Print

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

[Cover Point]

"I think we have given around 20-30 runs in our fielding and that makes a big difference. I hope tomorrow we put in a good performance in bowling, batting and fielding. It would have been nice to stop those 30 runs and see the scoreboard at the end on 270 for 4."

'The wicket is very, very flat' - Harbhajan
Siddhartha Vaidyanathan in Chennai
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/indvrsa/content/current/story/344089.html
March 26, 2008
 
Harbhajan Singh: "It would have been nice to stop those 30 runs and see the scoreboard at the end on 270 for 4" © AFP
 
 

All doubts over the nature of the surface were dispelled when Harbhajan Singh coined a sweet term for it. Paata is a term used to describe a benign, flat surface with very little in it for the bowlers but Harbhajan felt it right to call the pitch provided for the first Test as a super paata. So dopey was the track that WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency] might send a few officials to Chennai soon.

"It was a first-day wicket and you can't rely on the patches [on the pitch]. You have to vary your line and length according to the wicket," Harbhajan said. "Let me tell you one thing. The wicket is very, very flat and it is hard for the bowlers to keep running in with the same intensity in this heat."

The irony about India preparing such tracks for home Tests is that their recent successes abroad have all come on bowler-friendly surfaces. Spiced up pitches in Kingston and Johannesburg have produced Indian wins; so have swing-fests at Headingley and Nottingham; so has a sporting pitch in Perth. It's high time someone realised that India's best chance of winning is on a track with some life.

The Chennai ground staff point out to the lack of preparation time. As recently as February 27 a Ranji Trophy one-dayer was played on this ground and 12 days of rain in between meant there was little time for producing a quality wicket. They probably have a case but the earlier India start putting some life into their pitches, the more advantageous it could be. Through the 1990s India relied on their spin formula to torment visiting teams but this is an era when their strength lies in seam and swing. Even their spinners thrive with a bit of bounce on the surface.

"I think it was very important to win the toss," Harbhajan said, "but the Madras [Chennai] wicket has always been like that. It has always been good for the batsmen for the first two-three days and then the spinners come into play. You can't really keep complaining."

The moment the toss plays such a big part in fortunes, you know something is amiss. Which brings us to the kind of bowling attack India choose for such death-beds. The conditions were always going to be hot and humid, the batsmen were bound to apply the pressure, and the bowlers were expected to tire. Neither Sachin Tendulkar nor Sourav Ganguly were given a bowl [the former was off the field for an extended period] and it meant long spells for the frontline bowlers. With 14 days to go in the series, it could well turn into a long and tiring one.

Choosing Irfan Pathan would have probably been one seamer too many and going with Piyush Chawla would have required one of the middle-order batsmen to sit out - a possibility which might have been pushing it too far. So in a way India probably had their hands tied but there should be a thought given, in the long-term at least, for playing five specialist bowlers. Even if one of them has an off day, the others could share the responsibility.

Where India really lost out was the amount of boundary balls they gave through the day. Forty- five fours on the first day of the match is probably twice as much as they would have targeted. Even more interestingly they managed 400 dot balls out of 540. So while they did the right things for most of the day, they kept taking off the pressure with the loose deliveries. Handcuff the batsmen for a while before opening the back door at exactly the wrong time.

Harbhajan agreed. "I think we have given a lot of boundary balls," he said. "In the first session we gave around 60-70 runs in boundaries. The first session is always important in a Test match and they dominated it. We did very well in the last two sessions and got those four wickets. It would be nice to have got one or two more wickets, but they batted well today.

"I think we have given around 20-30 runs in our fielding and that makes a big difference. I hope tomorrow we put in a good performance in bowling, batting and fielding. It would have been nice to stop those 30 runs and see the scoreboard at the end on 270 for 4."

Siddhartha Vaidyanathan is an assistant editor at Cricinfo

[time2frenzy]

"I think we have given around 20-30 runs in our fielding and that makes a big difference. I hope tomorrow we put in a good performance in bowling, batting and fielding. It would have been nice to stop those 30 runs and see the scoreboard at the end on 270 for 4."

'The wicket is very, very flat' - Harbhajan
Siddhartha Vaidyanathan in Chennai
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/indvrsa/content/current/story/344089.html
March 26, 2008
 
Harbhajan Singh: "It would have been nice to stop those 30 runs and see the scoreboard at the end on 270 for 4" © AFP
 
 

All doubts over the nature of the surface were dispelled when Harbhajan Singh coined a sweet term for it. Paata is a term used to describe a benign, flat surface with very little in it for the bowlers but Harbhajan felt it right to call the pitch provided for the first Test as a super paata. So dopey was the track that WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency] might send a few officials to Chennai soon.

"It was a first-day wicket and you can't rely on the patches [on the pitch]. You have to vary your line and length according to the wicket," Harbhajan said. "Let me tell you one thing. The wicket is very, very flat and it is hard for the bowlers to keep running in with the same intensity in this heat."

The irony about India preparing such tracks for home Tests is that their recent successes abroad have all come on bowler-friendly surfaces. Spiced up pitches in Kingston and Johannesburg have produced Indian wins; so have swing-fests at Headingley and Nottingham; so has a sporting pitch in Perth. It's high time someone realised that India's best chance of winning is on a track with some life.

The Chennai ground staff point out to the lack of preparation time. As recently as February 27 a Ranji Trophy one-dayer was played on this ground and 12 days of rain in between meant there was little time for producing a quality wicket. They probably have a case but the earlier India start putting some life into their pitches, the more advantageous it could be. Through the 1990s India relied on their spin formula to torment visiting teams but this is an era when their strength lies in seam and swing. Even their spinners thrive with a bit of bounce on the surface.

"I think it was very important to win the toss," Harbhajan said, "but the Madras [Chennai] wicket has always been like that. It has always been good for the batsmen for the first two-three days and then the spinners come into play. You can't really keep complaining."

The moment the toss plays such a big part in fortunes, you know something is amiss. Which brings us to the kind of bowling attack India choose for such death-beds. The conditions were always going to be hot and humid, the batsmen were bound to apply the pressure, and the bowlers were expected to tire. Neither Sachin Tendulkar nor Sourav Ganguly were given a bowl [the former was off the field for an extended period] and it meant long spells for the frontline bowlers. With 14 days to go in the series, it could well turn into a long and tiring one.

Choosing Irfan Pathan would have probably been one seamer too many and going with Piyush Chawla would have required one of the middle-order batsmen to sit out - a possibility which might have been pushing it too far. So in a way India probably had their hands tied but there should be a thought given, in the long-term at least, for playing five specialist bowlers. Even if one of them has an off day, the others could share the responsibility.

Where India really lost out was the amount of boundary balls they gave through the day. Forty- five fours on the first day of the match is probably twice as much as they would have targeted. Even more interestingly they managed 400 dot balls out of 540. So while they did the right things for most of the day, they kept taking off the pressure with the loose deliveries. Handcuff the batsmen for a while before opening the back door at exactly the wrong time.

Harbhajan agreed. "I think we have given a lot of boundary balls," he said. "In the first session we gave around 60-70 runs in boundaries. The first session is always important in a Test match and they dominated it. We did very well in the last two sessions and got those four wickets. It would be nice to have got one or two more wickets, but they batted well today.

"I think we have given around 20-30 runs in our fielding and that makes a big difference. I hope tomorrow we put in a good performance in bowling, batting and fielding. It would have been nice to stop those 30 runs and see the scoreboard at the end on 270 for 4."

Siddhartha Vaidyanathan is an assistant editor at Cricinfo

And the insanity goes on ..... I can't help wondering if u ever feel like getting out of ur theatrics for once ?

[manee]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

[cricinfo]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

you need to start spending more time in DG

[Libran]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

you need to start spending more time in DG

But why.... sometimes ignorance is bliss and manee is one person who has been saved the trouble of the rabble rousers... let him be

[Cover Point]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

you need to start spending more time in DG

But why.... sometimes ignorance is bliss and manee is one person who has been saved the trouble of the rabble rousers... let him be

wish we were that lucky.

[back2grave]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

you need to start spending more time in DG

But why.... sometimes ignorance is bliss and manee is one person who has been saved the trouble of the rabble rousers... let him be

well said, atleast one was lucky enuf not to bump into a lunatic ....

[manee]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

you need to start spending more time in DG

I get that coverpoint2 hates Ganguly, but you can't just invent comments from a player.

[cricinfo]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

you need to start spending more time in DG

I get that coverpoint2 hates Ganguly, but you can't just invent comments from a player.

Apparently CP does not hate Ganguly but sooner or later i will not be surprised if he ends up blaming Ganguly for the current US economic slowdown

[Libran]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

you need to start spending more time in DG

I get that coverpoint2 hates Ganguly, but you can't just invent comments from a player.

This DG plays the surrogate mother for a lot of unwanted inventions

[ramshorns]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

you need to start spending more time in DG

I get that coverpoint2 hates Ganguly, but you can't just invent comments from a player.

How do you know that CP2 hates SG

[manee]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

you need to start spending more time in DG

I get that coverpoint2 hates Ganguly, but you can't just invent comments from a player.

How do you know that CP2 hates SG

Okay, hates might not be the right word - obsesses over is probably a better term.

[dextrous]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

you need to start spending more time in DG

I get that coverpoint2 hates Ganguly, but you can't just invent comments from a player.

How do you know that CP2 hates SG

No, that's breaking news.

[ramshorns]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

you need to start spending more time in DG

I get that coverpoint2 hates Ganguly, but you can't just invent comments from a player.

How do you know that CP2 hates SG

No, that's breaking news.

Actually, no.  When I met him I was surprised to see that he believed more in Ganguly than I did and this was way before SG was even in the framework of his comeback.  I genuinely think he does not.

[LosingNow]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

you need to start spending more time in DG

I get that coverpoint2 hates Ganguly, but you can't just invent comments from a player.

How do you know that CP2 hates SG

No, that's breaking news.

Actually, no.  When I met him I was surprised to see that he believed more in Ganguly than I did and this was way before SG was even in the framework of his comeback.  I genuinely think he does not.

[ruchir]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

http://twenty20world.blogspot.com/2008/03/short-video-highlights-day-2-1st-test_27.html

Watch this video, watch SG's effort in saving a 4 off HS bowling. Timestamp is between 2:00 and 2:15. Maybe that's what HS is indicating to when he is talking about saving 30 runs!!

[OldPal]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

http://twenty20world.blogspot.com/2008/03/short-video-highlights-day-2-1st-test_27.html

Watch this video, watch SG's effort in saving a 4 off HS bowling. Timestamp is between 2:00 and 2:15. Maybe that's what HS is indicating to when he is talking about saving 30 runs!!

 

[LosingNow]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

http://twenty20world.blogspot.com/2008/03/short-video-highlights-day-2-1st-test_27.html

Watch this video, watch SG's effort in saving a 4 off HS bowling. Timestamp is between 2:00 and 2:15. Maybe that's what HS is indicating to when he is talking about saving 30 runs!!

This linked video is only 1:24 long and highlights VS' 50.
--
BTW, you should have seen the 4s that RPS and SS let go, yesterday. They would put any maharathi to shame.

[cricinfo]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

http://twenty20world.blogspot.com/2008/03/short-video-highlights-day-2-1st-test_27.html

Watch this video, watch SG's effort in saving a 4 off HS bowling. Timestamp is between 2:00 and 2:15. Maybe that's what HS is indicating to when he is talking about saving 30 runs!!

This linked video is only 1:24 long and highlights VS' 50.
--
BTW, you should have seen the 4s that RPS and SS let go, yesterday. They would put any maharathi to shame.

no you cant talk about those....

[OldPal]

no you cant talk about those....

but we can write
Here :
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/indvrsa/content/current/story/344216.html

Sreesanth also failed to judge a skier from Dale Steyn late in the innings and received a fiery salvo from Harbhajan Singh, the bowler who also ran towards the ball. Wasim Jaffer wasn't quick to get down to a tough chance at short leg and the rest too had a few sloppy moments on the field.

"Everybody didn't field well," Sehwag said. "It wasn't just them [RP Singh and Sreesanth]. We all want to do well but sometimes the intensity level drops maybe because of the heat."

[LosingNow]

no you cant talk about those....

but we can write
Here :
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/indvrsa/content/current/story/344216.html

Sreesanth also failed to judge a skier from Dale Steyn late in the innings and received a fiery salvo from Harbhajan Singh, the bowler who also ran towards the ball. Wasim Jaffer wasn't quick to get down to a tough chance at short leg and the rest too had a few sloppy moments on the field.

"Everybody didn't field well," Sehwag said. "It wasn't just them [RP Singh and Sreesanth]. We all want to do well but sometimes the intensity level drops maybe because of the heat."

This was the sloppiest fielding ever.. people in gully cricket field better than this. How can an international cricketer let go a ball between their legs?

[ruchir]

Here is the video I was talking about:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/2lUTy5dBqeo&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/2lUTy5dBqeo&rel=0</a>

Timestamp: 2:00 to 2:15. SG allegedly tries to save a 4 off HS bowling.

[LosingNow]

Here is the video I was talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lUTy5dBqeo

Timestamp: 2:00 to 2:15. SG allegedly tries to save a 4 off HS bowling.

Ha ha.. not even in the frame.

Did you notice the one at 0:55 from Mr Exceptional Slip Fielder.

I think they were all sleep-walking through the proceedings y'day.

[ruchir]

Here is the video I was talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lUTy5dBqeo

Timestamp: 2:00 to 2:15. SG allegedly tries to save a 4 off HS bowling.

Ha ha.. not even in the frame.

Did you notice the one at 0:55 from Mr Exceptional Slip Fielder.

I think they were all sleep-walking through the proceedings y'day.

Mr. Exceptional was so exceptional that even he didn't realize that the ball had slipped away from under him!!

[cricinfo]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

http://twenty20world.blogspot.com/2008/03/short-video-highlights-day-2-1st-test_27.html

Watch this video, watch SG's effort in saving a 4 off HS bowling. Timestamp is between 2:00 and 2:15. Maybe that's what HS is indicating to when he is talking about saving 30 runs!!

i watched the video on youtube....not sure what is there to watch? was there a misfield ? in the last frame i could see SG giving up where he was 3 yards away from the ball...

[ruchir]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

http://twenty20world.blogspot.com/2008/03/short-video-highlights-day-2-1st-test_27.html

Watch this video, watch SG's effort in saving a 4 off HS bowling. Timestamp is between 2:00 and 2:15. Maybe that's what HS is indicating to when he is talking about saving 30 runs!!

i watched the video on youtube....not sure what is there to watch? was there a misfield ? in the last frame i could see SG giving up where he was 3 yards away from the ball...

Refer to reply # 25.

Point is not that SG was away from the ball. Point is that he did not even try to stop or get close to the ball. Point is that he gave up.

[cricinfo]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

http://twenty20world.blogspot.com/2008/03/short-video-highlights-day-2-1st-test_27.html

Watch this video, watch SG's effort in saving a 4 off HS bowling. Timestamp is between 2:00 and 2:15. Maybe that's what HS is indicating to when he is talking about saving 30 runs!!

i watched the video on youtube....not sure what is there to watch? was there a misfield ? in the last frame i could see SG giving up where he was 3 yards away from the ball...

Refer to reply # 25.

Point is not that SG was away from the ball. Point is that he did not even try to stop or get close to the ball. Point is that he gave up.

how he gave up ? because commentator says so ? If he is 3 yards away from the ball which is within inches of boundary rope ....a few options

1. Jump like an idiot with the chances of injury and zero chance of stopping the ball knowing fully well that he is no jonty rhodes
2.Dont jump !
3.Jump relatively safe and reach within 2 yards of the ball and still concede the 4

[LosingNow]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

http://twenty20world.blogspot.com/2008/03/short-video-highlights-day-2-1st-test_27.html

Watch this video, watch SG's effort in saving a 4 off HS bowling. Timestamp is between 2:00 and 2:15. Maybe that's what HS is indicating to when he is talking about saving 30 runs!!

i watched the video on youtube....not sure what is there to watch? was there a misfield ? in the last frame i could see SG giving up where he was 3 yards away from the ball...

Refer to reply # 25.

Point is not that SG was away from the ball. Point is that he did not even try to stop or get close to the ball. Point is that he gave up.

how he gave up ? because commentator says so ? If he is 3 yards away from the ball which is within inches of boundary rope ....a few options

1. Jump like an idiot with the chances of injury and zero chance of stopping the ball knowing fully well that he is no jonty rhodes
2.Dont jump !
3.Jump relatively safe and reach within 2 yards of the ball and still concede the 4

CI : heard of Maharaja stroll ?

Frankly, I don't know why he was even put on the boundary. He is best at mid-off or mid-on.. specially because RPS was crap at those positions.

[cricinfo]

that is a different conversation altogether ...!!

point is people have a tendency to just comment on things out of context ...as a matter of fact watch these fielders giving up on stopping the ball in the following timeframes...so are we going to stay they should have kept on running like crazy or jump like kungaroo knowing fully well what they are (in)capable of doing ?

1-110
225-230
305 - 310
410 -420

[ruchir]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

http://twenty20world.blogspot.com/2008/03/short-video-highlights-day-2-1st-test_27.html

Watch this video, watch SG's effort in saving a 4 off HS bowling. Timestamp is between 2:00 and 2:15. Maybe that's what HS is indicating to when he is talking about saving 30 runs!!

i watched the video on youtube....not sure what is there to watch? was there a misfield ? in the last frame i could see SG giving up where he was 3 yards away from the ball...

Refer to reply # 25.

Point is not that SG was away from the ball. Point is that he did not even try to stop or get close to the ball. Point is that he gave up.

how he gave up ? because commentator says so ? If he is 3 yards away from the ball which is within inches of boundary rope ....a few options

1. Jump like an idiot with the chances of injury and zero chance of stopping the ball knowing fully well that he is no jonty rhodes
2.Dont jump !
3.Jump relatively safe and reach within 2 yards of the ball and still concede the 4

I didn't hear any commentary on SG not attempting to stop that ball. Why get so defensive that I am gonig by what commentator is saying rather than what I am saying?

1. He could have run faster to try and stop the ball. It is his deficiency, if he can not run faster. A younger player might have stopped that ball.
2. If you think that diving at a ball will increase chances of injury, then I guess no Indian player should ever dive after a ball. Right? After all, we don't want our players to get injured. Do we? More so, if he happens to be SG. So, they should not dive after a ball, should not play other games like soccer or Kho-Kho, should not even run fast because that might result in ankle injury. Basically, they should be treated like new born child.
3. That fact that SG did not even attempt to run faster or dive at that ball shows me his commitment. I see other Indian fielders run hard at the ball till it crosses the boundary, SG was merely strolling. I have seen Indian players dive from 5 yards behind the ball, at the boundary, to show their serious commitment to stopping the runs, SG did not even attempt that. A lackadaisical attempt like this one might actually result in bowler getting disheartened. A serious attempt gives the bowler hope that fielders are at least trying.

BTW, it does not matter how others fielded. They might be even crappier than SG, but they are not the point of discussion.

[dextrous]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

you need to start spending more time in DG

I get that coverpoint2 hates Ganguly, but you can't just invent comments from a player.

How do you know that CP2 hates SG

No, that's breaking news.

Actually, no.  When I met him I was surprised to see that he believed more in Ganguly than I did and this was way before SG was even in the framework of his comeback.  I genuinely think he does not.

What anyone is like outside of the DG is of no concern. Every poster represents himself/herself by his/her posts online IMO.

[OldPal]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

you need to start spending more time in DG

I get that coverpoint2 hates Ganguly, but you can't just invent comments from a player.

How do you know that CP2 hates SG

No, that's breaking news.

Actually, no.  When I met him I was surprised to see that he believed more in Ganguly than I did and this was way before SG was even in the framework of his comeback.  I genuinely think he does not.

Glad to find out how much you believe in Ganguly.   

[ramshorns]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

you need to start spending more time in DG

I get that coverpoint2 hates Ganguly, but you can't just invent comments from a player.

How do you know that CP2 hates SG

No, that's breaking news.

Actually, no.  When I met him I was surprised to see that he believed more in Ganguly than I did and this was way before SG was even in the framework of his comeback.  I genuinely think he does not.

Glad to find out how much you believe in Ganguly.   

??

[pipsqueak]

prem's comment on the fielding -  really, did he even watch who were the ones making the fielding bloopers? am waiting for the "digs" at the non-geriatric, aussie-standard fielders from the oh-so-objective PremP.

on another note, the fielding during the tri-series was exceptional? EH?



The other important point relates to the fielding -

“I think we have given around 20-30 runs in our fielding and that makes a big difference. I hope tomorrow we put in a good performance in bowling, batting and fielding. It would have been nice to stop those 30 runs and see the scoreboard at the end on 270 for 4.”

Interesting. Not that the fielding was poor—that has been a facet of the Test side for some time now, but that it is a team member making the point. When a journalist does it, it is invariably interpreted as a dig at some of the more geriatric senior citizens in the side. But when Bajji feels the need to point it out, what then—especially when we have recently seen a team in Indian colors field at close to the standards set by the Australians? “20 30 runs made all the difference”—indeed!

http://www.prempanicker.com/index.php

[back2grave]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

http://twenty20world.blogspot.com/2008/03/short-video-highlights-day-2-1st-test_27.html

Watch this video, watch SG's effort in saving a 4 off HS bowling. Timestamp is between 2:00 and 2:15. Maybe that's what HS is indicating to when he is talking about saving 30 runs!!

i watched the video on youtube....not sure what is there to watch? was there a misfield ? in the last frame i could see SG giving up where he was 3 yards away from the ball...

Refer to reply # 25.

Point is not that SG was away from the ball. Point is that he did not even try to stop or get close to the ball. Point is that he gave up.

how he gave up ? because commentator says so ? If he is 3 yards away from the ball which is within inches of boundary rope ....a few options

1. Jump like an idiot with the chances of injury and zero chance of stopping the ball knowing fully well that he is no jonty rhodes
2.Dont jump !
3.Jump relatively safe and reach within 2 yards of the ball and still concede the 4

I didn't hear any commentary on SG not attempting to stop that ball. Why get so defensive that I am gonig by what commentator is saying rather than what I am saying?

1. He could have run faster to try and stop the ball. It is his deficiency, if he can not run faster. A younger player might have stopped that ball.
2. If you think that diving at a ball will increase chances of injury, then I guess no Indian player should ever dive after a ball. Right? After all, we don't want our players to get injured. Do we? More so, if he happens to be SG. So, they should not dive after a ball, should not play other games like soccer or Kho-Kho, should not even run fast because that might result in ankle injury. Basically, they should be treated like new born child.
3. That fact that SG did not even attempt to run faster or dive at that ball shows me his commitment. I see other Indian fielders run hard at the ball till it crosses the boundary, SG was merely strolling. I have seen Indian players dive from 5 yards behind the ball, at the boundary, to show their serious commitment to stopping the runs, SG did not even attempt that. A lackadaisical attempt like this one might actually result in bowler getting disheartened. A serious attempt gives the bowler hope that fielders are at least trying.

BTW, it does not matter how others fielded. They might be even crappier than SG, but they are not the point of discussion.

Ur super fertile imagination preceedes ur rationale....SG was no where near the frame when the ball was close to the boundary. And u just seemed to deduct that he didn't run fast enuf....did u know where exactly was he positioned at ? did u actually know how much ground he had covered ? Atleast the highlight doesn't reveal it, neither anyone from the commentry team....and wat was the point in a show off dive when u can't reach it ? maybe, these pretencious dives fascinate u .... anywayz, I guess u and logic doesn't go together when it comes to SG

[proloy]

Sehwag said. "...We all want to do well but sometimes the intensity level drops maybe because of the heat."

It's not the heat. It's the humility.

[ruchir]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

http://twenty20world.blogspot.com/2008/03/short-video-highlights-day-2-1st-test_27.html

Watch this video, watch SG's effort in saving a 4 off HS bowling. Timestamp is between 2:00 and 2:15. Maybe that's what HS is indicating to when he is talking about saving 30 runs!!

i watched the video on youtube....not sure what is there to watch? was there a misfield ? in the last frame i could see SG giving up where he was 3 yards away from the ball...

Refer to reply # 25.

Point is not that SG was away from the ball. Point is that he did not even try to stop or get close to the ball. Point is that he gave up.

how he gave up ? because commentator says so ? If he is 3 yards away from the ball which is within inches of boundary rope ....a few options

1. Jump like an idiot with the chances of injury and zero chance of stopping the ball knowing fully well that he is no jonty rhodes
2.Dont jump !
3.Jump relatively safe and reach within 2 yards of the ball and still concede the 4

I didn't hear any commentary on SG not attempting to stop that ball. Why get so defensive that I am gonig by what commentator is saying rather than what I am saying?

1. He could have run faster to try and stop the ball. It is his deficiency, if he can not run faster. A younger player might have stopped that ball.
2. If you think that diving at a ball will increase chances of injury, then I guess no Indian player should ever dive after a ball. Right? After all, we don't want our players to get injured. Do we? More so, if he happens to be SG. So, they should not dive after a ball, should not play other games like soccer or Kho-Kho, should not even run fast because that might result in ankle injury. Basically, they should be treated like new born child.
3. That fact that SG did not even attempt to run faster or dive at that ball shows me his commitment. I see other Indian fielders run hard at the ball till it crosses the boundary, SG was merely strolling. I have seen Indian players dive from 5 yards behind the ball, at the boundary, to show their serious commitment to stopping the runs, SG did not even attempt that. A lackadaisical attempt like this one might actually result in bowler getting disheartened. A serious attempt gives the bowler hope that fielders are at least trying.

BTW, it does not matter how others fielded. They might be even crappier than SG, but they are not the point of discussion.

Ur super fertile imagination preceedes ur rationale....SG was no where near the frame when the ball was close to the boundary. And u just seemed to deduct that he didn't run fast enuf....did u know where exactly was he positioned at ? did u actually know how much ground he had covered ? Atleast the highlight doesn't reveal it, neither anyone from the commentry team....and wat was the point in a show off dive when u can't reach it ? maybe, these pretencious dives fascinate u .... anywayz, I guess u and logic doesn't go together when it comes to SG

Did you see the match? In normal play, they show 2-3 replays of every boundary, from different angles. It is very easy to see where and how far SG was positioned, for him to not be able to reach to the ball.

[OldPal]

RJ,
Do you really believe the ball was stoppable ? Just one word anser would do . As the first time i responded to the video with couple of smileys ?But your persistence is shaking my confidence.

[time2frenzy]

I'm confused, the only mention of Ganguly in the article was talking about him not bowling.

http://twenty20world.blogspot.com/2008/03/short-video-highlights-day-2-1st-test_27.html

Watch this video, watch SG's effort in saving a 4 off HS bowling. Timestamp is between 2:00 and 2:15. Maybe that's what HS is indicating to when he is talking about saving 30 runs!!

i watched the video on youtube....not sure what is there to watch? was there a misfield ? in the last frame i could see SG giving up where he was 3 yards away from the ball...

Refer to reply # 25.

Point is not that SG was away from the ball. Point is that he did not even try to stop or get close to the ball. Point is that he gave up.

how he gave up ? because commentator says so ? If he is 3 yards away from the ball which is within inches of boundary rope ....a few options

1. Jump like an idiot with the chances of injury and zero chance of stopping the ball knowing fully well that he is no jonty rhodes
2.Dont jump !
3.Jump relatively safe and reach within 2 yards of the ball and still concede the 4

I didn't hear any commentary on SG not attempting to stop that ball. Why get so defensive that I am gonig by what commentator is saying rather than what I am saying?

1. He could have run faster to try and stop the ball. It is his deficiency, if he can not run faster. A younger player might have stopped that ball.
2. If you think that diving at a ball will increase chances of injury, then I guess no Indian player should ever dive after a ball. Right? After all, we don't want our players to get injured. Do we? More so, if he happens to be SG. So, they should not dive after a ball, should not play other games like soccer or Kho-Kho, should not even run fast because that might result in ankle injury. Basically, they should be treated like new born child.
3. That fact that SG did not even attempt to run faster or dive at that ball shows me his commitment. I see other Indian fielders run hard at the ball till it crosses the boundary, SG was merely strolling. I have seen Indian players dive from 5 yards behind the ball, at the boundary, to show their serious commitment to stopping the runs, SG did not even attempt that. A lackadaisical attempt like this one might actually result in bowler getting disheartened. A serious attempt gives the bowler hope that fielders are at least trying.

BTW, it does not matter how others fielded. They might be even crappier than SG, but they are not the point of discussion.

Ur super fertile imagination preceedes ur rationale....SG was no where near the frame when the ball was close to the boundary. And u just seemed to deduct that he didn't run fast enuf....did u know where exactly was he positioned at ? did u actually know how much ground he had covered ? Atleast the highlight doesn't reveal it, neither anyone from the commentry team....and wat was the point in a show off dive when u can't reach it ? maybe, these pretencious dives fascinate u .... anywayz, I guess u and logic doesn't go together when it comes to SG

Did you see the match? In normal play, they show 2-3 replays of every boundary, from different angles. It is very easy to see where and how far SG was positioned, for him to not be able to reach to the ball.

No, I didn't see the match...I concluded based on the footage u posted here , it doesn't prove anything which suggests that SG gave up on the chase or there was a lack of effort from him .... I think ur argument was based on this footage which I tend to differ

[inoc]

i did see the match.

SG had to be a superman to get to the ball.