Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[kban1]

A team performance to rank with the best

Andrew Miller at The Oval

August 13, 2007


The Oval may be a mighty ground for finishes, with 13 positive results in 17 matches since 1990, but it is the inconclusive fixtures that have caused the most flutters in recent years. Last summer this ground played host to the Pakistan furore (the match was eventually awarded to England, but in the mind's eye it remains the ultimate no-result), and the year before that, there was arguably the most famous draw of the last 25 years, when England defied Australia to bring home the Ashes after an 18-year hiatus.

India's fans may not appreciate it right now, as they quibble about the reasons behind Rahul Dravid's safety-first approach, but this draw will one day be looked upon with similar fondness. The scenes at the end of the final over, with Indian fielders raising their arms in triumph and leaping gleefully into each other's embrace, will be replayed over and over in the coming months and years, and rightly so. This match ended in a victory every bit as tangible as England's in 2005, and for India it had been an even longer time coming.

Much had been made of India's inability to win outside the subcontinent - their laboured 1-0 win in the Caribbean last spring was their first against a major nation since they again beat England in 1986. But this triumph was something else entirely. It was spearheaded by two swing bowlers, Zaheer Khan and RP Singh, who learned their lines quickly and prevented England's batsmen from reaching 400 in any of their innings.

It was underpinned by the decades-long knowhow of Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly in the middle-order, and it was given impetus by the unexpected success of Wasim Jaffer and Dinesh Karthik who, as an opening partnership, stole the show from their off-colour English counterparts. Mahendra Singh Dhoni had the better of Matt Prior, Anil Kumble outperformed Monty Panesar. And even the maligned Sreesanth finished the series on a high, with three wickets to Zaheer's none on the final day at The Oval. It was a team performance to rank with the best.

But for far too many detractors, the moment of glory was spoiled by the tactics of India's captain, Dravid, who - in opting not to enforce the follow-on and choosing instead to bat again - has been subjected to a barrage of condemnation. Accusations of cowardice, negativity, even (can you credit it?) match-fixing have been flying his way, and all from fans who have become so hooked on the quick fix of the one-day game that they have lost the ability to savour the ebb and flow of proper Test cricket.

Those fans will be back at the burger bar soon enough, when the seven-match one-day series gets underway next week. For the time being, let's appreciate the bigger picture: Dravid's men are heirs to Ajit Wadekar's heroes of 1971 and Kapil Dev's of 1986. England - the second-best Test team in the world, unbeaten at home since 2001 - have been turned over in swing-and-seam conditions that should have suited their cricketers down to the ground. This is a hugely significant victory.

And yet, what would the reaction have been if the series had been squandered? It's not such an outlandish prospect as you might think. In 2005, England made Australia follow on in the fourth Test at Trent Bridge - rightly so, as the series was tied at 1-1 and the match simply had to be won. They were left with a modest target of 129, and ended scrambling home by three wickets into the teeth of a Shane Warne and Brett Lee gale.

Nerves play an almighty part in international sport, especially when history is within your grasp. For all that they were the better team for two Tests, India still had a very real chance of losing if they went all-in for the win.

Let's not forget, at Trent Bridge in the second Test, India had lost three quick wickets chasing a mere 73 - if Michael Vaughan had found a few more batting partners during his magnificent 124, the chase could have got even trickier than that.

No way was Dravid going to risk another attack of the jitters - it was bad enough when his team slumped to 11 for 3 in the third innings here, but at least he knew that, by dropping anchor in the manner that he did, his team would be able to ride out the storm. "If I'd have been in his position I'd have done exactly the same," said Michael Vaughan. "They were 1-0 up and they want to make sure they win the series."

What is more, England had in their armoury a batsman who loves nothing better than an assault on the impossible. It was Kevin Pietersen who transcended the panic in the 2005 Oval Test, and for the second time in three appearances on the ground, he took it upon himself to score a last-day century. From the moment England had folded in their first innings, the pressure - perversely - was off. Follow-on or no follow-on, all they had to do was bat for themselves, and then bat some more.

And a man like KP hardly needs a second invitation to look after No. 1. Sometimes that would come across as a criticism, but not when there's a series to be saved. In the end, Pietersen's hundred could do nothing more than save the match for England, but Dravid - by his tactics - had eliminated the other dreadful possibility. It was hardly the conclusion that a million fans had been hankering for, but 50 years from now, no-one will quibble about the small-change. "I'm sure you've all be entertained," added Vaughan by way of support. "It's been proper Test match cricket, and it's been tough."

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvind/content/current/story/306894.html

[kban1]

Ravi Shastri: Heartening that team effort led to series win

August 13, 2007


Siddhartha Vaidyanathan: Hello and welcome to Cricinfo Talk, I am Siddhartha Vaidyanathan and I'm joined by Ravi Shastri. Ravi, the smaller picture - India didn't manage to win, but they did win the series ...

Ravi Shastri: Lets not take that away from the Indian team. They fought right till the end, they would have been extremely happy to have won the series 2-0, but they will enjoy the fact that they won the series after 21 years. Full marks to the side for the way they fought back after Lord's. A terrific performance at Trent Bridge and they played good cricket at The Oval as well. If anything, in hindsight, the follow-on was a better option.

SV: You have seen a few Indian victories yourself, away as well, would you put this one right up there among the memorable ones?

RS: Very good performance, simply because it was a team effort. Very difficult to single out one individual because of whom India won the series, it was a collective effort and for me that was the most heartening thing.

SV: The most outstanding bowler for India throughout the series - Zaheer Khan, 18 wickets in the series, a match-winning performance at Trent Bridge ...

RS: Yes, he was magnificent. I think he needs a break now. He has toiled extremely hard, he has held the Indian attack together for the last 6-8 months. I thought his performance at Trent Bridge really inspired the Indians. He was aggressive. That aggression rubbed onto the others and they brought it here to the Oval and they put up an extremely good show in the first innings by batting well. He was the spearhead of the attack that won the series in England.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/talk/content/multimedia/306880.html?view=transcript

[kban1]

Chappell: A historic win for India

August 13, 2007

Andrew Miller: Hello and welcome to Cricinfo Talk. I'm Andrew Miller at The Oval where India has secured a fantastic series victory, the 3rd Test against England ending in a draw. But, Ian, the bigger picture is what matters here, India have won in England after 21 years ...

Ian Chappell: It was a very good performance by India after being outplayed at Lord's, I thought they fought back very determinedly. A little disappointing, they didn't enforce the follow-on here at The Oval, but I guess that when you haven't won a series in England in 21 years and you're 1-0 up you probably play with a little bit of caution. So it is hard to fault India on that. Although it is better to win 2-0 than 1-0.

AM: Were you surprised that there were so few centuries from India? Only Anil Kumble in the end ...

IC: Well, I think the other good thing about India's performance was that everyone contributed. When you have got two big scores in the series - Trent Bridge and The Oval - without a century from your top order batsmen, that shows that everybody is contributing. So I guess there are two ways of winning cricket matches as far as batsmen are concerned - you get 2 or 3 batsmen who are in great form, they are making big scores and you win that way. Or the way India has done here, where everybody is contributing. I bet as they are celebrating in their dressing room there'll be a lot of satisfaction.

AM: What of England? They have had some problems with their batting, Kevin Pietersen got his hundred today, but their top order - lots of 40s, 60s...

IC: Well, they had Pietersen and Michael Vaughan, who I thought played very well at Trent Bridge. Yes, they do have some problems and I think they have been found out by a better bowling attack, an attack that has kept at them. It is also a varied bowling attack and often you will have batsmen getting 40s and 50s and then getting knocked over. I just don't see how England are going to win with a wicketkeeper who is woeful. I think Matthew Prior is far off being an international wicketkeeper at Test level; he will probably be a terrific one-day player.

AM: Who in you estimation were the stand out performers of this series?

IC: Obviously when you are looking at players who win you a Test series, Zaheer Khan has got to be the one for India because he played a big role in the win at Trent Bridge. I think the opening pair played a huge part in India's victory; their partnerships were of tremendous importance in India winning the series. Dravid has pulled a team together that has great spirit and that's a credit to him because it was not too many months ago that all hell was breaking loose in India due to their poor performance at the World Cup. RP Singh, his contribution at Lord's should not be under-estimated. The batting of Pietersen for England, Vaughn's innings at Trent Bridge - I haven't seen him play better than that. I am impressed with Ryan Sidebottom, there is something about him, and he knows what he's doing. He is another reason why you have got to have a better wicketkeeper. There are some good things there for England, but they do have some things they need to sort out as well.

AM: Where do you think, in 10-15 years time, this performance will be ranked among India's victories?

IC: It was interesting to hear Sachin Tendulkar's comments. He was asked in all the great things that have happened to him in his career where would he rank this one, and he said right on top. So I think it will be talked about with the 1971 victory with [Bhagwat] Chandrasekhar getting 6 wickets at the Oval, the 1986 victory, and it'll be up there with the great moments in Indian cricket.

AM: Ian Chappell, thank you very much once again for your thoughts.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/talk/content/multimedia/306895.html?view=transcript

[kban1]

United they triumph

Siddhartha Vaidyanathan at The Oval

August 13, 2007


Exactly 105 years ago, on this day at this ground, Gilbert 'The Croucher' Jessop inspired a dramatic Ashes win, pulling off what remains the most successful chase on this ground. But for the Indians on the fifth day, buffered as they were by a target of 444, a quadruple Nelson and a number seemingly ominous in itself, it would have taken something beyond even Kevin Pietersen's blazing bat for the spectre of Jessop to haunt them.

It was a strange day for India, almost like an off-day where they could gain a bonus. On a pitch that Pietersen described would be "great even if we played for a week", India couldn't muster the resources to end on a high. Towards the end it was confusing what they were thinking: oohing and aahing for lbw appeals while eagerly anticipating the final moment. The intensity was bound to drop but you'd say they had done all the hard work earlier to earn this.

When Anil Kumble finished over number 110, at 6:28pm, the fielders, most hovered in an umbrella field, triggered a celebration. He'd bowled the final ball at Kingston as well, when India won the away series last year, but the spontaneity of wrapping up a win wasn't there this time. It's always difficult to go bananas after a draw, especially when you expected it for a good three days. The batch of 1971, that also led the series 1-0 before the final game, probably went through something similar at Port of Spain, when they failed to close it out but sealed a historic triumph.

The position of the close-in fielders towards the end of the game put India's team effort into perspective. Having gone through the whole series as a united bunch, here they were, at arms distance, standing on the threshold of a historic moment. Rahul Dravid's response, when asked if he expected his team to do well collectively, was indicative: "Indian cricket needs contributions from everyone, we need different heroes. That's the great thing of this series."

This was a coach-less team from which few knew what to expect but the combined effort has been unshakeable. The sum has been way greater than the parts. "They [the seniors in the team] have all taken on huge leadership roles in their performances, in their mentoring. Obviously we realised we have to work together. At various stages they gave me a lot of suggestions and ideas. We've not had a coach in the conventional sense, but we have Venky [Prasad], Robin [Singh] and Greg King. Mr Borde too chipped in with his advice. I think we have a great backroom staff, even though we have not a head coach, we had some great guys around. They really worked hard to prepare us and in the end the result shown."

It's the same united front that would have helped Dravid in his decision on the fourth morning, when he was faced with the dilemma over the follow-on. Michael Vaughan, his counterpart, said he would have done exactly the same in the given situation and Dravid explained that he wanted to give his bowlers a rest.

"There will be difference of opinions," he said. "But as the captain of the team I know my players quite well, I know the dressing room pretty well, I know the workload my bowlers had gone into. It is the third Test of the three match series, we have played the same bowling attack right through. May be if I was sitting in a living room or drawing room I might have said the same thing but as a captain I get the pulse of what is happening. I have to back my judgment, that is what I earn my corn for. At that time I felt that pushing my boys through that kind of workload is not the right thing to do, give them a bit of rest and then comeback fresh in the fourth innings and that is what they did today and they gave a great performance."

The celebrations at The Oval couldn't rival those of 1971, when Bella, a baby elephant, joined in, but a whole stand was swathed in tri-colour. It was a fitting time for the flags to flutter, and for the team to take home the recently instituted Pataudi Trophy, named after the Nawab of Pataudi Snr. the only Test cricketer to have played for both England and India, with India two days away from the 60th anniversary of their independence.

"Cricket is special in India, I'm sure they'll be celebrating back home in India as well," said Dravid. "As Indian players, we do understand we bring a lot of joy to a lot of people, we are aware of this responsibility and it's nice to know there'll be so many young kids in towns and villages who'll be smiling today, and who'll be taking out a cricket bat and ball and just enjoying the moment with us." It's been that kind of series. India have had their fun, yet ended up with a joyous place in history.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvind/content/current/story/306879.html 

[kban1]

A disappointment but few regrets

Andrew Miller at The Oval

August 13, 2007

It's been an emotional summer for Michael Vaughan. His elation at battling back to Test cricket after an 18-month absence has now given way to disappointment at the first home series defeat of his four-year captaincy career. After the Oval Test petered out to a draw he was content to concede that his conquerors, India, had been fully deserving of their first series win in England for 21 years.

"It's disappointing to lose," said Vaughan. "There are series that you lose where you know you've played really bad cricket, and there are series like this one where you think you haven't played that badly. But in a three-match series, the team that plays better cricket wins, and the way India played the last two games, they picked the series."

It could have been so different for England had the weather relented in the first Test at Lord's, and had they been given the chance to chisel out the last remaining Indian wicket. But Vaughan refused to dwell on that missed opportunity, and preferred instead to praise his opponents, particularly the bowling attack led by Zaheer Khan.

"We've been up against a very good Indian team," said Vaughan. "We've been asked different questions against the left-arm angles which we haven't seen before, while our bowlers were up against some of the best batsmen to have played the game. With these kind of experiences, it's important you learn from them and the mistakes you make when you lose. We have to make plans to get our Test cricket back to winning ways in Sri Lanka."

By the time England set off for Sri Lanka on November 17, several of their injured stars - particularly Andrew Flintoff, Steve Harmison and Matthew Hoggard - should be fit and ready to resume the fight, and Vaughan admitted he was looking forward to having his old comrades to call upon. "I'd like to have all the senior bowlers back for selection," he said. "They have invaluable experience at this kind of level."

"The team's revolving again, and there are a lot of new faces," said Vaughan. "I think you've got to give some of the guys experience. The series has been a really good learning curve for the team because we've been put under a lot of pressure. Our young bowlers have been asked to bowl at some of the best batsmen in the world, and if you'd said Ganguly, Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman wouldn't get a hundred I'd probably have ripped your hand off. Yes, we've lost 1-0 but that's exactly what happened, so all the bowlers deserve credit."

Vaughan was also proud of the way his team fought to the finish at The Oval, despite conceding a massive total of 664. "Over the last two days here, I hope people have seen that England are prepared to fight," he said. "We are going through a little bit of a transitional phase with lot of new players, and it was important we came through this. Today was a big moment to show character and fight and we've done that.

"Yesterday morning, we set the guys a challenge," said Vaughan. "'If you can't win the game, you've to draw it'. We said we'd try and show character, try and occupy the crease. If we've got an unbelievable start who knows [what we'd have attempted], but we set our sights for a draw and Kevin's innings was tremendous in the circumstances."

As for the criticism surrounding Rahul Dravid's decision not to enforce the follow-on, Vaughan was adamant in his support. "If I'd have been in his position I'd have done exactly the same," he said. Some series wins are simply that important.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvind/content/current/story/306875.html

[kban1]

Sydney 2004 minus the pain

Dileep Premachandran at The Oval

August 13, 2007

It was Sydney 2004 all over again, only without the crushing disappointment of being so near and yet so far. That epic final day, when Australia actually dared to have a tilt at a 443-run windmill, is now best remembered for the soap-operatic manner of Steve Waugh's exit - 80 gritty runs, red rags by the thousand and a lap of honour on the shoulders of his team-mates - but it shouldn't be forgotten how close India came to ending an unbeaten home run that stretched back to 1992-93.

In Sydney, India were chasing a dream. Here, they had seen it almost become reality with marvellous batting on the opening two days. All that remained was to consolidate and ensure that the advantage gained at Trent Bridge wasn't squandered. Those removed from the dressing room and unaware of the fatigue that can catch up with bowlers when they play back-to-back Tests can argue themselves hoarse about the mistake of not enforcing the follow-on, but at the end of the day, Rahul Dravid and India have the series trophy to show for their efforts. Quibbling about the margin just seems pathetic, especially when you've won nothing of note outside the subcontinent since the days of Live Aid.

The biggest common denominator with Sydney was the nature of the pitch. As Kevin Pietersen said at the press conference later, it might still have been good to bat on a week from now. At Sydney too, where Anil Kumble strained every sinew for a 12-wicket match haul, Australia managed 357 for 6 in less than a day of batting.

Then, as now, a great batsman with a sense of occasion thwarted the Indians. Waugh's last act was magnificent, and his battle with Kumble as the afternoon wore on quite gripping. Here, it was Pietersen, surely destined to be one of the greats of this era. At Lord's, he dug deep to produce the best century of his career so far. At The Oval, with victory no more than a chimera, he eschewed flamboyance for long periods, leading the side to safety before some belligerent strokeplay illuminated the final session.

Kumble wasn't the force that he was four years ago, and Zaheer Khan looked knackered after his series-winning exertions, but India had a rejuvenated Sreesanth to give them a whiff of victory. Dravid said later that he'd like Sreesanth to be recognised for what he does with the ball on the field, and when he bowls quick outswing with that beautiful seam position, you can overlook the silliness that was on display at Trent Bridge.

India didn't need to win this game, but it wasn't as though they sleepwalked to a draw. Had Alastair Cook been given out early on the fifth morning - the delivery from Sreesanth struck both pads, but still didn't convince Ian Howell - or if Dravid had held on to a fairly straightforward chance that Michael Vaughan offered when he was just 18, it might have been a different story.

But hard-luck stories are a dime-a-dozen in sport. At Sydney, for all the pressure that they piled on, India fell short. Here, a magnificent innings ensured that they couldn't close out the game, but the larger spoils were theirs to savour. Nothing else matters.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvind/content/current/story/306876.html

[fineleg]

Vaughan supports Dravid's decision (and his dropping anchor while batting)

See below
***********************************************************************************

No way was Dravid going to risk another attack of the jitters - it was bad enough when his team slumped to 11 for 3 in the third innings here, but at least he knew that, by dropping anchor in the manner that he did, his team would be able to ride out the storm.

"If I'd have been in his position I'd have done exactly the same," said Michael Vaughan. "They were 1-0 up and they want to make sure they win the series."

....

Follow-on or no follow-on, all they had to do was bat for themselves, and then bat some more.

And a man like KP hardly needs a second invitation to look after No. 1. Sometimes that would come across as a criticism, but not when there's a series to be saved. In the end, Pietersen's hundred could do nothing more than save the match for England, but Dravid - by his tactics - had eliminated the other dreadful possibility.

It was hardly the conclusion that a million fans had been hankering for, but 50 years from now, no-one will quibble about the small-change. "I'm sure you've all be entertained," added Vaughan by way of support. "It's been proper Test match cricket, and it's been tough."

[pipsqueak]

A team performance to rank with the best


But for far too many detractors, the moment of glory was spoiled by the tactics of India's captain, Dravid, who - in opting not to enforce the follow-on and choosing instead to bat again - has been subjected to a barrage of condemnation. Accusations of cowardice, negativity, even (can you credit it?) match-fixing have been flying his way, and all from fans who have become so hooked on the quick fix of the one-day game that they have lost the ability to savour the ebb and flow of proper Test cricket.

Those fans will be back at the burger bar soon enough, when the seven-match one-day series gets underway next week. For the time being, let's appreciate the bigger picture: Dravid's men are heirs to Ajit Wadekar's heroes of 1971 and Kapil Dev's of 1986. England - the second-best Test team in the world, unbeaten at home since 2001 - have been turned over in swing-and-seam conditions that should have suited their cricketers down to the ground. This is a hugely significant victory.

And yet, what would the reaction have been if the series had been squandered? It's not such an outlandish prospect as you might think. In 2005, England made Australia follow on in the fourth Test at Trent Bridge - rightly so, as the series was tied at 1-1 and the match simply had to be won. They were left with a modest target of 129, and ended scrambling home by three wickets into the teeth of a Shane Warne and Brett Lee gale.

Nerves play an almighty part in international sport, especially when history is within your grasp. For all that they were the better team for two Tests, India still had a very real chance of losing if they went all-in for the win.

Let's not forget, at Trent Bridge in the second Test, India had lost three quick wickets chasing a mere 73 - if Michael Vaughan had found a few more batting partners during his magnificent 124, the chase could have got even trickier than that.

No way was Dravid going to risk another attack of the jitters - it was bad enough when his team slumped to 11 for 3 in the third innings here, but at least he knew that, by dropping anchor in the manner that he did, his team would be able to ride out the storm. "If I'd have been in his position I'd have done exactly the same," said Michael Vaughan. "They were 1-0 up and they want to make sure they win the series."

What is more, England had in their armoury a batsman who loves nothing better than an assault on the impossible. It was Kevin Pietersen who transcended the panic in the 2005 Oval Test, and for the second time in three appearances on the ground, he took it upon himself to score a last-day century. From the moment England had folded in their first innings, the pressure - perversely - was off. Follow-on or no follow-on, all they had to do was bat for themselves, and then bat some more.

And a man like KP hardly needs a second invitation to look after No. 1. Sometimes that would come across as a criticism, but not when there's a series to be saved. In the end, Pietersen's hundred could do nothing more than save the match for England, but Dravid - by his tactics - had eliminated the other dreadful possibility. It was hardly the conclusion that a million fans had been hankering for, but 50 years from now, no-one will quibble about the small-change. "I'm sure you've all be entertained," added Vaughan by way of support. "It's been proper Test match cricket, and it's been tough."

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvind/content/current/story/306894.html

heh, if i were the opposition captain, i would support such an innnings too!!    what a moronic innings and trust cricinfo and andrew miller to come to his defence, esp. when it is seen in contrast with SG's knock at the same time

now if SG had played this match saving innings of 12 off 96, somethign tells me the responses wd have been slightly, nah, hugely different!

[ganavk]

What exactly is the problem here ? As Borde mentioned post day interview, once we got to 11/3  RD was asked to drop anchor allowing others to take risks and score runs. Of course, RD dropped the anchor too much and was not able to get it out. It is a role he was asked to play and he did. if SG was asked to play that role, may be he too would have played the similar innings.

[keep-it-cool]

What exactly is the problem here ? As Borde mentioned post day interview, once we got to 11/3  RD was asked to drop anchor allowing others to take risks and score runs. Of course, RD dropped the anchor too much and was not able to get it out. It is a role he was asked to play and he did. if SG was asked to play that role, may be he too would have played the similar innings.

Bull *. If that was a role, RD immersed himself 10,000 feet into it and continued to show a tragic face even when the scene had turned to a comic one.

[sgusa]

What exactly is the problem here ? As Borde mentioned post day interview, once we got to 11/3  RD was asked to drop anchor allowing others to take risks and score runs. Of course, RD dropped the anchor too much and was not able to get it out. It is a role he was asked to play and he did. if SG was asked to play that role, may be he too would have played the similar innings.

RD is obv way more suited to dropping anchor and SG is less technically sound so more prone to losing his wicket. Makes sense that RD was asked to shut shop.

[keep-it-cool]

What exactly is the problem here ? As Borde mentioned post day interview, once we got to 11/3  RD was asked to drop anchor allowing others to take risks and score runs. Of course, RD dropped the anchor too much and was not able to get it out. It is a role he was asked to play and he did. if SG was asked to play that role, may be he too would have played the similar innings.

RD is obv way more suited to dropping anchor and SG is less technically sound so more prone to losing his wicket. Makes sense that RD was asked to shut shop.

Shut shop, down the shutters, lock it and go away??

[sgusa]

What exactly is the problem here ? As Borde mentioned post day interview, once we got to 11/3  RD was asked to drop anchor allowing others to take risks and score runs. Of course, RD dropped the anchor too much and was not able to get it out. It is a role he was asked to play and he did. if SG was asked to play that role, may be he too would have played the similar innings.

RD is obv way more suited to dropping anchor and SG is less technically sound so more prone to losing his wicket. Makes sense that RD was asked to shut shop.

Shut shop, down the shutters, lock it and go away??

...with a series win, only the third time India have done so in Eng, first loss for Eng at home in 6 years, something Aus didnt manage to do. Yeah, I'll take that and a side order of Kimchi.

[dhruvdeepak]

What exactly is the problem here ? As Borde mentioned post day interview, once we got to 11/3  RD was asked to drop anchor allowing others to take risks and score runs. Of course, RD dropped the anchor too much and was not able to get it out. It is a role he was asked to play and he did. if SG was asked to play that role, may be he too would have played the similar innings.

RD is obv way more suited to dropping anchor and SG is less technically sound so more prone to losing his wicket. Makes sense that RD was asked to shut shop.

first, no one put a gun to the duffer's head and asked him to bat again in cloudy/rainy conditions. never mind the stupidity of that call. this "rest my bowlers" stuff is bull-crap. what is 3 hrs of rest going to do? 3 hrs is the most they should have batted. i dont buy RD's wonderfully prepared "screw you, i know what i know and what i know is what you dont know" rubbish. he could have just admitted he was playing for the 1-0, and not for the Test match that was going on.

then, at 330-3, this sudden desire to "shut shop"? please. no one setting a target with the intention of going for a win is going to shut shop. but then we underestimate RD. he comes up with a brilliant 12 off 96. perfect for the situation. yeah, that old argument, the momentum was with Eng, the conditions were helping  them etc. yes, that does tend to happen when you hand the momentum and the balance of the game on a gold platter to the other team.

[broadbat]

What exactly is the problem here ? As Borde mentioned post day interview, once we got to 11/3  RD was asked to drop anchor allowing others to take risks and score runs. Of course, RD dropped the anchor too much and was not able to get it out. It is a role he was asked to play and he did. if SG was asked to play that role, may be he too would have played the similar innings.

RD is obv way more suited to dropping anchor and SG is less technically sound so more prone to losing his wicket. Makes sense that RD was asked to shut shop.

first, no one put a gun to the duffer's head and asked him to bat again in cloudy/rainy conditions.

Actually we can't be too sure of that!

[sgusa]

What exactly is the problem here ? As Borde mentioned post day interview, once we got to 11/3  RD was asked to drop anchor allowing others to take risks and score runs. Of course, RD dropped the anchor too much and was not able to get it out. It is a role he was asked to play and he did. if SG was asked to play that role, may be he too would have played the similar innings.

RD is obv way more suited to dropping anchor and SG is less technically sound so more prone to losing his wicket. Makes sense that RD was asked to shut shop.

first, no one put a gun to the duffer's head and asked him to bat again in cloudy/rainy conditions.

Actually we can't be too sure of that!

For all we know, Ganguly had RD's family kidnapped by Robert and mona daaaarrling. RD had to bat again to let Ganguly get some batting ( he made sure the others "lost" their wickets ) to appease his sponsors OR ELSE!

[keep-it-cool]

What exactly is the problem here ? As Borde mentioned post day interview, once we got to 11/3  RD was asked to drop anchor allowing others to take risks and score runs. Of course, RD dropped the anchor too much and was not able to get it out. It is a role he was asked to play and he did. if SG was asked to play that role, may be he too would have played the similar innings.

RD is obv way more suited to dropping anchor and SG is less technically sound so more prone to losing his wicket. Makes sense that RD was asked to shut shop.

Shut shop, down the shutters, lock it and go away??

...with a series win, only the third time India have done so in Eng, first loss for Eng at home in 6 years, something Aus didnt manage to do. Yeah, I'll take that and a side order of Kimchi.

Oh, I will take that as well with or without the Kimchi ...actually a series win against Pak would be better than Kimchi - which is why I am in favour of the decision to not impose the follow on.

The problem with the way RD played is that generally it puts a lot of pressure on himself and the team and backfires ... one just needs to look back to Capetown where he and SRT had a collective brain freeze. Fortunately, it was SG here ... and he ensured that the score did not get caught in a rut. My problem is with the way he batted; not the decision to bat.

[sgusa]

What exactly is the problem here ? As Borde mentioned post day interview, once we got to 11/3  RD was asked to drop anchor allowing others to take risks and score runs. Of course, RD dropped the anchor too much and was not able to get it out. It is a role he was asked to play and he did. if SG was asked to play that role, may be he too would have played the similar innings.

RD is obv way more suited to dropping anchor and SG is less technically sound so more prone to losing his wicket. Makes sense that RD was asked to shut shop.

Shut shop, down the shutters, lock it and go away??

...with a series win, only the third time India have done so in Eng, first loss for Eng at home in 6 years, something Aus didnt manage to do. Yeah, I'll take that and a side order of Kimchi.

Oh, I will take that as well with or without the Kimchi ...actually a series win against Pak would be better than Kimchi - which is why I am in favour of the decision to not impose the follow on.

The problem with the way RD played is that generally it puts a lot of pressure on himself and the team and backfires ... one just needs to look back to Capetown where he and SRT had a collective brain freeze. Fortunately, it was SG here ... and he ensured that the score did not get caught in a rut. My problem is with the way he batted; not the decision to bat.

That, I'll give you. RD does have a problem of getting too defensive in these 13/3 conditions. but then , given the kind of "support" batting he has got over the last decade, we cant blame him completely.

[Nima]

in the pre-series poll, only two people said india will win 1-0 and india just did that but no one is happy

i will take the 1-0 win any day compared to a series loss, if india can repeat this feat in australia, boy how fantastic that would be..

[pipsqueak]

in the pre-series poll, only two people said india will win 1-0 and india just did that but no one is happy

i will take the 1-0 win any day compared to a series loss, if india can repeat this feat in australia, boy how fantastic that would be..

i had predicted 2-0 and i was robbed off it by our Captain Cowardly!

[vincent]

I am sure the issue of the follow-on has been beaten to death. But being an ordinary fan and not an analyst, I do think India had following Win:Draw probablilities on the fourth day:

40:60 if England followed on. We made the above 20:80 by not enforcing the follow-on and eventually made it 10:90 by batting slowly.

Decisions like this are not made by one man but by the whole team. I do not see any logic in the above decision except if India had one of the three following objectives:

- We will bowl England out on the 5th day (Wishful thinking)

- We will draw the Test and that would be good enough.

- We do not want to humiliate England by handing them an Innings defeat in their own backyard.

I think the middle one probably is the most important reason.

[keep-it-cool]

in the pre-series poll, only two people said india will win 1-0 and india just did that but no one is happy

i will take the 1-0 win any day compared to a series loss, if india can repeat this feat in australia, boy how fantastic that would be..

Exactly. I had predicted 1-1 ... Rain robbed me of victory.

[Nima]

BCCI announces 1 crore for Team India 
 
Monday, 13 August , 2007, 23:49 
 
New Delhi: The Indian cricket team had more reasons to celebrate their historic series win against England as the Board (BCCI) announced a cash bonanza of Rs 1 crore here today.
 
"I would like to congratulate the Indian contingent for their excellent team work and performance against England in the Test series. I am sure every Indian will feel proud of our players who have won a series in England after a gap of 21 years," BCCI president Sharad Pawar said in a statement.

"As president of the Board I am happy to announce a prize money of Rs 1 crore to the 16 players, the cricket manager and the two coaches. A separate amount would be provided to other cricketing staff."

India won the three-Test series against England 1-0. They won the second match at Trent Bridge and drew the first and the last at Lord's and The Oval respectively. Their previous series win in England, a 2-0 success, came in 1986.

"They have played some spectacular cricket and practically everyone has contributed, from newcomers to seniors. I want to specially mention the support role played by Chandu Borde, the cricket manager, and Venkatesh Prasad and Robin Singh, the bowling and fielding coaches.’’

"I am sure a similar performance will be shown in the one-day series to be played."

Pawar, however, requested the fans to share in the joy of the team without losing perspective. "It is a game of ups and downs. So, if they don't perform we should not get angry with them," he said.

"It is our responsibility to encourage and support them and boost their morale."
 
 
 
 

[gouravk]

England v India, 3rd Test, The Oval, 5th day

A team performance to rank with the best

Andrew Miller at The Oval

August 13, 2007


   
Sreesanth struggled through most of the series, but finished on a high with three wickets on the final day at The Oval © Getty Images

The Oval may be a mighty ground for finishes, with 13 positive results in 17 matches since 1990, but it is the inconclusive fixtures that have caused the most flutters in recent years. Last summer this ground played host to the Pakistan furore (the match was eventually awarded to England, but in the mind's eye it remains the ultimate no-result), and the year before that, there was arguably the most famous draw of the last 25 years, when England defied Australia to bring home the Ashes after an 18-year hiatus.

India's fans may not appreciate it right now, as they quibble about the reasons behind Rahul Dravid's safety-first approach, but this draw will one day be looked upon with similar fondness. The scenes at the end of the final over, with Indian fielders raising their arms in triumph and leaping gleefully into each other's embrace, will be replayed over and over in the coming months and years, and rightly so. This match ended in a victory every bit as tangible as England's in 2005, and for India it had been an even longer time coming.

Much had been made of India's inability to win outside the subcontinent - their laboured 1-0 win in the Caribbean last spring was their first against a major nation since they again beat England in 1986. But this triumph was something else entirely. It was spearheaded by two swing bowlers, Zaheer Khan and RP Singh, who learned their lines quickly and prevented England's batsmen from reaching 400 in any of their innings.

It was underpinned by the decades-long knowhow of Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly in the middle-order, and it was given impetus by the unexpected success of Wasim Jaffer and Dinesh Karthik who, as an opening partnership, stole the show from their off-colour English counterparts. Mahendra Singh Dhoni had the better of Matt Prior, Anil Kumble outperformed Monty Panesar. And even the maligned Sreesanth finished the series on a high, with three wickets to Zaheer's none on the final day at The Oval. It was a team performance to rank with the best.

But for far too many detractors, the moment of glory was spoiled by the tactics of India's captain, Dravid, who - in opting not to enforce the follow-on and choosing instead to bat again - has been subjected to a barrage of condemnation. Accusations of cowardice, negativity, even (can you credit it?) match-fixing have been flying his way, and all from fans who have become so hooked on the quick fix of the one-day game that they have lost the ability to savour the ebb and flow of proper Test cricket.

Those fans will be back at the burger bar soon enough, when the seven-match one-day series gets underway next week. For the time being, let's appreciate the bigger picture: Dravid's men are heirs to Ajit Wadekar's heroes of 1971 and Kapil Dev's of 1986. England - the second-best Test team in the world, unbeaten at home since 2001 - have been turned over in swing-and-seam conditions that should have suited their cricketers down to the ground. This is a hugely significant victory.

And yet, what would the reaction have been if the series had been squandered? It's not such an outlandish prospect as you might think. In 2005, England made Australia follow on in the fourth Test at Trent Bridge - rightly so, as the series was tied at 1-1 and the match simply had to be won. They were left with a modest target of 129, and ended scrambling home by three wickets into the teeth of a Shane Warne and Brett Lee gale.

Nerves play an almighty part in international sport, especially when history is within your grasp. For all that they were the better team for two Tests, India still had a very real chance of losing if they went all-in for the win.

Let's not forget, at Trent Bridge in the second Test, India had lost three quick wickets chasing a mere 73 - if Michael Vaughan had found a few more batting partners during his magnificent 124, the chase could have got even trickier than that.

No way was Dravid going to risk another attack of the jitters - it was bad enough when his team slumped to 11 for 3 in the third innings here, but at least he knew that, by dropping anchor in the manner that he did, his team would be able to ride out the storm. "If I'd have been in his position I'd have done exactly the same," said Michael Vaughan. "They were 1-0 up and they want to make sure they win the series."

What is more, England had in their armoury a batsman who loves nothing better than an assault on the impossible. It was Kevin Pietersen who transcended the panic in the 2005 Oval Test, and for the second time in three appearances on the ground, he took it upon himself to score a last-day century. From the moment England had folded in their first innings, the pressure - perversely - was off. Follow-on or no follow-on, all they had to do was bat for themselves, and then bat some more.

And a man like KP hardly needs a second invitation to look after No. 1. Sometimes that would come across as a criticism, but not when there's a series to be saved. In the end, Pietersen's hundred could do nothing more than save the match for England, but Dravid - by his tactics - had eliminated the other dreadful possibility. It was hardly the conclusion that a million fans had been hankering for, but 50 years from now, no-one will quibble about the small-change. "I'm sure you've all be entertained," added Vaughan by way of support. "It's been proper Test match cricket, and it's been tough."

Andrew Miller is UK editor of Cricinfo.

[caught and bowled]

Accusations of cowardice, negativity, even (can you credit it?) match-fixing have been flying his way, and all from fans who have become so hooked on the quick fix of the one-day game that they have lost the ability to savour the ebb and flow of proper Test cricket.

This is exactly the same thing I said to a friend here on the DG . I am not sure if fans who are weaned on the 100 over games finishing in day, involving strange wide and no ball rules, field restrictions, economy and strike rates (and heaven help - now soon, free hits on no balls!!) can appreciate Test matches, if the criticism of Dravid is anything to go by.

A Test series win is a Test series win and while it would have been great to win it 2-0, nothing can be taken away from it just because it 1-0. Its not that they didn’t try to win the 2nd one, they came reasonably close. Instead of severely castigating the captain for the draw in the last one, we should all be savouring a rare series win

[justforkix]

in the pre-series poll, only two people said india will win 1-0 and india just did that but no one is happy

i will take the 1-0 win any day compared to a series loss, if india can repeat this feat in australia, boy how fantastic that would be..

Exactly. I had predicted 1-1 ... Rain robbed me of victory.

I predcited 3-0 for India. Rain spoilt my prediction at Lords  and Kapthan spoilt my predictions at Oval 

[schumi]

Predicted 1-0 and would have taken 2-0 even if my prediction got wrong. Also, predicted that RPS will be the surprise weapon !!!.

http://www.cricketvoice.com/cricketforum2/index.php?topic=11879.msg145529#msg145529

Anycase, happy that the team won on a team performance and they are better than the DG folks now. The DG now is more divided than the Indian Cricket team itself. As far, as references to RD as cowardly, pussy, negative etc., I really dont care.

We won in West Indies, Drew in SA and Won again in England. Overall it was good test cricket and I missed almost all of the action during the last test (vacation).

RD has to get back his batting form, AK his economy (that was the missing element and that is how he strangles batsmen to death) and SS needs to be more mature.

Celebrate when you can and save the criticism for later.

WE WON THE SERIES, WE WON THE SERIES , WE WON THE SERIES !!!  

[fineleg]

schumi,
good call on RPS...hope he will show consistency going forward.

[schumi]

Finey, Thanks. Soon Munaf Patel is going to be pushing for his place in the team and it would be interesting to watch how RPS and SS perform when they are fighting to keep their place. RPS is safe for the time being. When playing in India, there is place only for 2 fast bowlers and there will be a good competition between MP, RPS and SS for the second seamer's spot.

[pipsqueak]

Shadow over series win 

8/14/2007 6:32:47 AM
 
Team India celebrates victory on Monday (August 13), but the sheen was off this time due to the nega 
It's been a historic win for India on English soil after 21 long years, a 1-0 series victory after England played out a draw, saving the Oval Test. But India may have missed out on sealing what seemed to be a definite 2-0 series victory, and even as India celebrates victory, a negative approach and defensive play threatens to take the sheen off the historic series win. So, did India lack the winners attitude?

Did India lack the attitude?

The last ball of the innings from Kumble on Monday (August 13) was the moment everyone had been waiting for and brought joyous scenes of revelry and congratulations. Undoubtedly, with India registering its third Test series victory on English soil in 75 years, there was reason enough captain Rahul Dravid and the team to cheer and celebrate.

India achieved a series victory in England after 21 years - certainly creditable - but the celebrations cannot hide Team India's lack of aggression, intent and killer instinct on the last 2 days of the Oval Test with England on the mat gasping for breath.

This was a Test made memorable by Indian batsmen's exploits, but the team failed to take advantage of the mammoth total choosing to bat again instead of enforcing England to follow-on - a move that reeked of a defensive mindset even while sitting on a 319-run lead.

The decision not only proved India's lack of confidence, belief and attitude to go in for the kill when the prey was ready to be hunted down - but allowed England to manage a face-saving draw from a hopeless situation.

Kevin Pietersen scored a well-deserved century to thwart Indian bowling which seemed more interested in going through the charade. Ian Bell also didn't miss the opportunity with a well-compiled half-century. Every wicket gave hope that India may return with a 2-0 victory, but England captain Michael Vaughan and Paul Collingwood played their parts in justly denying India the victory which was never theirs.

The shades of pessimism will be hidden in the celebrations and this will surely take the gloss away from what could have been a comprehensive series victory.

Unforgivable!

After India won the second Test at Nottingham to go one-up in the series, it seemed Team India had come of age and would go for the kill at The Oval. But unfotunately, that was not to happen - here are instances in the match which showed the negative mindset of the Indian team's think tank - clearly unforgivable.

First Instance: Dravid did not declare in the first innings after Anil Kumble got his hundred. India already had an imposing total of 636, but Dravid continued to bat on till Sreesanth got out at 664 - precious time was lost. This was the first glimpse of a negative approach.

Second instance: India had England on the mat after they were dismissed for 346 in the first innings. When the team needed to nail the Englishmen by imposing the follow-on, the skipper chose not to, this despite a handsome lead of 319.

Third instance: When India's second innings began, there was no sense of urgency from the Indian batsmen. The start was conventional and sluggish, India did not promote MS Dhoni to get quick runs to give their bowlers more time to bowl the Englishmen out.

Fourth instance: Captain Rahul Dravid had already lost the plot and that reflected in his batting; his innings was excruciatingly slow and he spent almost 2 and a half hours at the crease to score just 12 runs.

Fifth instance: And after taking such a surprising decision not to impose the follow-on, Rahul Dravid let the cricket manager Chandu Borde to face the fire. The skipper was clearly found wanting in failing to give an explanation to the press and the public.

Rahul Dravid will take this series victory - but deep down he will know that the sheen is definitely off.

India's Top 4

The tour of England was touted to be a big test of character for the 'Fab Four'. All the four have had a special relationship with England and wanted to finish the tour on a high.

For Rahul Dravid, Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly their glorious Test cricketing journey started at the homeland of cricket. And for VVS Laxman, it was redemption time, as in his previous tour in 2002, he had had a horrendous time.

Clearly, all the four had a big task in hand.

Dravid

For the skipper as an individual batsman, this was the worst overseas tour he has ever had in his career -  in six innings Rahul Dravid scored just one 50.

But it was the best moment of his captaincy, when he lifted the NPower Trophy.

His inexplicable decisions in the last Test at Oval will definitely come back to haunt him when he faces teams like Australia.

TIMES NOW gives him a 4/10 for being a lucky captain of a good team.

Tendulkar

A very rare instance where the 'Little Master' ended the tour without a ton - he came close twice. For Sachin the pressure weighed on him right from Lords', where he does not have a ton to show despite four visits.

His strike-rate of 44 showed he was never scoring runs freely and the English bowlers kept a tight leash over him.

For just his presence and the innings at Trent Bridge, TIMES NOW gives him a 6/10 in his last tour of England.

Ganguly

Sourav Ganguly was the best in the big league. He averaged 50 in 6 innings, and showed a lot of character coming down the order.

He was also unlucky twice when he was declared out looking well-set for a century on both ocassions.

Ganguly's bowling effort in the Second Test was crucial where he bowled tight spells to maintain pressure on England.

For his fighting spirit alone, Ganguly earns a 7/10.

Laxman

VVS Laxman's redemption tour was not splendid, but very noteworthy. His two Test fifties played a crucial part in India's win. The stylish batsman could not build on his innings, faltering when the team needed him.

He does not appear the same force he was a couple of years ago. The middle-order batsman gets a 5/10 for his sheer persistence and style.

Undoubtedly all the four are in the twilight of their careers, and with another England tour looking improbable, they would perhaps look back with a little bit of regret.


http://www.timesnow.tv/NewsDtls.aspx?NewsID=2000

[keep-it-cool]

We won in West Indies, Drew in SA and Won again in England.

I wish the middle one was true ....we came very close.

But, yes .. WE WON THE SERIES, WE WON THE SERIES, WE WON THE SERIES.