The "silly points"

A blog by donthaveaclue

Iâ?(tm)m a cricket fan, have been one for a large part of my life. So anytime there was some form of international cricket on, acquaintances would raise their eyebrows in surprise when, let alone the ball-by-ball score, I expressed ingnorance about which team was batting. The reason – All cricket is not equal.

My interest in any international cricket game would be classified based on three factors;
format, teams and venue, not necessarily in that order or even mutually exclusive.
For example; Test cricket won over ODIs provided the venue was not the subcontinent. Similarly, a game featuring India usually had an upper hand except when it was an ODI in the subcontinent. The top of the tree on those factors are: Test Cricket, Australia and Australia/ South Africa. This means a test series South Africa V Australia is a must-see while anyone featuring Sri Lanka is a must-avoid. The reasons stem from style/ability of play and nature of surfaces. While the Australians play aggressive, must-win cricket, the islanders play to bore the opposition into submission. Not to say that the Indians play enthralling cricket themselves, but their style of play syncs with that of the opposition which explains a frequent inability to beat Sri Lanka/New Zealand but the odd masterpiece against Australia.

However, owing to the overdose of the â?(tm)swishathonâ?(tm) that is twenty-twenty cricket and the crass spectacle that is the IPL, I watched some of the India-SL series, just to let my pupils adjust to the somber whites after the fluorescent of the IPL pajamas. The Indian team showed its characteristic unpredictability in their tendency to look like a competent side one day and a club side the next. Sri Lanka on the other hand are rejoicing in the feeling, for the first time in their history, of having more than 1 bowler capable of taking wickets. Most games in Sri Lanka are wars of attrition on slow, low surfaces where teams have to do a lot wrong to be beaten and a lot right to win, draws being the nom de rigeur.

From Indiaâ?(tm)s point of view, there have been some significant instances over the 2 test matches.

1. Test cricket no longer at the front of the line:

Its only logical that the country that has first taken to monetizing the game with the IPL would see its test cricketing ability decline the fastest. Dhoniâ?(tm)s decision to withdraw from the test series was hailed by some as a brave decision. More than brave, it is an honest statement by the player who not only played the 16 or so games in the IPL, but also a handful of meaningless ODIs against the likes of Hong Kong but chose to miss the 5 day games. Why bother testing your fitness and technique by way of 2-3 long days in the field followed by batting rearguards that need to last longer than 4 commercial breaks put together? Young cricketers do not need to see the writing any plainer on the wall.

2. Curtain calls for ‘the Big 3′?

Rahul Dravidâ?(tm)s struggle has been evident for all to see. His batting has always oscillated between being self-destructively turgid to being pivotal for the team. Having conquered many of his hangups about opening his shoulders and following through on his shots in the shorter version, the IPL, resignation from test captaincy and being dropped from the ODI squad seem to have wreaked havoc with his mental setup.

While Rahul Dravid has looked like someone struggling against an invisible strait-jacket, Saurav Ganguly has looked like a guest who has accidentally gate-crashed someoneâ?(tm)s party and now is looking for the right moment to leave inconspicuously. His listlessness against the spinners was highlighted in the way he wandered down the track to Murali only to be short of the length by several feet ending up being comprehensively stumped. How many times do you recall Ganguly being beaten in flight by a slow-bowler?

Sachinâ?(tm)s statistics even today in all forms of the game pass muster for most international batsmen. But the bar has never been in the standard places for him and his current performances fall significantly short.

3. The brilliance of Sehwag

Over the years, I have undertaken the Tendulkar v Lara debate multiple times. Those who failed, rattled off figures, averages and highest scores. Those who succeeded spoke of his game-changing innings in Sydney.

Similar to Lara, Sehwagâ?(tm)s strength has always been a free-spirited abandon in his shot-selection that enabled him to make a mockery of match situations, fielding sides and of batsmen at the other end. I however have had reservations about the true value of his runs, especially on difficult surfaces and situations. His repeated double and triple tons in the most unlikely situations however cause me to put up my hand and acknowledge the brilliance of the man. Those who won the Lara debate on the grounds of mercurial performances, would lose the â??ABCâ?(tm) v Sehwag debate on the same grounds.

Blasphemous as it may sound, I cannot think of any other situation player today, than maybe Pietersen whose performance has no bearing on the nature of the attack or the situation of the match. The moment of the match for me was when, on 299, batting with the number 11, he refused a single on the 3rd ball of the over to not expose the tail-ender and followed that up with a reverse-sweep!

That is brilliance.

donthaveaclue’s own website: Outside Edge

Technorati: the silly points cricket