India move ahead, need third power of 6

An Indian fast bowler cleans up the tail. Does anyone have any idea how satisfying that sounds? Any idea whatsoever? To see an opposition side go from 170-8 to 192 all out might not seem like much to many folks but trust me, its very comforting for moi.

Anyway, Australia 192 all out, India need 216 to run. Game set up nicely, given the vagaries of fourth innings, the slight lowness of this pitch, Aussie determination to not go down easily.

And as I write this, we have a contender for the Worst LBW Decision of 2010, as Bowden decides to get clever and hand out a sexy "pad first, then the bat" decision, not realizing that those are best left alone for the likes of Simon Taufel and Ian Gould. What makes that decision truly comical was that it was missing off as well. Poor Gambhir.

Did I say a lot depends on Viru?

Mohali testing, testing

From 224-5 to 428 is a job well done. Pity I didn't write a post yesterday saying something like "Australia's 224-5 could easily turn into 425 all out", because that was on my mind, and this morning, when I staggered out sleepily into the kitchen, my fears were confirmed. A few seconds later, I had that thought which most Indian fans must have had: "So long as Viru is there, all is not lost". Well, that little comfort was gone by the end of the day, and Australia had inched ahead just a bit.

When battle resumes tomorrow, India will hope they can score enough to exploit the seeming degradation in bounce in the Mohali pitch. Under these circumstances, all bowlers will be a handful in the second innings so it is crucial that a decent lead be obtained for some scoreboard pressure to do its usual magic. On the plus side for India, Laxman, Tendulkar and Raina are all capable of scoring quickly, and the Australian attack is still not as threatening of years gone by. Game very much on.

Lastly, despite the slow pace of scoring on the first day, there was plenty to cheer about for the old-fashioned fan like me. Australia's defensiveness in the third session meant that a wicket would really set them back, and it was fascinating to watch them walk into a trap of their own making. Had Dhoni held on to the chance from Paine, the cat would truly have been amongst the proverbial pigeons. Test wickets are precious; as each falls, five percent of the task is done. A skipper should do better.

A good test promises many, many swings in momentum and advantage. This one has already had two subtle shifts. An early wicket tomorrow might not swing it any more Australia's way, but two definitely will. And another very intriguing battle awaits: Suresh Raina goes up against the Aussies. Go forth, young man, and meet your Antipodean foes. The stage is set.

Opportunities for redemption

Yet another ODI tournament final featuring India (and thus, yet another chance to redeem a gloomy record in finals). Yet another India-Sri Lanka game. And most importantly, yet another chance for India's batsmen to redeem themselves, especially the young ones, and even more so when Sehwag has gone early. Of course, it's not just the young guns that need to come good, even an oldie like Yuvraj Singh needs a moment of redemption.

Early days, but so far, Kohli looks very good. He's definitely started to look more organized and compact in recent times.

A fine balance

Numerical symmetry demands that eight wickets fall per day in a test match in order to get a result (actual test matches have their own way of securing those forty dismissals of course). As an Indian fan, one hopes that the third India-SL test doesn't need all of them for a result, just, say, a few less. For as far as averages go, we are on track. 32 wickets are down.

As Sri Lanka staggered to 8-125 in their second innings, Sehwag's thoughts might have turned to his opening duties, and whatever Mendis' capabilities with the cherry, Viru wouldn't have thought that the young spinner would have been the one holding up the Indian charge on the fourth day. That ninth-wicket stand is looking better and better now as Sehwag went for a duck, and Dravid, continuing his miserable run of form, has played on. Randiv has done all the damage, and in the annals of inspired captaincy moves, his early introduction by Sangakkara must count as a particularly distinguished entry. It robbed Sehwag of the chance to go hard at eager quicks and instead put him into a fatally tentative frame of mind. Dravid's dismissal spoke, too, of a similar mental frame.

As far as classic test tussles go, this one has cooked up nicely; the game couldn't be better set-up for a tense final day. What a pleasant change from the second test - and what a pleasant contrast now, from the potential no-contest developing in Birmingham. How the pendulum has swung.

Oh, and a chance for glory for both Vijay and Raina: early days in test cricket, and they have the opportunity to show whether they are capable of holding their nerves in tight situations.

Some parity at last

It says a great deal about modern cricket, and about Virender Sehwag, that a first-innings score of 425 in a test is no guarantee of safety. As is now increasingly common in test cricket, an average of 300 runs a day has been maintained in a test, and thanks to 12 wickets having fallen, we can contemplate (with some optimism) the possibility of a result in the third India-Sri Lanka test at the P Sara Oval. Any chance of an Indian win, depends almost entirely, of course, on Sehwag. Only he can ensure (with the right support, of course) a score big enough (and made quickly enough) to put any pressure on the Sri Lankans in the second innings.

If India merely achieve parity in the first innings, they will almost certainly be chasing an awkward target on the fifth day (yes, I do not have faith that the Indian bowlers can put sufficient pressure on the Sri Lankan batting line-up without a big lead to back them up).

Viru, one short, and how

A new post on Viru the incorrigible went up yesterday at Different Strokes

Galle'ing cricket

Meanwhile, far, far away in the fair isle of Serendip, the number-one-ranked, yet strangely (for some fans) inconsistent test cricket team i.e., India, is up to its sternum in the smelly stuff. The wash-out of the second day is the only reason I say "sternum" as opposed to a more northward-located part of the anatomy. India are still 63 runs behind, with only VVS, Dhoni and the limpest tail of all time to come. When Sri Lanka were 344-6 in the first innings (or when Sehwag was batting), I would have considered putting a fiver on the chances of this test being a tad more competitive. But that was a long time and a 115-run partnership for the ninth wicket ago.

All the usual signs of an Indian return to cricket are visible: the injuries to bowlers, the shakiness in the batting line-up, the inability to close out an innings which looks like it's on its last legs (and oh, lets not forget, the usual blazing ton from Sehwag, possibly again in a losing cause. Sigh). And since they are "usual" I am able to retain a certain sangfroid, and start looking forward to the second test. Score settling in Sri Lanka will have to wait for a bit.

Viru and the World Cup

The news that Viru Sehwag has a busted shoulder has provoked some expected teeth gnashing - both over his absence and his replacement. Now, I love the thought of watching Sehwag bat, but I have to confess that when it came to the T20 WC I had not managed to generate the kinds of great expectations which would experience this news as harbinger of an apocalypse. Part of this display of sangfroid on my part finds its grounding in the knowledge that Sehwag does not do very well in one-day internationals or T20s (I'm hard pressed to think of a single significant innings), and yet another part in the related awareness that I don't associate him with a winning campaign in a tournament. (In this arena, at least, I would consider Dhoni's absence a far more significant blow).

I've slowly become convinced over the years that the problem with Sehwag in the limited versions of the game is that he prefers to be the one with the initiative, the one that imparts a jolt to the proceedings, and then, having pushed the opposition on to the pyschological defensive, is able to take over and dominate. It is a strategy that works in test cricket. It does not in limited-overs cricket, for there, bowlers and captains alike expect punishment and do not get fazed (or perhaps not as much as Viru would like them to). I have to admit though, that given the genius of this man, there is something slightly unsatisfactory about this explanation. Why is he unable to change, to adjust, to reconfigure, when he can do so in test cricket? Be that as it may, I cannot remember a single ODI or T20 innings by him, and indeed, cannot even a remember a moment from an ODI or a T20 which features Viru in his glory.

As for India's campaign in the T20 WC, more on that later. But I'm afraid the IPL does create the expectation that India should win. This isn't entirely a fair expectation given the brevity of the game but it is out there nonetheless. But the incumbents of the T20 team, in their appearances in the IPL, haven't exactly managed to bowl us over. (At least a few like Yusuf Pathan and Ishant Sharma have looked like duds). Heartbreak might still be around the corner.

If there is, we should be glad it will be over quickly. The T20 WC is compact and concise. It should serve as a model for the "other" World Cup.

Viru the analytical sage

Virender Sehwag's interview after the Cricinfo awards is quite remarkable (especially when you consider the inanities we are spoon-fed by the rest of the sportsman class). He is simple and uncomplicated, and I mean those terms to apply not in pejorative fashion, but as a form of a compliment. For in the course of making a series of unadorned statements about his batting philosophy, he manages to be informative and insightful both.

The highlights, for me, were threefold.

First, Sehwag's analysis of risk. He points out, quite correctly, that risk assessment is a subjective business; that for a batsman possessed of not-great defensive technique (a 'weakness' he disarmingly confesses to being afflicted by), a 'risky' shot might be a defensive one'; that he does possess a notion of 'risky shot', it just happens to be different from that espoused by other players.

Secondly, his insulation from the buzz, the chatter, if you will, about pitches, conditions, net practice strategies, pre-match preparation exercises. This aspect of Sehwag has been talked about a great deal, so I won't say more here, expect to note that while it sounds counter-intuitive at times (you really don't bother finding out what the pitch is like?), a method to the madness emerges. For I don't think this has been a completely unthinking attitude; more likely, I suspect this is a strategy that he has retained because it works better for him. And what more can you ask from a plan of action that that it work for you?

Secondly, Sehwag's selective strategy against the opposition bowlers. (Indeed, I'd say this was my favorite). There are bowlers who might get him out; those he will be cautious against. There are bowlers he will score heavily off; their arrival he will wait for. What is noteworthy about this is that it comprehensively debunks a statistic that is almost every unthinking cricket fan's favorite: how did X do against Y (where both X and Y are masters of their domain). In cricket, as in some other walks of life, the strong prey on the weak. It is utterly unsurprising, to me at least, to find out that batsmen and bowlers do better against weak opposition (it is when they only do well against them that we should worry). And within an innings, it makes perfect sense for the batsman to save himself against a better bowler and to attack the weaker ones (yes, his strike rate against a champion might drop, but the runs go up anyway). Sehwag notes, quite coldbloodedly, how he will wait for the difficult bowlers to leave the field of battle, and will then turn his attention to the weak.

There are other bits in there that are worth checking out, for instance, the Tendulkar advice on how to pick Murali's doosra. All in all, a rare instance of a good sports interview.

Stick 'em in close skip!

A few days ago, I penned a post over at Different Strokes, complaining about the lack of close-in fielders for India spinners. Last night Harbhajan again bowled without a backward short-leg (a position that has netted him wickets in the past), and could only watch as at least two deflections went in that region. Today he's has had that position manned. Mishra fortunately has the full ring: a slip, backward short-leg, a silly mid-off and a forward short-leg.

But now Sehwag is bowling with just a slip, and a forward short-leg, with South Africa trailing by 213 runs on the fifth day of a test match in a series in which India is down 0-1 and needs a win to retain their test ranking at the top of the table. Is it just me or does something seem wrong with this picture? India cannot lose this match. They can only draw it or win it. So why are there no close-in fielders for Sehwag?

I can't pretend to understand what is going on in Dhoni's head. Perhaps he's been, as my friend Satadru Sen said the other day, "riding without a helmet." (One charitable take: Dhoni reckons he doesn't want to be in a situation where he has to do any run chasing later in the day and thus is trying to not be overly aggressive; still, that favors the South African strategy of needing just to use up as much time as possible).

Update: Sehwag now has another man close in. Perhaps MSD did hear me.

Up the creek without a paddle

I've seen some bad run-outs in my time but the one that just got rid of Gautam Gambhir has to go down as one of the all-time stinkers. All the ingredients were there: a partnership that is going great guns and is about to completely demoralize the opposition, a pair that normally runs well together, a senior partner that makes the call, a junior that is initially hesitant, and then, finally and fatally, a senior that changes his mind, and lastly the handing back of the momentum (at least temporarily) to South Africa.

Poor Gambhir. This series is a write-off for him, just as he was getting his eye back in, and just as the advantage of him as a counterweight to Paul Harris' line was about to become apparent.

Hullabaloo at Eden Gardens

9,209,43. What do you reckon comes next? Turns out, 35. The first South African wicket fell at 9. Then the second wicket partnership added 209. Seven wickets then fell in the space of 43 runs. And the tenth wicket partnership added 35 (a pretty sloppy show by the Indians this morning). All said, a topsy-turvy series of events. How I wish I had been able to watch the post-tea session as it unfolded yesterday. To think that Sharma and Mishra picked up their first wickets of the series, that Harbhajan put himself on a hat-trick again at the Eden Gardens (and a non-bogus one at that, given how awful Gilchrist's LBW was at Kolkata in 2001), that Zaheer triggered a run-out with a direct-hit, and that Harris paid the price for getting distracted by a fast bowler. All in front of a crowd of "only" 35,000, small for the Eden Gardens, and yet big enough to pack any ground in England.

There are lots of reasons to dislike living on the East Coast. Missing this test's post-tea session because of the timezones will get added to that list.

Needless to say, I've been looking forward to the Indian batting response in this test, starting with the openers, and the next hour or so should be enthralling. Viru has already started off with a bang.

If only Laxman Sivramakrishnan weren't commentating.

Viru the Frank; India the Rusty

I'm going to respond to Homer's comment on my last blog post here.

I think Sehwag is being rightly pilloried. Maybe Bangladesh will not take 20 wickets. But in the interests of consistency, we should note that had someone else said something similar (about any team) in the world, and then his team had suffered a collapse, the same response would have ensued. More to the point, when the world's #1 team collapses against the world's worst test team, tongues will wag. India could still win this match, but Bangladesh deserves credit for doing what they did yesterday. I'm not saying Sehwag needs to be muzzled, but if he is going to be "refreshingly frank", then folks shouldn't mind if there are some "refreshingly frank" responses as well.

My original point is something quite else. Why does the Indian team get so rusty so quickly? We just came off a series where Team India scored a quintillion runs and won in style. Can they ever string together some consistency so that they don't constantly give the impression of needing long periods to warm up?

Viru holds forth

Virender Sehwag has been providing some entertainment over at Cricinfo in the course of his interview (by Nagraj Gollapudi). There are tons of nuggets scattered throughout the piece; here is a short, sweet one:

Did Greg Chappell give you any sort of valuable tips?

No.

Read the whole piece; I've linked to part II above. You can find the link for the first part on the same page.