game/situation
4) Hunger/Desire to excel
I would try to evaluate him (& at times compare him) on the above.

1) Technique:
There is no doubt, that Virat Kohli has the technique. He does have a wide array of strokes and often relies on text-book shots, which are almost perfect in execution. He has a good defense, however, that is yet to be tested in test matches in hostile conditions. Yes, he scored a century in last match of the Australia series. But it is not the century that matters, it is the consistency of using the right shot at the right time. It wouldn't be fair to judge him so early as he has played too less of test cricket. But for the time being his technique is quite a useful one for ODIs and T20s. His way of playing reminds more of Sachin's younger days where he would tackle the bowlers head-on and often dominate them. So presently, his technique is more than enough and he can excel in sub-continent conditions even in test matches. (4/5 for ODIs and T20s; 3/5 for Tests)
2) Temperament:
This has been a bit of problem area for Virat Kohli. You don't need a attacking player remain calm and composed every minute. There are frustrations, there are emotions and even the best of the best players are unable to control them at some stage. Even the otherwise-sage like Rahul Dravid would show some amount of frustration when he witnessed a mis-field or a dropped catch when he was the captain. But, there have been numerous occasions, where he has let go emotions without any control and that's not a good sign. People would surely misinterprete it as over-arrogance which usually comes to people who taste success at a very young age. Temperament would also mean how a player functions in testing situation and if you are not able to control your emotions, the performance get affected. He has a long way to go. (3/5)
3) Attitude/Approach toward the game/situation:
Recently, Virat has shown the maturity to play sensible cricket, bat through the innings. And that is commendable. He has quickly learnt how to keep things going, how to keep scoreboard ticking by rotating the strike and how to control big shots when not needed. All he now needs to do is to implement this knowledge in test cricket whenever he gets chance. He has always tried his best to make most of the chances he got. So I don't think he lags behind on this aspect. He has the ability to keep cool while batting & he is a thinking cricketer. (5/5)
4) Hunger/Desire to excel:
That is one aspect in which Sachin stands heads-&-shoulders above anyone who has played the game. Inspite of ruling the batting for more than 2 decades he still goes back to the nets, tries to improve upon something that he has not liked. He tries to adapt himself to various things before any series and that's why he is where he is now. I don't mean to say that Virat should follow his footsteps, but he needs to focus more on his skills in the small time he gets between two series. I am sure he is doing that. (4/5)
Total 16/20 for ODIs & T20s and 15/20 for Tests)

MP Sachin

First of all, congratulations to SRT on getting nominated for Rajya Sabhi seat. I do hope it is nothing related to appearing for election and winning the seat in Parliament. Rajya Sabha has entirely different criterion. That he has accepted the offer doesn't mean he would be into active politics, atleast not till he is playing.

Personally, I feel, whether he should join politics or not, that is entirely his own decision. Who and why are we making so much fuss about it? Whether he uses his MP credentials for the sport or not is to be seen. But then considering his love for sport, he might do something atleast, when he is not playing. Rest is best left to future.

Now there have been many Indians (mostly those who oppose his selection) who have been saying that he shouldn't have been selected in first place as he has done nothing good for the sports, or even for cricket, neither has he shown any concern for people in India by way of investing in poor people's resurrection, etc. But, they are conveniently ignoring the fact that he has been actively involved in funding education and accommodation of 1000 poor students through "Apnalaya". It is always a personal choice which institution or organisation or NGO to choose for public welfare and he has chosen the one which is run by his mother-in-law. However, the fact remains that he is care-taker in a way for those children and he is involved actively in promoting education to these under-privileged kids.

Thereafter, talking about working for sports, he has been the one in forefront in resurrecting Indian cricket (along with Ganguly-Dravid-Kumble) in the match-fixing era. He had been the face of Indian cricket and brought back glory to the game. And, if I am not wrong, I haven't see any player (atleast in India) who has his own academy even while himself playing for the country. The academy structure is used by the retired players only. Sunil Gavaskar is yet to build his academy on the piece of ground allotted to him by the Government, and he has retired 24-25 years back. So till the time SRT is playing, I am not sure he would be actively involved in anything related to prominent sports promotion.

We all have been confusing his MP stature with active politics which, we feel, includes rallying for parties for election, giving speeches, taking bribes and getting involved in multi-billion scams. Sachin's MP selection has nothing to do with all this. He may choose to support any party and rally for elections. But, mere his selection as MP doesn't warrant his active participation in politics unless he decides to. He has categorically specified that he is not getting involved in politics, atleast not till he is playing. He has always maintained distance with politicians and stayed away from any controversy, even remotely related to politics.

He may or may not find time for visiting Rajya Sabha and fighting for sports world in India. But understand one thing. Many of the current RS members who are celebrities, also have not regularly visited RS and fought for the things they ought to. So who knows, when he retires (whenever he feels so), he might be regular visitor (travelling from Mumbai to Delhi) and then we might expect him to do what he is expected to do so.

So till then, just relax and let him do what he wants. We may have treated him as GOD of Cricket, but he has a personal life of which only he can decide. You can worship him, not order him to do things in life.

An Eye-OPENER

Rajasthan Royals are looking in tremendous form in this year's IPL. Rahul Dravid has been continuing to do what Shane Warne left. He is instilling a sense of self-belief in the lesser known players. Even their overseas players are not all-conquering famous stalwarts of the game. Johan Botha, Kevon Cooper, Brad Hodge, Owais Shah are not really the best or most famous players in the international cricket. Shaun Tait hasn't played yet in all the matches.

It is the mix of domestic and overseas players that has done well combined and that's working for RR. But the real revelation has been the arrival of Ajinky Rahane. He represents Mumbai in domestic fraternity. Everyone in domestic cricket knows what he is capable of in the domestic arena. He is a typical Mumbai batsman carrying over the legacy of the great names that have featured in the playing XI of Mumbai for past so many decades. His technique is rock-solid, he can defend well. But more importantly, he has the ability to convert the opportunities. He can score of good deliveries too and he knows how to pace his innings as per the situation. Something, that is synonymous with the quality of Mumbai batsmen over the years.

When he was selected for the Indian team a year back as a replacement of Virender Sehwag on the English tour, he didn't disappoint. He scored 2 half-centuries as an opener and apart from the deliveries that took his wicket, he rarely seemed uncomfortable in those conditions. When Dhoni and team were vouching for the rotation policy, I strongly feel, Ajinkya should have got a chance. But seems, the selection committee is sticking to its anti-Mumbai policy for selection.

Over the past decade, I have observed that players of Mumbai team are not really considered for selection when it comes to selecting the national team. Earlier, there was a zone-based selection which was abolished later. Now it is said that the selection committee considers the domestic performances and the current form of the player. Not all of it is true. Yes, we do have many brilliant cricketers from other parts of the country. There are consistent batsmen (Manoj Tiwary or Cheteshwar Pujara), brilliant bowlers (Varun Aaron or Ashok Dinda). But just have a look at the Mumbai players. Amol Muzumdar has been consistently scoring tons of runs for past 10-15 years. He had to change his team to Assam because he was being ignored. Wasim Jaffer is the most successful opener in the history of Ranji tournament. Whenever he scores, he scores big. Dhaval Kulkarni has been a outstanding success, post 1st IPL under the guidance of Shaun Pollock. Abhishek Nayar had good all-rounder credentials. Where are these players? Currently only 3 Mumbai players are playing in the national team; Sachin Tendulkar, Zaheer Khan and Rohit Sharma. Zaheer was representing Baroda before moving recently to Mumbai. Ajit Agarkar was carted round the park, and we all know what happened to Vinod Kambli.

Having said that, I still feel Mumbai has produced enough players in the past decade who were ignored. In the past, half of the Indian team used to be from Mumbai, and without doubt they all deserved their places. In the 80s, it was probably the golden era for Mumbai Ranji team. Sunil Gavaskar, Dilip Vengsarkar, Sandip Patil, Balwindersingh Sandhu, Ravi Shastri were in the Indian team (they also played in the 1983 WC) together. The last time when 3 or more Mumbai players played together for a longer time in national team must have been in 1992 WC. Ravi Shastri, Sachin Tendulkar, Vinod Kambli, Sanjay Manjrekar (he played with Railways earlier, then switched to Mumbai) played in the 1992 WC in Australia-New Zealand. They also played together in the Test series preceding the WC against Australia. Currently, Sachin-Zaheer-Rohit play together, but that's not in a test match and as mentioned earlier, Rohit Sharma is not a regular test player; though he might get his chance post Dravid's retirement.

Wasim Jaffer was given few chances and he utilised them well. But age is against him and the perception of the selection committee that he is a back-foot player and may not do well in South Africa or Australia has gone against him. Amol Mujumdar was ignored without any reason. Vinod Kambli was given ample chances in the 90s, but more often those were like going and scoring a quick-fire 40-50 needed in 15-20 balls, or when the team was in deep trouble and there wouldn't be any recognised batsman after him. Agreed, he lost his place due to his antics more. But the fact is that he was a batsman who would be more devastating than even Sachin Tendulkar in his prime form. Kambli was India's Brian Lara. If he had kept himself cool and determined like Sachin, he surely would have been the toughest competitor for Sachin and that surely wasn't bad for Indian cricket. Abey Kuruvilla was given a chance when he was close to retirement age. Nilesh Kulkarni was ignored after respectable performances. A couple of years ago, Abhishek Nayar was selected for the national services. He too was later ignored after only a couple of failures. Even Dhaval Kulkarni is seen warming the bench in a good number of series.

What Ajinkya Rahane has done now is that he has scored big in two innings. First a 98 in the opening match for RR and then a brilliant century. In both innings his strike-rate is around 150 which is considered amongst the best in T20. He not just scored fast, he scored by good cricketing shots. His technique, his aggression and his footwork was absolutely brilliant. That he scored 16 fours in his 98 shows that you don't require to rely on big sixes. His placement, his timing and his wrist-work, all were first-class. There are other flamboyant batsmen in the IPL who can score faster, destroy the bowling attack. People like Gayle, Watson, McCullum, Sehwag have done that before and are doing that even now. But to see Rahane scoring those runs, was a pleasing thing. If I was the bowler, I would have not cursed myself because I knew I didn't bowl badly. It was just brilliance at work against me.

So is he the next big thing? Is he worthy successor of Sachin/Sehwag? Is he going to compete with Rohit Sharma / Virat Kohli? Is the opener that India will need after Sachin retires from ODIs? Well, it is too early to predict that with full assurance. But one thing is sure. He will not disappoint you if you pick him. We all could say, he has scored these runs on flat Indian wickets. But remember the T20 WC is in Sri Lanka and those wickets are not too different from the Indian wickets. Atleast we can give him a chance as a third opener, play him in some matches and give the chance he deserves. Sachin doesn't play international T20, so he won't be blocking his place anyway. As the title of this blog-post suggests, Ajinkya Rahane has so far been a real eye-opener and Srikanth and Dhoni should give a thought for him. They picked Ashwin on IPL performances. Now, Rahane should get his due. This is the right time and age for him to get a place in the national team. He may not become another Sachin Tendulkar. That we can leave to Rohit Sharma. But he surely can carve out his own place in the team and has all the abilities to do is.

Come'on BCCI, show some sanity and leave out the anti-Mumbai sentiments for some time. If the person deserves a recognition, no matter which zone/state/team he represents, he should be considered for selection and his performances should matter. Hope Ajinkya becomes the real eye-OPENER for us.

Century of Centuries...

Video Journalism is a tough tough job. You have to ask the stupidest questions in the most confident-looking manner. When the entire cricketing fraternity was desperately awaiting the most coveted landmark of 100 international centuries, the visual media (along with it's elder sibling, print media) was busy accumulating the fact and figures of how many centuries HE has scored in losing cause; or how many innings he was close to scoring a century and couldn't thus losing the task assigned to HIM; and so on. For past 15+ years, media had come to a saturation point of praising HIM and hence to create some thrilling atmosphere, it seems the media had taken that task on itself. And that thrill, they believe, can only be created by talking about stupid facts and the deadly stupidest of observations. And hence, it seems they had to take up the unhappy task of praising the man whom they have been not liked for the past few years for not providing them the fodder that is required to keep their business and TRP running.

Yesterday when SRT scored his most difficult century (in terms of the stupid pressure of expectation of magical number), I had thought it must have been a bad day for the media, as few days back they were all asking for his retirement and giving way to some deserving youngster. But I must admit, I was quite surprised (maybe pleasantly) to see them praising HIM. But as expected, there were a few stalwart journalists/reporters/newsreaders who had the last laugh. HE scored his century, unfortunately the slowest of all ODI centuries scored earlier, and more importantly India still managed to lose the match which they could have won when Bangladesh needed 33 of last 18 balls. The same media got a great weapon in their hand.
"Didn't India lose the match because of HIS slow batting?"
"Didn't HE succumb to the pressure of the Bangladesh team for desperately wanting the century?"
"Is personal milestone of one man hurting the entire team?"
"Now that he has scored the magical hundred, shouldn't he retire from the game?"
These were the few "highly-intellectual" questions asked by the "sarva-gyaani" media who knows cricket better than anyone in this small cricketing-world. And inspite of the so-called guest-experts were hailing HIM for the achievement and praising the dedication and determination of HIM, how could the media do the same and bore the people by giving stale information that has been imparted for last 15+ years?

I have been following SRT for the past 15+ years, especially since 1996 WC. I do not claim to know HIM in person or to be his biggest fan, or to be most knowledgeable cricket student. Neither have I played any first-class cricket. But I have followed the game with passion. I have attempted to study the game, especially post 1996 as I mentioned above. It is not just one man, but I have seen the other big names in cricket too. Brian Lara, Waugh brothers, Aravinda De'Silva, Sanath Jayasuriya, Saeed Anwar, Inzamam-Ul-Haq and many more. Each of these players are great in their own place; each have made their respective teams/countries proud. More importantly, each have played the game giving their heart and soul. So what makes SRT different from others? According to me, the most important distinguishing factor of SRT is HIS child-like innocent passion for the game. HE "lives" cricket. HE keeps coming back stronger after every set-back because HE is still student of the game. That is why time and again HE goes back to the drawing board, back to the basics, and tries to improve HIS already perfect skills. This factor alone makes HIS the most humble mega-star the country has ever seen. HE isn't just loved by the cricket-world and the country just for HIS achievements. HE is loved and respected because HE does what no one else would do in this era. HE is respected because HE does things the way only HE can do. HIS celebration of the 100th century was a typical SRT one. No jubiliation, no punching fists, no pointing to the world HIS finger. HE just removed the helmet, raised both hands in air, looked up towards the sky, shook hands with opposition players and moved on. Just for a second, imagine a Virat Kohli reaching this landmark.

Only till a day ago, the entire media was making news by saying that it has been too long since the last century and the landmark is weighing heavily on HIS mind and HE should make way for the youngsters. Now the same media is blaming HIM for scoring that century and in the process losing the match for India. No better example of two-faced sword. I am not in a mood to praise SRT and blindly join the millions who do that. Neither am I going to repeat all those words that millions of people have already known. Neither am I his spokesperson. But I am just a fan of the game and love the Indian team and would continue to love them even if they lose every single match in next many years (as long as they are putting up a brave fight and not going down without any effort). I am also not going to defend SRT from the media. But I would like to ask a few questions and answer a few.

1. Whenever SRT scores a century the team loses the match. I don't think if anyone can ask a more stupid question than this. Even in yesterday's match, 289 was a respectable total considering the fact that we had a relatively good bowling attack. We could have won the match with a acceptable margin had Irfan not bowled those loose deliveries in the 48th over and also Praveen not bowled that no-ball boundary and six later. It is understandable that the Bangladesh players were going to go for the big shots as they had 6 wickets left at that stage. A little sensible bowling was expected and the match would have been ours. Yes, HE played slow, but then I still won't blame HIM as it was us who wanted that 100 badly not HIM. HE just wanted to get that monkey off HIS back. Every time HE has scored a 100 in a losing cause, I hope these media-experts will bother or trouble themselves to pull out the statistics (which they love to throw on our face) and see the other players' performances. Out of those 25 centuries where India has lost the match, atleast in 90% of the matches the other 10 players have failed to build upon the foundation given. The sand-storm match, the most painful Chennai test against Pakistan (1999), the 175 against Australia in Hyderabad in 2008. Many such examples can be given. In the recently concluded WC-2011 HE scored 2 centuries, and that were at a good pace, against good teams. But we almost lost one against England and lost the other against South Africa.

2. He fails when the team needs HIM badly. I never knew cricket was a game of individuals. I was a fool to think its a team-game. Yes I have seen HIM fail at crucial occasions. But then give it a thought. Is it really the pressure of the game? I don't think so. Its the pressure of desperation to perform HIS best at the highest possible level. In HIS career (till now) Indian reached the WC final only twice, 2003 and 2011. On both occasions, HE scored 2 centuries each and helped India to reach the finals. Yes a century in finals would have been the masterpiece, especially in 2003 when we were chasing 360. But HE mistimed that one rising delivery of McGrath. HE was desperate to perform as HE was living HIS dream of playing in WC Final. Any person could have made that mistake. But we can't let HIM commit it because HE is our GOD. We have placed HIM there on that thorny throne without HIM asking for it. So we feel it is our birth-right to expect HIM to score as and when we want, not as and when HE can. It could have been HIS last chance at the WC, though luckily HE got another go last year. There too, we expected HIM to score a century, especially since the game was at Wankhede. But why can't we expect HIM to just perform and not expect a century every time HE plays? Is a century the only measuring tape for HIM? There have been many great batsmen from Australia/England. No one bothers to expect or criticize them. Adam Gilchrist is a loved-player in Australia. When he failed in the 2003 WC final, no one bother to criticize his attitude towards the game as they knew its just a game and a century can't be planned, NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE. I wonder, how long HE has to bear this insult. I would like HIM to retire only to avoid this insult.

3. He is selecting matches & disturbing the future players. Well, I strongly feel, he should have played the ODI series against West Indies. That was his best chance to score that 100th century after a series of "failures" (his highest score in England series was 91) and before travelling to Australia. Australia is the most gruelling tour for any batsman, especially from the sub-continent. Firstly the grounds are huge, very large in dimensions. Secondly, the pitches are pace-friendly, having good bounce and carry. Thirdly, our lower middle order is still new with the likes of Rohit and Virat and a few others to name of. It was only because it was Australia, I think Rahul Dravid thought of carrying his career further. He is a proud cricketer like SRT and he wanted to give it his best, for the last time. And after a successful individual tour of England, it was really no surprise to see him making himself available for the one last adventure. It is also the same reason why SRT too played the ODI series. HE strongly feels HE still has some cricket left in HIM, which is why HE is still playing. Yes HE is selecting matches. But has anyone bothered to see which matches/series HE is playing? HE didn't travel to West Indies. HE didn't play ODI in England due to his injury. HE didn't play ODIs against West Indies. But he has played the important tournaments. Australia has been the best team by far and HE chose to play against them. So it shows HE was ready for the pressure and test HIMself.

4. HE is blocking the place of youngster, especially in ODIs. Suresh Raina, Rohit Sharma, Virat Kohli are no youngsters now. They all have got enough opportunities and have performed quite well. Manoj Tiwary has had to sit out, but there are couple of youngsters who are playing in the team and not performing. Why isn't anything said about them? Ravindra Jadeja hasn't been performing really well. Why can't Manoj Tiwary take his place? Is he going to be our regular opener if he gets a place in team? We already have Sehwag and Gambhir to open the innings in absence of SRT. So Tiwary is not going to be our regular opener atleast for next couple of years. So does that mean SRT is blocking Tiwary's place? Ajinkya Rahane was also considered for the opening slot, but again the same logic applies to him as well. When we have Sehwag and Gambhir, when would Rahane get a chance? Why was Robin Uthappa left out after he played good in Australia in 2008? Wasn't he a regular opener for his domestic team and touted as a fierce opener for national team? So whose place is SRT blocking? Even in tests, he is coming at no. 4. We had Dravid at no. 3 and Laxman at no. 5. Barring a few brilliant knocks, VVS hasn't been a raving success for the team, especially out of the sub-continent. He has always been gritty and worked as hard as anyone. But still he hasn't tasted regular success as much as Dravid or SRT did. So when he was failing in England and Australia, why wasn't the cry for his retirement as high as it was for SRT? We all know at the back of our minds that these 3 are indispensable and we are not going to get their replacements overnight. These players have toiled hard, dedicated their minds and lives to the game. They know how to tackle difficult situations, know how to build their innings and inspite being from the era of modern bang-bang cricket they know the value of putting their heads down in crisis and build their innings. Which young players have these qualities? It was SRT in his only 3 series in career who score a fighting determined century and pulled India out of a defeat. Which current youngster would show this determination? I haven't seen any, not even Kohli/Sharma/Raina/Tiwary. And I am talking about hostile foreign conditions, not flat Indian wickets.

5. Now that HE has scored his 100th century, HE should retire. Stupid expectation. Who are we to ask HIM to retire. Do we pay HIM money from our pocket to expect HIM to provide the desired results? It is completely a matter between HIM and the team/BCCI. No one else has the right to even utter the word retirement. Not even to any other player, not just SRT. If they are not performing it is the Selection Committee's duty to either select the player or ignore him. It is argued that "we pay to see the match, so the players should play good". Well my dear friends, the players don't play for you and me. They play for the team, the country as a whole. They have not come to your home inviting you for seeing the match or begged to you to see the match on TV. If you are not liking a particular player or the game, you have the remote in your hand. Change the channel and see some stupid saas-bahu serial or some reality show. Don't you fail at your job ever? Have you never got a piece of mind from your bosses for failing at your deadline or failing at work? You and me have nothing to do with the selection. All we can do, or rather should do, is to sit and enjoy the game, its thrill. I am not saying this about SRT, but for any player of any game, not just cricket. SRT plays for pride and passion towards the game. He is the best person to decide whether he should play or not. It is the Selection Committee's job to decide whether he should be picked for the tournament or not.

Now coming to the questions that I want to ask. Well I haven't missed any. I have just put them in the 5 points mentioned above. There are many more things to talk. But I am still not out of the pleasure zone after HE scored the 100th century. As of now I can only say "TO BE CONTINUED..." Hope you are bored enough to stop asking stupid questions. Hope you are bored enough to stop following the stupid two-faced media. Relax yaar... CHILL. Now that HE has scored that landmark, lets give him his space and I am damn sure he is going to play good again.

A legend retires...

"The Wall" has retired. I wish I could add the word "unexpectedly". The Wall was always strong, but off-late it looked like it would crumble. I still don't buy the argument that he should make way for the youngsters; his technique went surprisingly wrong after just one series against West Indies in home condition; his reflexes went seriously slow just 6 months after the England tour where he was the most successful batsman for India. But having said that, I have no doubt that he made the right choice, the right decision. Even if he would have had a successful Australia tour (which surprisingly he never had except that one match-winning hundred in Adelaide in 2003-04), I honestly think it was the right time to announce his retirement. He had nothing to prove to anyone. He has been the most successful no.3 batsman, this side of Sir Don, and certainly the best batsman in recent times in terms of technique, temperament and approach to the game. If some people think he should have retired after the England tour, I would put my argument saying that the "Tour Down Under" is one of the most difficult and grueling tour for any batsman from the sub-continent. And his presence would have certainly helped the Indian team. That it didn't help much, isn't too disappointing considering the fact that except for the one century by Virat Kohli, none of the batsmen looked assuring on this one tour (including the great Sachin).

Looking back on the last 16 years of Indian cricket, as much as Sachin's impact on the game, Indian cricket has been blessed with two batsmen who have remained in the shadow of Sachin, but still had their own way of making an impact on the game. At the opening slot, we have Virender Sehwag who would feast on the pacers, score at brisk rate and give the platform for the middle-order. If it wasn't Sehwag's batting, we wouldn't have won majority of the matches outside the sub-continent. Having said that, the team also needed someone who could keep himself calm and assured while Sehwag bludgeoned the bowlers. And we couldn't have found anyone better than Dravid himself. It was his cool-calm-composed way of batting which ensured that after the fall of first wicket (especially if it was Sehwag) we had someone who could stop the fall further, and build his innings and then take the game away slowly but steadily from the opposition. Even before Sehwag burst onto the international scene, we had a huge set of problems finding a proper opener. That demon would raise it's head very profoundly on foreign pitches. And it is this reason why Dravid was so much wanted when the team would require him to walk onto the pitch, many a times in the first few overs of the innings.

Indian cricket in the 1990s was always heavily dependent on Sachin Tendulkar. (It will again be, now that Dravid has retired and it would still take a lot of time for someone to step in those big shoes left by him.) And it really was a blessing to have Dravid who could absorb the initial shocks for the team and let Sachin & others walk-in to play freely. Sadly, Dravid always had to stay behind the scenes or get overshadowed by either Sehwag at the start of the innings, or Sachin-Laxman in the later stages of the innings. But he never complained and that's the beauty of this man. He always knew only one thing, to put head down and focus on the job and save the team; he did this successfully over 15 years. I am waiting to see any youngster showing this quality. There would be many "deserving" candidates/youngsters who are desperately waiting to make their mark on the game. They might be very good-compact in their technique and might be fearless enough to play some aggressive innings rather than putting their heads down and knitting an innings. But I haven't seen this abovementioned quality in them. We have a Virat Kohli who has one of the best techniques in modern army of youngsters waiting for their turns. We have a Rohit Sharma who, like Inzamam, has lot of time to play his shots and has great technique. We have a Cheteshwar Pujara who is as good as Dravid. But the question is, do they have that temperament, that approach, that grittiness, that determination to hand around for as long as needed? With the current bombarding of T20, batsmen are more interested in playing their shots, hit boundaries, than knitting-building their innings.

It is not because Dravid commands respect, that he shouldn't be asked to hang-up his boots. It is not because he was one of the best batsman who played the game, that he shouldn't have quit the game. It is because, one series failure is no reason to question his abilities, his commitments, his desire to represent the country. Just 6 months back, he was the best batsman on the England tour. Just 6 months back the country was busy praising his technique, his dedication to bring glory to the country/team in terms of cricket. Just 6 months back, he scored 4 back-to-back centuries when the entire team was struggling to put bat to the ball. Unless, his clone played thereafter, I see no big reason why his technique-reflexes deteriorated so much that he failed in Australia. Mind you, he has scored only 2 centuries against the Aussies, one that famous 180 in Kolkata (2001-02), and one in Adelaide (2003-04). He hasn't exactly failed against them, but never had a flair of success either. So his failure, hasn't been really a glaring point enough to ask for his retirement. As said earlier, only due to the importance of this tour he seems to have made himself available.

Unlike Sachin Tendulkar, I have not seen major changes or modifications in Dravid's technique or way of batting in test cricket over the years. Fortunately, he was never unfit enough to miss any test-series, and he didn't have to make any such changes either. Inspite of this, his batting was always life-infusing for the team. He may not have the glamour of Sachin-Sehwag or even Laxman-Ganguly in his batting. But it never restricted him. He had the best of the techniques and almost every shot in the book. That is the reason behind his success, behind his 13000 test runs (and 10000 ODI runs too). He never kept the book aside. Whatever was the situation, this attitude, this loyalty to the technique helped him and gave him success. Or else how do you expect a slow run-getter like him to score 10000 ODI runs in just 350+ matches?

With Dravid, sadly, the cricket-book has closed down, maybe forever. Yes, there are still two batsman who are great students of this copy-book type of cricket, made famous by people like Gavaskar, Boycott, etc. But Sachin and Laxman often keep this bookish way aside and play a different game, Sachin does it more often, he has written a new book himself (I mean new non-bookish strokes). Dravid was the last player who was always loyal to that type and class of cricket. Now all that remains is group of stylish players, stroke-makers, and a huge group of T20 players.

RSD, you would certainly be missed. Your contribution to the game, no matter how overshadowed it has been in the company of SRT/SCG/VVSL, will always be remembered and we would cherish those memorable performances for a long time. The scene of you punching the hand in the air after hitting the winning-runs at Adelaide (2003-04) will never be forgotten, for that sums up your contribution. Selfless, gritty and never-say-die attitude.

Thank you for those wonderful, calm and honestly dedicated 16 years you gave for the team and for the country. Hope we now see you in a better role, in administration of the game. You have so much more than playing game to offer.

Shame Down Under

Yet another series loss, rather ‘complete white-wash’. It was a scene straight from the 80s, and even early 90s. Some may even remember the white-washes in the pre-70s era. In those days too, the then-Indian teams would put up some fight and to draw a match was considered quite good rather than losing the entire series by nil. But here the “modern” Indian team didn’t even put up a fight and we are talking of a relatively in-experienced and battered test-side of Aussies. I strongly believed the white-wash in England was a “one-off” case and was expecting the team to draw atleast 2 matches out of 4, especially in Sydney and Adelaide considering our previous performances there.


Wins and Losses are inevitable part of the game. Especially whenever an Australian team is involved. They never play for a draw as much as possible. Even if they are in very bad position, they would still put up a strong fight and someone does stand up to get counted. Prior to this series, Ricky Ponting, Michael Hussey and Michael Clarke were not performing upto their expectations. All of them, though quite inexperienced, were not coming good in the past year or so. So when Aussies were down by a few quick wickets, I quite naturally expected our bowlers to run through their middle order and restrict them to a smaller score. What happened still baffles me; probably my prayers got answered by an Aussie God. These three, especially Ponting & Clarke, played so well in three matches out of four, that it looked like Sachin-Dravid-Laxman played for Australia in their disguise.


My prayers for good performance by our celebrity-middle-order got shifted (someone in the heavens must have done that, or like our politicians says, foreign hand) to Aussie middle-order. Instead of our bowlers running through their middle-order, their bowlers did exactly that with our batsmen. The batting failed primarily, and ofcourse things were made worse by our bowlers not performing. I thought, when the batsmen failed, our bowlers could have tried to put some ointment on the wounds, but they failed miserably too. A lot of media-reviews and self-inspection has happened over the period and will continue till the next overseas series. But I am putting down my observations which I found very alarming. Alarming, because only a year back the Indian team was “Number-One” (for roughly 18 months) in ICC Test Rankings. Alarming because we lost 2 back-to-back overseas tour without even drawing a single test match. Alarming because we seem to have lost the killer instinct and fighting spirit which is the most important quality for test matches. Here I go…


• Failure of Openers: Since about 2003 (post WC-2003) our team has performed exceptionally well on all overseas tours. Earlier, we would be happy if we could even draw one of the matches in the series. But since Sourav Ganguly took over, we also developed the habit of winning atleast one match and put up a strong fight in other. However, the credit also goes to the openers, especially Sehwag. He would bludgeon the opposition bowlers and at a very fast pace which would give the celebrity-middle-order a great chance and platform to perform the remaining rites and put up a good defendable score for the bowlers. In the series against England, Sehwag didn’t play and the makeshift openers didn’t put up any performance. In Australia, the regular openers, Sehwag and Gambhir played, but consistently failed. More often we saw Dravid taking his stance in first 10 overs and Sachin coming soon. Ofcourse, ideally none of these players should complain because they have the experience to handle any situation. But consider the fact that, in none of the 8 matches, we saw a good opening partnership and the middle-order was instantly exposed to the new ball.


• Failure of the Middle-order: The Indian middle-order, collectively, has scored more runs than any entire team currently playing in the world. 38000 is a big number in whatever way you look at it. They have scored in different situations, different grounds, different playing conditions, against different bowlers, different captains with a huge variety of gameplans against them. However, seeing a Dravid getting bowled too-often or a Laxman struggling against bowlers and a Sachin under-performing only because of the 100th century playing on everybody’s mind was a real shock. It was expected that atleast they would build-up the falling innings and bring some pride back. But there were no partnerships. Dravid and Laxman are not young enough to replicate that 350+ partnership in Kolkata against the Aussies. Sachin is not young enough to show what he has done for the past 20+ years. But being unable to score a single century in 8 innings in Australia is nothing short of a shock. Their collective failure put up huge pressure on the lower order, especially Kohli (who now should come up at No. 3) and Dhoni who now needs to be more aggressive than defensive.


• Failure of the bowlers: Indian bowlers have been known to let loose the grip which they get by initial quick wickets and sadly, they lived upto this reputation, first in England and now in Australia. Interesting to see the dip in performance after Venkatesh Prasad was dethroned as bowling coach. Is there any connection? Also is there any connection between Duncan Fletcher’s bad luck with English bowlers when he was their coach? But we bowled too many wayward deliveries after getting first few wickets. We allowed the opposition batsmen to leave those deliveries, buy time to get “in” the game and then when we were tired they could easily prey on us. That’s what Ponting and Clarke did. That’s what the Englishmen did in England. Our bowlers looked fit and in shape. But that’s not the only thing. In England Praveen Kumar was the only bowler who threatened their batsmen. Here Umesh Yadav showed that in the first test match, but later faded away. There were very very very few wicket-taking deliveries as the match progressed. Aussie bowlers never gave any chance to our batsmen, bowled a consistent line and made our batsmen play and more importantly, their bowlers bowled to the captain’s field. Laxman’s wicket in the last inning of Adelaide was a perfect example of that. Even Sachin’s wicket in first innings of the same match was a good example. They made him play that shot and had their best fielder in the position for that shot. I didn’t see that happening with our bowlers.


• No fight put up: Again and again, I am coming to this point. There was simply no resistance. Not a single batsman showed the desire, intention to stay on the wicket. Every time when it seemed that a particular batsman is in good touch, he threw away his wicket by playing some extra-‘ordinary’ shot, even Sachin. Every time he looked in good touch, the batsman at the other end played some foolish shot, threw away his wicket and somehow Sachin would get under pressure and throw away his wicket too. There were quite a few instances where our batsmen could have shown some determination to atleast draw the test match and we failed at that. That is the biggest concern as far as the batting is related.


Now what can we do about this? There would be a minute and highly-critical analysis of the tour; there were a lot of cry about asking the seniors to retire. There would be a change in the captaincy demanded and media would be making the biggest noise, influencing the “aam janta” of India to think that losing the series is a serious crime and would affect the general life of the country. After a few months, or even days, we would forget all about this and the team would continue to play in the same manner as it did. The next overseas tour is more than a year far. Till then we would be playing in home conditions and we would again start winning matches and might even regain our lost “Number One” position. Meanwhile, some of the seniors might retire, or if not, would continue to add to their stellar performances till now. Ultimately, cricket is a sport, we watch it for our entertainment and not because our lives depend on it. Some would stop watching cricket and cry about the state of other sports in the country. But be sure, that one series win outside India in the future, will draw the public back to the game. After making a big noise about our bad performances, the same media would again start showing the matches and mint money from it. The main basic issues remain the same.


The issue of consecutive white-wash in overseas condition can probably be handled by the following:
• BCCI should look at a pool of 20+ players, at any given point of time and put them into Team-A. These people, a mixture of batsmen, bowlers, all-rounders and wicket-keepers should be specifically trained for the best possible results. Developing a good fast bowler from age 18-19 (or even less) is important so that his muscles develop in a way suitable. You can’t coach a 20+ guy for batting, it has to be in him or teach him when he is teenager or 18+.
• BCCI should include more and more overseas tours for the Team-A which is not the main international team. Send them to England, South Africa and Australia more and get them prepared whenever they are selected.
• Currently, the Ranji matches and few other domestic tournaments, focus the point-system based on first-innings lead. A disadvantage of that is, the players are more concerned about the first-innings lead and do not really think long-term of winning the match. A match can be won by second-innings performance as much as first-inning ones.
• Also a lot of domestic matches are played on flat wickets. It’s a given thing that any team would prepare the track as per the home team’s strength. So Aussies would prepare fast & bouncy tracks and we would prepare spinner-friendly tracks. But it is also important to notice that Aussies don’t lose the series by nil when they play in India. And no matter how flat or bouncy the track is the pacers surely come into the picture at the start of the innings atleast. So why not prepare “sporting” wickets like Wankhede or Mohali?
• BCCI should make it mandatory to any player in the international team to play atleast one full domestic season or tournament in a year. The players may choose which tournament to play, but they have to play in one, no matter what the international calendar says. This gives them the chance to sharpen their skills, and also impart their experience-knowledge to the juniors of their domestic teams. Imagine, Sachin playing in a full Ranji series. What a great experience that would be for Mumbai team and opponents too!
• We may also need to look at domestic talent as far as coach is concerned. Yes, the foreign coaches come up with great ideas, especially the attitude of winning. That’s what Gary Kirsten and John Wright did. But that’s past now. Duncan Fletcher surely has been a wrong choice. What good did he do the English team when he was their coach? A Ganguly or a Kumble would have been far better than him. If needed, we could have specialized domestic coaches in the money spent on one foreign coach. I am not against foreign coaches. But we don’t want to spend on someone who is not giving us results. Don’t we expect the players to play at their best as soon as they burst out on the scene? Why not the coach then? He had a readymade champion team for himself and what has he made out of it? He seems to be doing the same mistake Greg Chappell did, albeit in much toned-down way. Mere talking to the players and throwing balls to the batsmen will not do. He has to show them the way. He has to deal more into the psyche of the player, because they already know what they have to do.
• We also need to select only “fit” players. A mid-series injury is unavoidable. It is part-and-parcel of the game. But if the player is selected, he has to be “completely” fit and not “just-recovered” one. He has to play atleast 2-3 domestic matches to show that he has “fully” recovered from his injury or loss-of-form, by picking wickets or scoring runs, as the case maybe.
• And finally the team management should also pick players as per the conditions. A Rohit Sharma would have certainly been anyone’s first choice, especially in Perth or Sydney. We continued with Kohli instead. Yes, Kohli is another great prospect, but then atleast both should have played, by dropping Laxman or Gambhir or Sehwag.


Well, these are only few things that I could think of. There is no complete makeover needed for the current team. It is only that we would have to improve our bowling and batting. They don’t need anyone to help them improve their skills. They just need to check that they are not giving away too many runs when bowling and stop worrying about the opposition bowling while batting. We didn’t show the desire to learn from the mistakes or even stand-and-deliver attitude. This is the same team that has won so many times in varied conditions. One bad series doesn’t call for ouster of anyone. But if they are not going to show that hunger to fight back, they need to make way for others. This is not a domestic series; this is an international series where you are competing at the highest possible level.


It is imperative for me to come to the point of Sachin Tendulkar’s 100th century. Never have I seen him so under-performing for any reason other than his injuries. But the saving grace is that only he showed some resistance. Whenever, he got into his own, the batsman at the other end fell and he suddenly got under pressure. It wasn’t the pressure of the Aussies, or their bowling, it was a pressure of his own team. A team who failed miserably and unfortunately, this time he couldn’t save them, neither in England, nor in Australia. It is still unclear whether this will be his last tour down under. I am sure, if he goes beyond this 100-century mark and plays again as champion, he may well travel to Australia in 2015. But, that is just a probability. This time it seems, he has finally played his last test in Australia, or even England for that matter.


It is surprising to see how often and for how long we have expecting him to save the team, since he started that job in 1990 in Manchester. Every time, he put his feet on the ground, he has carried that responsibility and even when we have other stalwarts in the team, we still want him to perform. And stupidly continue to criticize the link of his century and team’s loss. Yes, he was a failure, for not even notching a century in the series, not even on his favorite ground, SCG. But then, I really doubt he could do anything with the weight of the magical number on his mind. It is for that reason; I wished he played the ODI series against the West Indies. He could have scored his magical hundred and then with a free mind could have taken on the Aussies. And then if had he failed, I too would have joined the cry of asking his retirement. But seems, we need to wait for some more time. That century is surely going to come, hopefully in the ODI series now, but if not now, then at some point of time in the year. But, then I feel he should now hang up his boots, atleast from ODI. Not because he is not performing or finding it difficult to cope up with the demands. But, it is hurting to see him getting under the pressure for no fault of his.


It is in these troubled times, the team needs the most support and backing. And it is good to see the BCCI standing behind the team, especially seniors and not asking for their retirements. A little sense is to be shown by the public. We should not bother about what the media, the print and visual, has to cry about the team. Yes the seniors are the culprits, but they are not the only ones responsible. Whoever played in the series have failed miserably and that doesn’t call for the removing of only the seniors. Maybe its time to re-think our strategies and change the entire system, once and for all. The good days are not too far. But are we ready to open the doors-windows to see them?

Weak Tourists

Indian Cricket Team has traditionally been weaker tourists, especially in test matches, no denying that fact. It is much more glaring fact when the team is touring places like England and Australia, with the new addition of South Africa (since 1990s). Most of us attribute this failure to different type of pitches than what we find in Indian sub-continent, especially in India. Let's check out, if its true. Firstly, let's take on the biggest reason given for the failures; pitches. It would be completely wrong and foolish to deny the role that the pitches play a part in failure of our cricket team abroad. In England, there is lot of seam movement and strong winds blowing. The Indian batsmen who are fed on lesser swing in Indian conditions (where there is hardly any grass on the wicket right from day 1) find it difficult to cope up with the moving ball. Also the bounce in the English wickets is higher than in Indian wickets. So the combination becomes quite lethal, as exposed by the recent England tour. However, we ignore one aspect of the game, that is our bowling. Our pace bowlers (that is if we are expected to call them pacers) have more pronounced swing than English bowlers in English conditions. This means, that they should be able to exploit it even more than the opposition. One thing is for sure, if you have to win a test match, you have to take 20 wickets. No matter how strong the batting line up is. Else we can anytime settle for a draw or a loss, if the batting doesn't click. Moreover, very rarely has Indian cricket had the liberty of playing more than 2 pacers. Either, we rely too much on our batsmen and spinners, or we just don't trust the pacers (maybe also due to the fact that not many bowlers, pacer or spinner, can bat). So more often we find only 4 specialist bowlers, and a couple of part-timers, of which more often only 2 are pacers and they have too much of workload and then we fail to take 20 wickets or let go the tight grip by offering too many runs to the lower order, later in the innings. So yes, swing in English conditions is our weaker point from batting perspective, but then if we are anyways going to lose the match due to weak batting, why not play 5 specialist bowlers out of which atleast 3 are pacers? A 4-pacer attack is my dream. Maybe we can also take advantage of the swing. Another reason given, usually, is the bounce in foreign conditions, like Australia & South Africa. Yes these wickets have a lot of bounce as compared to our wickets. But it's a true bounce, not an uneven one like in here. Indian batsmen are rarely good at hook or pull shots. They are also not good enough to negate the short pitch deliveries, barring a few celebrities. So more often we see the opposition bowlers bowling short pitch deliveries (at a good pace) and we start to lose wickets almost instantly. The players who have come from domestic tournaments (and overall all youngsters) have been fed upon the slow wickets which rarely produce any bounce. In my opinion, more and more overseas tours for the A-Team should be conducted to make them aware of the challenges in foreign conditions. The youngsters, (age group of 18-25) should be given more chance to travel overseas, especially to England/Australia/South Africa. This way they would get more opportunities to understand the wickets, the conditions, the ground. Players like Sachin/Dravid/Laxman always make a point to adjust their batting style to the wicket and ground, wherever they play. The way Sachin plays in South Africa is different from the way he plays in Australia. His way of scoring/accumulating runs differs. Not only because the bowlers are different, but it is also because of the pitches especially. Same goes for other celebrities like Dravid and Laxman. If the other specialist batsmen try to develop the same ability, hopefully they would be better off. India has always been known for it's batting prowess and if the batsmen start giving away their wickets for these reasons, I am sure we would never be able to write off the tag of "weak tourists". Thirdly, more often we hear the commentators, ex-crickets themselves, saying, the batsman threw away his wicket. Again, we are largely focusing on the batting aspect of Indian Cricket. Very often, especially after our World Cup win way back in 1983, we find batsmen adapting more and more ODI-format of the game into their test innings. So the shots that fetches them runs in ODIs are carried over to the longer version. Part of it is because we play more ODIs than Test matches. So when the bread-butter shot of ODI is played in Test match, it usually results in wicket falling. Imagine this, the ball in red color moves more, than in white color. Nothing related to the color, but the material from which the ball is made is different than the white one. Also, its important to see the attitude of the batsman. In ODI you would want to score as much as possible and as fast as possible. You can not afford to let dot-balls. But when you start bringing that attitude in the longer version, it would often spell disaster. Test cricket is all about patience, temperament, fighting attitude, and playing out sessions, either batting or bowling. This was too apparent in the recent England tour and now very much staring into the face, in Australia. We had to play out sessions and we failed. People who could stand there for days and bat, couldn't do that. They poked at deliveries, edged a few, and very depressing to see, not taking singles-doubles. When you can not score in boundaries, or can not afford to lose wicket while scoring boundaries, the best approach is to rotate the strike. Confuse the opposition, build the innings and a foundation for a launch later. That's what Ponting and Clarke did in the 2nd test at SCG. That's what England did in almost all Tests. In no time, they built a partnership which was worth 150-200+. My point is, when we start scoring in boundaries and can not defend deliveries when we are not able to score them, we just go and hit the ball. It is an open secret that we would just go out there in the middle and try to score off every single ball, slashing the wide deliveries, playing shots when we should be defending. This has come more from the ODI format and is little to do with the technique of that batsman. Not everyone can become Sehwag and score big runs at a brisk pace, regardless of the format. (Even Sehwag hasn't fired in Australia, yet in this series.) It has been the same problem with Gambhir. He looks confident in some innings, but has not been able to score runs the way he has done so often. So all he is managing to do is to edge the ball into the slips. When he got out on 83 in 2nd innings of SCG test recently, he was trying to work the ball into the leg-side gap when he could have defended the ball. He and Sachin were going at a fair rate. Other batsmen too tried too much to score runs and got out, when it was very much needed to stay on wicket and try for a draw. It was very clear, we would have not won the 2nd Test at Sydney. But we could have atleast tried to hang in there and take the match to the last day. May be we could have saved the match. But it wasn't to be. Lastly, we think too much about a few individuals. Yes, we have some celebrities who have shouldered the team for more than a decade, and have been quite good at it, though not very successful in terms of series results. But it is foolish to keep going back on the past deeds and judge the people on that. It was disappointing to see that everyone has been focusing on Sachin's 100th century and expecting him to get rid of that monkey from his back. But maybe that has been affecting the other players more than him. They aren't really comfortable focusing on their game and play like they have done in past. With all the talks and discussions focused on whether Sachin will score his century, we are missing out on the fact that everyone (unfortunately including his teammates) seem to expect him to score runs and shoulder the responsibility of taking them through in this tour. The intent to play big and better has been missing on their faces. They don't seem to be concentrating harder. Ideally, they should play much better as all the focus is on him. This provides them an ideal situation where they can get opportunities to come and make some score while he is at the other end. This hasn't been happening. Agreed, he is without a century for long time now. But he hasn't score small. He still averages above 45-50 after that last Test hundred in South Africa, just that he is not been able to convert that into a hundred, which he so effortlessly did all last year, scoring 7 Test centuries. Bigger part of the problem is that he isn't getting much support from the other end. Whenever he has looked good and on his way to a century, wickets have been falling around him. Being a top-middle-order player for more than 2 decades, he doesn't seem too be comfortable playing with tail-enders. They too haven't learnt the art of batting sensibly when a top-order batsman (especially the best batsman) is at the other end. We have seen too often the other batsman trying to go over the top or play flashy strokes and then the pressure starts building up on Sachin. Yes he is supposed to play in any condition. But that "any" condition should be opposition-made, not self-made. I am not at all defending Sachin's inability to score that magical hundred and then relax and start playing his natural game. What I am saying is that, we have been considering 6 specialist batsmen in almost every game and we are not playing sensible cricket. Even he has faltered an alarming number of times. But his failures haven't been as hurting as they are now, as now no one's playing good. At that time the team was winning, albeit in home conditions. But now that almost everyone is exposed to failure, he, inspite of being the most comfortable batsman in Australia, seems to be under minute observation; fault-finding is being done. I hope, the team makes a positive turn-around in the remaining test series in Australia. We have lost the opportunity to win the series. And I seriously doubt if we can win the next two matches. But it wont hurt badly if we play sensibly and restrict the Aussies. A 2-0 result is much much more better than a 4-0, which happened in England. If we are in a position like we were in Sydney, I seriously hope we play out the remaining days and draw the match. It would still be a fighting performance. No doubt, in modern times it might be termed as boring, but the skills that we have acquired in the net-practices should be worth enough to save the skin.