The missing short-leg missing no more

Mohammed Aamer's dismissal of Ricky Ponting belongs to a vanishing breed: the quick, sharp catch taken at forward short-leg off a fast bowler. For one thing, captains don't use that placement too often. Thus, fielders lack vital practice in that position, and more often than not, spill the sharp bat-pad, or fend-off, or flick that does come their way.

But on this occasion, everything went to plan (how gratifying for the television commentators too, who had been calling for a fielder to be put in there). The debutant was duly moved into the firing line, Aamer continued with his excellent line, jagging the ball in, and Ponting obliged with the flick off the pads. And then, the sharp, reflex catch by Amin.

(As I write this, Clarke has sent another one Amin's way and its only just avoided his despairing fingers).

Go ahead, call 'em back in

For the second time this season, Ricky Ponting has gone ahead and done a sub-500 declaration. In both cases, the first time against the West Indies at Brisbane last year and now at Wellington against New Zealand, he has done so half-way during the second day's play. In both cases, the received wisdom would have had him carrying on to a 550-plus score.

Yesterday, the Australians called it a day after 131 overs in the first innings; they had scored at 3.5 runs an over, a scoring rate which is neither tortoise nor hare (perhaps a sluggish hare). Interestingly enough, Australia declared at an eerily similar situation in the Brisbane test: 480/8 on the second day, after consuming 135 overs at a rate of 3.55 an over. The West Indies lost that test by an innings (wonders of wonders, Ponting actually enforced the follow-on).

It is perhaps too early to say if New Zealand will lose this by an innings (for the record, they've started in only marginally better fashion than the Windies and a great deal of that has to do with the presence of the bespectacled superman, Daniel Vettori). Still, a safe bet at this point would be to put a fiver (or more if you like) on Australia winning this game.

So, what are we to make of these declarations? Are they strokes of genius, reckless gestures that got lucky, or perfectly safe, pragmatically judged cricketing decisions? (Sometimes these three can be one and the same thing when everything works out).

My take on it is that these declarations were eminently sensible moves given the opposition and the pitches concerned (and given that Australia were batting first). Neither the Windies or New Zealand have particularly strong batting line-ups; one would back the Australian bowlers against them on most days. Both the Brisbane and the Wellington pitches were reckoned batter-friendly (Ponting explicitly noted the friendliness of the Gabba and, I think, implicitly, the inexperience of his bowling attack in making his declaration last year). If you'd back yourself to bowl out the opposition for even 300, you'd put yourself in a position to come back out and set a difficult chase quickly, and get on with the business of applying the classic fourth-innings stranglehold.

Carrying on for a 600 or a 550 runs the small risk of using valuable time that could be better used for taking wickets. On a batter-friendly pitch, better to use time for bowling; the cushion of the extra runs isn't as useful as the extra time you could spend bowling (Does 550 really exert that much more mental pressure than a 450?). More to the point, if there is going to be any resolution in the game, you want to get to the fourth innings as soon as possible. What better way to do that than to stop batting and start bowling?

This sort of strategy won't work against stronger batting sides obviously. They might run up a score at par; they might go past you, and then, you'd be the one worrying in the third innings. But against opposition like the Windies and New Zealand, it's a sensible strategy, especially if you are playing on a docile pitch. Ponting deservedly cops a lot of flak for his captaincy; on this count, I think he's got it right both times.

Neunundneunzig runs

When it comes to batting tragedies (or comedies, or tragi-comedies, take your pick) there is nothing quite like a 99. The first one I ever saw was the one inflicted on Javed Miandad. I still remember the fielder: Srikkanth. But not the bowler (Cricinfo tells me it was Madan Lal!). In those days, Miandad was quite a favorite of mine, and I was keen to see him get his ton. He dithered in the 90s, got stuck on 99, and then incredibly, was gone, to a scooped-off-the-shoelaces catch by Cheeka. I had heard about 99s but didn't think I would ever see one or that it would happen to a batsman whose success I was invested in (a few years later, I would have rejoiced on seeing Miandad dismissed on 99).

Since then, incredibly, I've never seen a 99 live again in test cricket. I've seen plenty on highlights I missed Ricky Ponting's 99 last year against South Africa because I was called away for a cup of tea by my sis-in-law. I was visiting India at the time and a beautiful Delhi morning beckoned. I wasn't feeling too fond of Ricky at that time so there is a good chance I would have cheered.

For a good example of the kind of reaction that a 99 dismissal can engender, check out this one from the now-sadly-defunct Outside the Line. What made Ponting's dismissal particularly catastrophic was that he had scored 101 in the first innings. Still, a nice round 200 for the game. Not a bad return, and one that every single batsman in the world would envy.

I have, however, borne witness to a Tendulkar 99, which was a pretty painful experience. (If I remember correctly, it was one of the three he picked up in one-day internationals in 2007, probably against England).

The most painful 99 for me, however, was one I read about in a newspaper: Kim Hughes' dismissal against England in the non-Ashes series of 1979-80. I'll never forget the horror of that morning. I had eagerly run out to get the paper to check the first day's scores and still remember thinking there must have been a mistake when I read the score. It turned out to be a match-winning score, because without his 99 out of a first-innings 244, Australia would have been in much worse shape in that game. But that was no consolation for me. My hero had come so close and yet had been cruelly denied. (Someday I need to write a post about my Kim Hughes obsession, which would put my reaction into some perspective.)

So, how do I feel about the Pietersen dismissal yesterday? Strangely indifferent. There was a time when KP did get under my skin and my reactions might have been akin to those of DS Henry's above. But KP has become more human recently, perhaps lost a bit of his swagger and so concomitantly has lost his ability to get under my skin as well. Schadenfreude isn't that much fun in those circumstances. Still, bully for the Bangers; it must have lifted their spirits a bit.

Lalit Modi, zip it

Today, I posted over at Different Strokes commenting on Lalit Modi's initial response to the release of the independent report commissioned by players' unions in England, Australia and South Africa that has led to talk of shifting the 2010 IPL to another country. By the time that post went up, I was regretting having ever said anything even mildly complimentary about that man. For Modi had followed up with more.

For I heard that Modi has a Twitter feed (I heard he had tweeted my article; good lord!). When I went to Modis' Twitter page. There, I was amazed to see Modi getting stuck into one and all. His crack at Ponting being "dropped by KKR" was ridiculous and infantile. (See this story, which includes a quote from Saurav Ganguly, to see why thats the case).

To say that I'm dumbstruck would be an understatement. What is this man up to? Why does he spend so much time tweeting, especially when he seems prone to making intemperate statements like the one against Ponting? I'm still having a hard time believing that a man who occupies such a powerful position in cricket spends time on Twitter, getting into juvenile tit-for-tats. I shouldn't be surprised I suppose, but I still am.

Anyway, on more pleasant topics: coming up soon, a post on SRT's double-ton. Either here, or on Different Strokes.

There, there skip, you'll be right

Nothing sums up the current state of Pakistani cricket better than the sight of the youngsters in the team consoling their captain Mohammed Yousuf, after an appeal for a review of a caught-behind against Ricky Ponting was turned down. Think about that for a second. The captain is publicly disconsolate to the extent he needs to be consoled by his juniors.

No one, on this series, has been sure who is in charge.

The door is ajar

Here in Sydney, it might seem odd to back a team that is down by 204 runs in the first innings but for the time being, that is what I'm going to do. Pakistan have let Australia back into the game by failing to drive home the advantage from 205-2. Losing eight wickets for 128 runs is not a smart thing to do. Australia will not bat as badly as they did in the first innings (Ponting, North, Hussey and Haddin played some truly bizarre shots). And Pakistan will not like chasing anything more 150.

Some crucial factors for me: 1) Will Ponting score a big ton and lead by example? 2) Will Hauritz continue to turn the ball? 3) Will Australia hold their catches? (Gee, will Pakistan hold theirs in the Aus second innings?) 4) If chasing a smallish target, say 165-175, will Umar Akmal suddenly make it all look easy by blasting a rapid 70?

I'm off to the SCG tomorrow for the fourth day's play. Hopefully, the weather and the players will co-operate, for it should be a cracker.

I've come to praise Ricky

A tribute to Ricky Ponting the batsman and fielder is up at Different Strokes.

Edgbaston, 2nd morning

Good thing I had a rough morning and woke up early to catch the Ashes action. Plenty of wickets; dodgy Koertzen LBWs (though I feel no sympathy whatsoever for Johnson, who shouldered arms to a straight ball), a good wicketkeeper catch, and a captain's self-destruction (could Ponting have played a worse shot than that awful hook?)

Flintoff's non-reaction to the Prior catch was very interesting. Its almost as if after the dropped catch, he realized that he is having an awful morning and is not being adored any more. And it rankles.

Very good drama all around. Crowds are crackling, and wickets are falling; truly, there is nothing like test cricket.

Nice way to set up the Ashes

I picked Australia to retain the Ashes 2-1. The English win at Lord's takes care of the "1" part of that prediction. Can Australia take care of the "2"? Strange as this might sound after the 115 run drubbing at Lord's, I still think they can. I do not think the Aussies will bat and bowl as badly as they did in the first innings of this test. Some of that improvement might come about just because Johnson will get dropped for Edgbaston; some of it will come about because North, Katich, Hughes, Ponting, Hussey and Clarke, is still a decent batting line-up capable of scoring heavily. But England's bowling, if it continues to be as high-quality as it was in this test, will make life hard for my prediction. Sure, Flintoff could break down again but no Australian should be hoping for an opponent to be injured in order for a victory to come through.

Before the series started, one could have easily dismissed the Ashes hype on the grounds that both teams were flirting with mediocrity (perhaps England more than Australia). But the results and the drama of the first two tests have ensured that this will be a cracker of a series and a wonderful advertisement for test cricket. Ponting and Strauss remain slighly duff captains in my opinion, but there is enough kindling on the fire now to set up a nice blaze.

Interesting developments

I have been a bit crook the last couple of days and as a result both my blogging and cricket viewing have suffered. I missed watching all of the 4th day and only caught up on highlights. To say that I'm stunned by the Aussie collapse from 49-0 to 58-5 yesterday would be an understatement. Hayden's bizarre rush to get to 516 by stumps was something to behold, as was Sharma's ball to dismiss Ponting. As an Indian fan one learns to never take anything for granted, but even then I would be amazed if India didn't win this match by a big margin. The only way I can imagine that happening is if the Haddin-Clarke pair survives till lunch and the Indians fall apart in the field as a result. Stranger things than that have happened in cricket, so I'll just be waiting to see what happens (for what its worth, being 141-5 with a partnership of 83 on the board is a better situation than being 141-5 with wickets evenly spaced out, or so I think).

In any case, plenty of things had gone right before that for India. Despite the failure to wrap up Australia for less than 225, the right thing was done in not enforcing the follow-on, in changing the batting order, and in taking the lead past 500. Enforcing the follow-on would have been extremely dangerous given that Australia had batted for 100 overs or so, not changing the batting order would have brought Dravid to the crease, who with all due respect, seems to have lost the ability to move the score along in tests, and lastly anything less than 500 would have induced nervousness in the Indians had any big partnerships taken hold. In the end, everything clicked: the openers got off to a flyer, the run-rate was maintained, Australia blew up (and Sharma was blowing up, yo).

Lastly, the news about Ponting and Lee having an on-field spat was unbelievable. That sort of visible disagreement has got to be so dispiriting for the rest of the team. I'm sure its been sorted out in the dressing-room, but its strange stuff, and ties ever more into my opinion that Ponting does not know how to handle bowlers. All too often, he overbowls and underbowls members of his bowling attack and makes his disdain for them all too apparent (his usage of White is a case in point).