Why I love my American friends

While discussing (over email) soccer's possible growth in India (and chatting about a wonderful documentary on the New York Cosmos, Once in a Lifetime), my good friend Tom Connell wrote to me:

I think I heard that India really took it on the chin in a recent test against England, although perhaps they came back since there was more to be played. Probably just a lull after their World Cup triumph. I'm sure they want to give the rest of the world the illusion that they can catch up!

Close-in fielders need not apply

I've complained so often about the lack of close-in fielders for Indian spinners in recent times that I'm going to sound like a stuck record, but what the heck, here we go again. The fields set for Amit Mishra are utter shite. And MS Dhoni has to be the most defensive Indian captain I have ever seen in this regard. Someone shoot me please: no close-in fielders for a batsman, in his nineties, facing a leg-spinner?

PS: That post linked to above is from Different Strokes but I've mounted this complaint before on Eye on Cricket. I'm just too lazy to find the posts in question. Mea culpa.

Plumbing New Depths

By Sankaran Krishna

Even the most cynical and inured of Indian cricket fans will have to gasp in astonishment at the spectacle unfolding at the Oval. I'll confine myself to making a few points: (1) What exactly is Munaf Patel doing in the team if, despite injuries to both Zak and Praveen, he cannot make the playing XI? (2) The coach, the captain and the selectors knew before the series that Sehwag was not going to be able to play the first two tests and possibly the third. How then do they pick a team with 2 openers - one who made his test debut a few weeks before the series and the other quite untested in English conditions? (3) How do you take someone who is fresh out of shoulder surgery and has not played any cricket at all since his rehab (which had not even ended) and fork him in as opener in a test match? (4) How on earth does RP - who was not deemed good enough to be selected for the tour in the first place and has not played anything longer than a 3-hour T20 in half a year- being called to open the bowling at the Oval? Why not throw the ball to Ishant or Sreesanth at least? (5) How does one justify bringing on Raina before Mishra during the first day? (6) Given what we've seen of Raina's batting so far this series, its obvious that he's now in shell-shock. If Graeme Swann were to bowl a bouncer at him, he'll probably cough it up into the gully after averting his eyes from the ball. Why not give Virat a shot?

Its all rather depressing, and yet a tale foretold. Back in '74 we fell to pieces in similar fashion. Then too we came into England riding high - on the success of three series victories, two of them abroad. Its very likely that Cook or (God forbid) someone like Bopara is going to take us for a double- or triple hundred. Believe you me - the worst is yet to come.

Podcast Number Three - Oval Test plus Gavaskar/Shastri/BCCI

I think this file got clipped at the end; sorry about that. I'm not sure why Audacity played up like that. I just had a few sentences after that where I say "conflict of interest is pretty simple really; look it up!".

Legal interpretation and cricket

In responding to the post on the possible legality of the Trent Bridge Test match, reader joseph_kaye first posted a dismissive comment, suggesting the entire exercise was a waste of time (check comments), and then on my asking him to offer an argument, wrote:

Yes, Samir, but what's the use? Which of these two scenarios is more likely here:

1) A terrible miscarriage of justice has occurred, and only the penetrating Pushkar Pendse has seen it. Well, the result of a test match, and potentially the #1 ranking, hangs in the balance. This is no joke! He needs to inform the ICC at once!

Or,

2) It's perfectly clear to anyone what happened, and Pushkar Pendse is too too-clever-by-half in an incredibly tedious way.

In simpler words: it's an amateur's move to forget that the rules serve the game, not the other way round.

First, I think there is a third option. There hasn't been a terrible miscarriage of justice, and it isn't perfectly clear to anyone whats happened. People are still disagreeing about whether the ball was dead or not, whether Strauss or Flower were justified in going to Dhoni to have the appeal revoked. Perhaps we have a situation where an ambiguity in the laws has been exposed and the cricketing community needs to figure out an interpretation of the laws that makes it less ambiguous in the ways that Jonathan and Pushkar were attempting in their discussion. This is perfectly standard in legal practice: we have laws on the book, a situation occurs which does not appear to be covered by the rules they provide, and an adjudicator offers an interpretation that clarifies matters largely by showing how the rule is to be applied. Pushkar was offering an interpretation, perhaps a contested one, but given the lack of some sort of definitive or algorithmic interpretation of the laws (notice that Jonathans' reply depended on offering a particular charitable interpretation of the laws that would circumvent the possibilities raised by Pushkar).

Second, JK says "the rules serve the game, not the other way round." Really? What is this mythical "game" you speak of? A game, any game, such as it is, is defined by its rules, it is bound by them. If it isn't then we don't have a game on our hands, we just have some arbitrary activity going on. Not everything involving a ball and twenty-two players on a field is called "soccer". Sometimes it is called "hockey", sometimes it is called "cricket". Which appellation we use depends on the rules we apply, the rules the players follow. If I see ten folks on a court tossing around a ball, I only get to call it basketball because it follows the rules closely enough to be termed so. Otherwise, its something else, perhaps a variant. Thats why we say things like "3-on-3 basketball". If you change the rules of volleyball enough, you get sepak takraw.

Rules don't serve a game, they define it. Contesting an interpretation of the rules to contest the legality of a particular denouement of a game is most emphatically not an amateur's move. You might disagree with the interpretation, but you still need to offer a better one, one that makes sense of the situation, and describes how it sensibly accords with the rules so that the alleged violation has not taken place.

Well done MS, now do it again

I hope MS Dhoni is learning a lesson from the little demonstration that he has put on today: he invariably bats better when he bats aggressively. He will always be an unattractive batsman (though his hooking is a real throwback with its off-the-eyebrows emphasis) but he is capable of scoring runs when he allows himself the freedom of the lashing stroke.

Newsflash: England have a very good bowling attack

My angst over the comprehensive drubbing being handed out to India in this series has prevented me from being more generous. Churlish really. But England's attack is superb, well-balanced and very threatening. Not only are they taking wickets they have managed to expel any and all thoughts of any sort of counterattack from the Indian batting line-up. Well done.

Pathological altruism, test cricket, and MS Dhoni

I shit you not. Three days after my post questioning Dhoni's judgment in recalling Ian Bell at Trent Bridge went up at The Pitch, I received an email announcement from Barbara Oakley regarding her new book _Pathological Altruism_ From the book's description:

Hyperempathy - an excess of concern for what others think and how they feel - helps explain popular but poorly defined concepts such as codependency. In fact, pathological altruism, in the form of an unhealthy focus on others to the detriment of one's own needs, may underpin some personality disorders.

All facetiousness aside, the book does look interesting, and I might even attend Oakley's talk at the Community Church of New York in New York City, on East 35 Street, between Madison and Park, on August 11th, at 6:00 PM.

Brewing crises and cold comfort

"The sense of growing crisis". That is a nice turn of phrase; I've stolen it from the Independent. I suppose its an apt way to describe the developments of the last day or so on India's tour of England. For we have been treated to the news of a county side making 200 for the loss no wickets against India's "back-up" bowling attack, the recall of a flabbergasted Rahul Dravid to the India one-day international side, and the final, sad denouement to a catastrophic series for Zaheer, who is now, finally headed back to a therapist's table.

Sometimes things go wrong in in clusters. This is certainly one occasion. All the makings of an epic disaster are in place: injuries, selectorial panic, an out-of-form captain, a determined opponent, an away tour, a hostile media (both the opponent's and one's own), the sense of being the target of schadenfreude. One vital ingredient is missing thus far: internal dissension and strife. (Well, the Dravid selection announcement might have upset a few folks). If things continue to heat up, we might see that as well.

Where then, is one to find comfort in all of this? I suggest the answer lies in a knowledge of history, especially that of the Indian team. By that I don't mean the usual, facile bullshit that has been quite fashionable in the past few years "Oh, we are slow starters, we always come back". No, comfort needs to be found in two facts, one perhaps specific to the Indian team, the other common to all fans of sports.

First, the history of Indian cricket is a history of ups and downs, of new dawns and familiar depressing twilights. This year has been no different. India started the year (or rather ended 2010) with a great, hard-fought test win, and then almost immediately showed an inability to close the deal. They won a World Cup, and then were unable to convincingly put away one of the weakest sides in the world. And now this. This pattern of trough and crest, crest and trough, should be familiar by now. Sometimes I forget about it, and express voluble disappointment on this blog. But too many factors operate in the Indian cricket environment to make true consistency possible: inconsistent selection, persistent injury and fitness problems, crowded schedules, the list goes on. The Indian fan should reconcile himself to this roller-coaster ride. Yes, the Indian team has been more consistent in recent years, but even within this period, we've seen many blips. Many more await. Take a deep breath.

A small historical note: in 1969-70, India lost 1-3 to Australia at home. We then proceeded to beat, in 1971, the West Indies away, then England away (Ray Illingworth's side, then the strongest in the world possibly), and then England at home; we then lost 0-3 to England in 1974, and then, after being 0-2 down against the West Indies at home, came back strongly to make 2-2 before losing 3-2. A year later, after going down 0-1 to the West Indies in the West Indies we pulled off our most amazing victory chase of over 400 at Port of Spain. Sometimes when I hear modern, younger fans of Indian cricket try and convince me the current outfit has got it all, and are doing something so unique, so amazing, so singular, I am stunned. What did they think was happening in the period I've just described?

Secondly, these triumphs and disasters are part of the inevitable lot of a fan. The bitterness of this summer should make the next triumph sweeter. Perhaps the one-days will go better. Perhaps India will do well against Australia away. (It won't, for me, make any triumphs at home sweeter; I am, sadly, one of those Indian fans who is tired of wins at home. So sue me).

Lastly, I would like to offer a prediction: Duncan Fletcher will not last long as coach. And after his departure, we will hear stories of just how bad things were in his regime. I'm not a huge fan of the coach system, and within that, I'm not a huge fan of Fletcher. His appointment was a mistake, and I think we will soon hear why so.

Podcast Number Two

Small edit: I seem to say "effective off-spinner"; I am actually trying to say "ineffective off-spinner"!

Dentures needed at Northampton

Northants 201-0 in reply to India's 352. Just when you thought it was safe to go back on the pitch.

Pendse on the Legality of the Trent Bridge Test Match

Pushkar Y. Pendse, a graduate student at the University of Maryland, has sent me an interesting take on the legality of the Trent Bridge Test. Please do take a look; comments are welcome. They can also be sent to Pushkar at: pypendse AT gmail DOT com

I have not yet read the piece with sufficient care but I figured I'd get it out there anyway. I hope to do so soon.

Dhoni, Ian Bell and the run-out

A new post on the Dhoni and the Bell run-out incident at Trent Bridge is up at The Pitch

Over at Ducking Beamers, Rohan doesn't much like my analysis. Since the confusion that Rohan displays in his objection is exceedingly common in all negative responses to my post, I'm going to respond here. (Incidentally, I'm a little surprised that Rohan, who is such a serious and intelligent blogger, begins his response with the flippant "I don’t know much about Aristotle; I never cared much for the Ancients").

There are three points in my article, which people can't seem to keep apart:

1. Was Dhoni a sucker? Yes. You don't give and give in circumstances when you are not expected to, and don't need to and where giving compromises you. A mother that denies food to her child because she keeps giving it away is being foolish. It has nothing to do with the non-transactionality of morality. One could easily argue she is being immoral (but we don't need to do that - the virtue of generosity does not require you self-abnegate).

2. Is the invocation of the spirit of cricket justified? Yes, on pains of inconsistency and incoherence.

3. Does generosity demand reciprocity? Yes, otherwise free riders bring all systems of generosity to an end. If you take something out, you put something back in - that keeps the system going (or you get the tragedy of the commons - too many free riders on a system bring it to a rapid end). Otherwise it becomes one-way exploitation. Read the rationale behind the terms of the GPL license in free software/open source world (which responds to the "Why don't you just give me your code, without asking me to release it under the same terms when I make modifications and release! Boo-hoo, you are not really being generous, you are restricting me!" complaint). If Strauss and Flower do not reciprocate, and a similar incident occurs later in the series, will Dhoni feel like doing the same? I'm guessing not. Will anyone blame him for that? No. End of sportsmanlike gestures, I'm guessing.

Lambs to the Slaughter

When England began the day at Trent Bridge, they were 43 runs behind on the first innings, with 9 (possibly 8, given Trott's injury) wickets in hand. They have ended the day 387 ahead with four wickets in hand. The aforesaid Trott has come and gone. Before him, and after, England have handed out an ass-whipping to a team that looked like they would much rather be back in the West Indies, dealing with Darren Sammy's outfit.

India never looked like restricting the runs, taking wickets, or showing imagination in field placings. Lines on eyebrows were stretched tight early, the shoulders were fighting a losing battle with gravity early on, and the fielding ran ragged, hither and thither.

England flogged, and flogged. 400 runs in a day's action in a test is rare. (England did it in the 2005 Ashes too on a day when Ponting lost the plot, not just McGrath's Ankle).

England do not have to declare tomorrow. They can blast away, lose their last four wickets in a flurry, and set India something close to 450-475, if not 500. Then, cry havoc.

This wasn't a good test in which to show two of your biggest weaknesses (letting opponents tails prosper; having a tail with the resilince of a limp noodle), to miss another bowler because of injury (while Harbhajan didn't look like he was going to take wickets, it did mean the other bowlers had to be bowled into the ground).

Someone has to find the wheels and put them back on.

Cheating Indians

Might as well get it out of the way. But Bell was out, just like Kris Srikkanth was out (eons ago against England, if I'm not mistaken) when he went walkabout after playing the ball.

The problem of course, is that Bell didn't try and take the fourth run. But neither was Srikkanth.

Is this "sharp practice"? I suppose. But wasn't it "sharp practice" when Srikkanth was run out? Back then, everyone seemed to agree Srikkanth had been shown up to an inattentive, silly young lad, who forgot the rules of the game.

Anyway, no word on whether India will ask the umpires to overturn the decision. The summer hots up.

And well, well, India have taken back the appeal and Bell is not out. Phew. There you have it.

That sinking feeling

As England appear to run away with this game thanks to a wonderful ton by Ian Bell and some characteristically mixed stuff from KP, India appear to be flagging. Part of the problem, of course, is that everyone on the field is cursing themselves internally for having stuffed it up two days in a row. Resilience is needed but with a noisy crowd cheering everything the *other side* does it isn't so easy. The other thing that doesn't help is the knowledge that England bat very, very deep, and India bat very, very shallow.

When MS Dhoni won the toss and put England into bat, he was gambling on seizing the early edge so that India could take a decisive lead and negate the fourth-innings disadvantage of batting last. That fourth-innings advantage is now firmly back with England, and with them scoring at almost four runs an over in this session, its been further cemented.

Not a great feeling to watch a team fall apart so quickly - but as Sreesanth misfields again, and Harbhajan can't even be bothered getting angry, its getting worse.

You superstitious loon

Yesterday, with the score at 267-4, I chatted with Homer for a bit, exulting in the good position India were in. As we talked four wickets fell. We agreed our chatting had caused the collapse and promptly clammed up. Today, as I put the last post up, Strauss was dismissed by Sreesanth.

Why does cricket tempt me with belief in superstition?

Careful Man, Thats My Initiative You're Handing Back

Over at Trent Bridge, India have managed to play themselves into a position, where they could lose by a day to spare. On the first day, they had England by the throat at 124-8 and then, thanks to a Stuart Broad counterattack and a rather depressing reappearance of what I can only term "the eight-wickets-down-blues" saw them get away to 221 (by this I mean bowlers stopped doing whatever it was that had gotten them the eight wickets thus far, the captain's field lacked imagination and the fielding grew ragged). Yesterday, thanks to the Dravid-Yuvraj partnership, India looked like building up a 150 run lead, and then suddenly, spectacularly, everything went pear-shaped. Broad was back again; this time with a hat-trick, sparked off by the Indian captain's dismissal. Dhoni continues to have a poor series; one wonders how he is going to dig himself out of this hole.

A lead of 67 with more than three days left in the game is simply not good enough (as I write this, England are already 57-1, and have been rattling along at almost a run-a-minute this morning). Chasing anything over 200, given the flakiness in the current line-up, is going to be supremely difficult. More to the point, the team chasing is going to have to work hard to move their minds on from the thought that they never should have been in a sticky situation.

This is a test match; strange things happen. Initiatives are gained by hard work, and handing them back is never a good idea. Especially away from home, and especially when you are 0-1 down.

Poetic justice in hat-tricks?

Some ten or so years ago, Harbhajan Singh brought about India's first test hat-trick: he dismissed Ponting, Gilchrist and Warne. Today, Harbhajan became a member of the triad of victims in the first hat-trick ever achieved against India in test matches. But the similarity doesn't end there. Harbhajan's second victim, Gilchrist was out LBW, even though he had inside-edged the ball onto his pads; today, Harbhajan was the second victim of this hat-trick, and he too, was LBW, off an inside edge. What the hat-trick gods giveth, they sometimes taketh as well.

Captain's Log: Trent Bridge - Day 1

Dhoni should be standing up to Praveen Kumar. I won't say it again. Promise. I'll try. I really will. (That LBW call against Pietersen shows why)

Ian Chappell quoth : "a bowl-first decision is vindicated by 4 wickets at lunch and an all out on the first day (given the fact that you give up the fourth-innings advantage)". Dunno where he said it, but I remember it, and it sounds right.

0848AM EDT: Pietersen gone after lunch. Nice fast bowler's dismissal - Sree again. When this kid can hold his noggin' together, he can be a handful.

0945AM EDT: I missed logging the Kumar dismissals but this Sree ball to get rid of Prior has finally woken me up. Jeez, what a beauty.