Print

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

[TheWall]

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wc2007/content/current/story/287328.html

Unfit and overweight, India's one-day cricketers are being muscled off the park

Shape up or ship out

Jayaditya Gupta

March 26, 2007

The cloud currently hovering over Indian cricket has a silver lining: It offers a chance to scrap the game as it exists in India today and start afresh. Change the way domestic cricket is treated, change the star system of the international team, change the way the international calendar is packed beyond reason. Change the way the Board of Control for Cricket in India runs the game, its vision both myopic and blinkered.

None of that is going to happen, of course; the men who run Indian cricket have far more important things to do than to look at ways of improving the game. Yet there is one area where change, if not carried out, will actually impact their bottom line, and that concerns the fitness of India's one-day team. One-day cricket has evolved into a power game and India are in danger of being muscled off the park. Just as it happened in hockey 30 years ago.

The most striking example of power cricket was, of course, the game between Australia and South Africa at Basseterre on Saturday, which was light years ahead of what India had offered the previous day. The batting was brutal and, in Australia's case, a theme right down the order; the fielding was electric, South Africa saving 40-50 runs through their sheer class of ground fielding. The power cricket ran through both teams, as indeed it does through New Zealand as well. One could not picture India's batsmen or fielders reaching anywhere close to those standards. Our best fielder, Yuvraj Singh, is a sloth by comparison.

Unfortunately, that is the future of one-day cricket and is also the motif of the latest entrant, Twenty20. Test cricket will still place a premium on its traditional qualities of timing and placement, but fitness, athleticism and physical strength will be the determinants ruling the shorter - and, lest we miss the point, more lucrative - versions. If India are to win, if the BCCI are to protect its bottomline, the players must shape up or ship out.

Just over three decades ago hockey underwent a fundamental change, moving from grass to astroturf. The new surface helped players who were fit, fast and strong; it impeded the touch play and dribbling skills that had always given India's players an edge. India's transition was slow and painful; more than six years after the change, the team was beaten 7-1 by Pakistan in the final of the 1982 Asiad at New Delhi's National Stadium, the ultimate hockey humiliation.

The year before astroturf was brought in, India won the World Cup at Kuala Lumpur; in the 32 years since, they have won just one Olympic gold, that too because of a weakened field at the Moscow Olympics. The likes of Korea, Argentina and Spain - scarcely traditional powerhouses - have overtaken India in the rankings because they have adapted to the new game far better. Its long passes and hard hitting are not exciting to watch - like power cricket, where the endless clobbering of fours and sixes can also pale after a while - but it wins matches.

Similarly, Indian tennis players were left straggling when the game traded in wooden rackets for aluminium and other material; touch artists like Ramesh Krishnan just couldn't cope with the emerging power game that undermined all their strong points. It took the arrival of Leander Paes, a generation later, to restore India to the world map. Paes was not possessed of a particularly powerful game but he had the stamina to play three or four hours and win through attrition.

India's current one-day team has neither the strength nor the stamina. It is packed with players long past their sell-by date - and anyone who draws a parallel with Australia is missing the basic point that Australians are naturally fitter and stronger and stay that way far longer. India are in danger of being left behind by a faster, more physical game.

Interestingly, Sri Lanka have been able to balance youth and experience, elegance and power. They are playing good one-day cricket and they know it - it shows on their faces. This, despite their problems - their cricket board is more shambolic (yes, it's possible) than India's, they have their share of prima donnas, they've had captains coming in and out of the side. They have a minuscule talent pool to choose from.Yet Mahela Jayawerdene leads a team most neutrals are hoping will go all the way in the West Indies.

With the next World Cup four years away, India, too, can do that but it would have to exercise several hard options. The one germane to this argument is to separate the Test and ODI teams and, for the latter, rip up the existing team sheet and start afresh. Build a younger side with the likes of Robin Uthappa and Dinesh Karthik, aiming purely at the tournament that will be hosted in South Asia, and drop those unlikely to play in that tournament. If that means an untested ODI captain, so be it; he has four years to master the job. So does his team.

It is a policy admittedly fraught with risks but India's bench strength, while not having a Tendulkar, Ganguly or Dravid, has players far more energetic, hungry and motivated - and who, four years later, will be less likely to lose to Bangladesh without a fight.

Jayaditya Gupta is executive editor of Cricinfo

[LosingNow]

With the next World Cup four years away, India, too, can do that but it would have to exercise several hard options. The one germane to this argument is to separate the Test and ODI teams and, for the latter, rip up the existing team sheet and start afresh. Build a younger side with the likes of Robin Uthappa and Dinesh Karthik, aiming purely at the tournament that will be hosted in South Asia, and drop those unlikely to play in that tournament. If that means an untested ODI captain, so be it; he has four years to master the job. So does his team.

It is a policy admittedly fraught with risks but India's bench strength, while not having a Tendulkar, Ganguly or Dravid, has players far more energetic, hungry and motivated - and who, four years later, will be less likely to lose to Bangladesh without a fight.

---
Very very well said. Mr Gupta.

Eggjacktly my thoughts.. Indian cricket is going down the path of hockey - and our complacent board will not even realize this till it is too late.

Step 1 : Clean up the slate.. really, start thinking in terms of 2011 (frankly, even 2011 is not enough...realistically we will not see anything positive in terms of results till 2015). This whole keep SRT or RD or SG or VS etc for a while is a recipe for disaster. They are clearly not a part of 2011/2015 scheme.. move them out NOW. Give them their farewells, give them their thank-yous, give them their Ferraris, let Lata/Adnan/SRK sing them their songs, give them their malas..all the "good ceremonial stuff" we in India love to do.

Step 2 : Induct the fit, agile, young and hungry..NOW. We will fail in the short term.. but this is a marathon...persevere...create bench strength in each and every position..make sure we have 100 FC players ready to enter the team at any time. That should be the goal.

....more to follow

[Vick]

But if we push the youngester without properly hardening them wouldnt the policy fail as it has in case of PP, Chawla, IP and Raina? The issue we have right now is that there is a serious lack of talent in domestic. Just check the scores of Ranji ODIs going on and you will not find even few guys dominating. We shouldnt panic and not bring in holesale changes. People needs to be brought in after some thinking/logic behind their selection. No point selecting a Venu or Jaffar for ODI. Agility/flexibility should be the quite important requirement.

[CLR James]

Another pious article full of populist idiocies. This is fashionable, new age techno babble that completely obfuscates the issue. Cricket is not a continuous motion, body contact sport like football or hockey. Matches are decided on the strength of bat and ball, not fielding. If the Aussies batted and bowled like us, no fielding in the world would have saved them. The same goes for any team in the world. The Aussies look indestructable because of the bullish powers of a Hayden, or the strokeplay of a Clarke. When that happens and you cannot match up, nothing else matters, even if the outfield is made of Ashtro-turf. This is where Gupta got his analogies completely wrong. Cricket is like baseball, if comparisons are to be made at all. This is why from Babe Ruth to Sammy Sosa, from Patsy Hendren to Australia's own Merv Hughes and David Boon, distinctly unatheletic looking, beer bellied men can emerge as all time greats in both the games.

The transfer of surfaces, from grass to turf in Hockey, would be a more apt analogy if Gupta talked about batting in foreign pitches instead of fielding. A youngster like RU does not (and justifiably so) get blamed as much as a SG because he is young. But see the cold figures. Young Robin was more of a liability than any old war horse because he could not adjust to foreign pitches and post a single respectable score with the bat. That is the malady with our current crop of youngsters. It is not that there is not a will to play them. The simple fact is that they simply have not been able to play. Even a Kaif, after so many foreign tours. SG won out in the thickness of matters because he adjusted his technique and played the quickies with reasonable success in SA. He did what any cricketer is expected to do -- rectify flaws, adjust, and deliver. SR, despite the support of our respected national coach, could not. Neither could MK.

It is of course a foregone conclusion that our side would be a much better one if an SG or a AK had dazzling fielding along with their batting and bowling skills. There can be no question that our next generation of cricketers should aspire towards that. The point however is, we need youngsters who can bat like Ponting or Clarke more than we need fielders like them. We tried an entire army of youngsters in the recent past. They failed, except for a Uthappa here and a Karthik there. Sree Santh was the shining exception. Our present field of talent is so pathetic that even if a wicketkeeper batsman like KKD, with a batting average in the 20s in all forms of the game, hits a couple of 60s (yes that is all, two 60s in international cricket in the last three months), we accord him the status of a specialist batsman and praise him to the skies.

We sent the dad's army to play the WC because at this moment this is the best we have. Nobody builds a young team during the biggest tournament in World cricket, one that comes every four years. You either build before or after it. Of course, unless you are absolutely delusional (SRT has been showing disturbing signs of it lately), you would imagine this to be the last WC of SG/SRT/RD/AK. The whole point was to see whether they would go out in a dazzle of glory and leave a legacy. Had India won, we would be doing the same thing we are doing now, thinking about the future, but perhaps with more elation and less militant urgency.

[LosingNow]

Another pious article full of populist idiocies. This is fashionable, new age techno babble that completely obfuscates the issue. Cricket is not a continuous motion, body contact sport like football or hockey. Matches are decided on the strength of bat and ball, not fielding. If the Aussies batted and bowled like us, no fielding in the world would have saved them. The same goes for any team in the world. The Aussies look indestructable because of the bullish powers of a Hayden, or the strokeplay of a Clarke. When that happens and you cannot match up, nothing else matters, even if the outfield is made of Ashtro-turf. This is where Gupta got his analogies completely wrong. Cricket is like baseball, if comparisons are to be made at all. This is why from Babe Ruth to Sammy Sosa, from Patsy Hendren to Australia's own Merv Hughes and David Boon, distinctly unatheletic looking, beer bellied men can emerge as all time greats in both the games.

The transfer of surfaces, from grass to turf in Hockey, would be a more apt analogy if Gupta talked about batting in foreign pitches instead of fielding. A youngster like RU does not (and justifiably so) get blamed as much as a SG because he is young. But see the cold figures. Young Robin was more of a liability than any old war horse because he could not adjust to foreign pitches and post a single respectable score with the bat. That is the malady with our current crop of youngsters. It is not that there is not a will to play them. The simple fact is that they simply have not been able to play. Even a Kaif, after so many foreign tours. SG won out in the thickness of matters because he adjusted his technique and played the quickies with reasonable success in SA. He did what any cricketer is expected to do -- rectify flaws, adjust, and deliver. SR, despite the support of our respected national coach, could not. Neither could MK.

It is of course a foregone conclusion that our side would be a much better one if an SG or a AK had dazzling fielding along with their batting and bowling skills. There can be no question that our next generation of cricketers should aspire towards that. The point however is, we need youngsters who can bat like Ponting or Clarke more than we need fielders like them. We tried an entire army of youngsters in the recent past. They failed, except for a Uthappa here and a Karthik there. Sree Santh was the shining exception. Our present field of talent is so pathetic that even if a wicketkeeper batsman like KKD, with a batting average in the 20s in all forms of the game, hits a couple of 60s (yes that is all, two 60s in international cricket in the last three months), we accord him the status of a specialist batsman and praise him to the skies.

We sent the dad's army to play the WC because at this moment this is the best we have. Nobody builds a young team during the biggest tournament in World cricket, one that comes every four years. You either build before or after it. Of course, unless you are absolutely delusional (SRT has been showing disturbing signs of it lately), you would imagine this to be the last WC of SG/SRT/RD/AK. The whole point was to see whether they would go out in a dazzle of glory and leave a legacy. Had India won, we would be doing the same thing we are doing now, thinking about the future, but perhaps with more elation and less militant urgency.

Sammy Sosa - beer bellied, unathletic!! Dude, I have met this guy.. make sure, if and when you meet him (even now) not to shake his hands...unless you want to get your hands crushed The era of Babe Ruth's and Merv Hughes is over...except for the LeveRocks in Bermuda.

Also, what was the turning point in that Aus vs SA game.. the Watson runout of deVilliers. The effects of good fielding cannot be quantified, the effects of good running between wicket cannot be quantified .. there are no stats captured for these.

CLR, You are an amazing writer..but I dont know where you are going with this "wishy-washy" rant against youth (I hope I am wrong..but I suspect it has more to do with protecting/enhancing SG's legacy - which we all know does not need any further debate, it is settled -  rather than one of conviction).
I think Gupta's larger point is very valid..the future of the ODI game is in power and speed...not necessarily finesse and style..which will require athleticism and a premium on fitness. We better prepare for it.. and a good part of the reason why we are not playing in this WC today is that.
20-30 runs, the odd runout, the pressure put by good fielders inside the circle.. that is what differentiates and will differentiate the good from the bad. Everyone at this level will be able to bat and/or bowl on their day..

[atticus]

Sammy Sosa is an unathletic beer-bellied man? There are very few unathletic beer-bellied men in baseball today and every one of them are either pitchers or play in the American League as a DH. There is a reason for that. Baseball has accepted that while there might be a place for unathletic beer-bellied men in baseball, they have no place in the daily lineup iin the field. Maybe if cricket introduces the non-fielding batsman, we can also start having the Big Papi's in our lineup.

One need not have a Ponting or a Symonds in the field. What one does need is someone who will give it all on the field. One who, even though they are 37 year old fast bowler at the end of one of the greatest careers, will run around the boundary and save 1 run in some inconsequential match at the end of a long season.

[atticus]

Sammy Sosa - beer bellied, unathletic!! Dude, I have met this guy.. make sure, if and when you meet him (even now) not to shake his hands...unless you want to get your hands crushed The era of Babe Ruth's and Merv Hughes is over...except for the LeveRocks in Bermuda.

He..he..he.. I posted the same thing 

[CLR James]

OK Ok guys. I don't know anything about baseball apart from the names I pick up from the undergrads that I teach. The Sosa part was a miss.  . The only other baseball name I know is that of Yogi Bera. I did not include him because I don't think he had a beer belly. Anyway, LN and Atticus, basically I wanted to convey the following ideas in my post. It was not meant to be a rant against youth.

1. I find this disturbing and opportunistic that too many writers are writing about this spectral thing called 'youth' when it does not exist in India at the moment. That is very very worrying, but one does not need to melodramatize that. One has to address it (as many in this DG has done) by talking about problems in the BCCI infrastructure, domestics, pitches, A team tours, planning, coaching etc. I  like the youth energy principle, but let us accept that at the moment it is only a principle for us. It would not be if we had a bunch of 18 year old Tendulkars waiting in the wings.

2. A good article has to be nuanced and multi dimensional. This is where Gupta's article as a matter of fact qualifies to be a rant. What we are missing is talent, not just energy and youthfulness. Make no mistake. Despite the upset, none of the Bangladeshis, except for maybe a Mortaza would come even near the Indian team. We should and desperately need to find replacements for SG/RD/SRT, but not with the likes of Ashraful, who, despite his talent, averages in the early twenties after four years in international cricket.

3. Yes there is no doubt about the fact that I agree with Gupta's larger and quite obvious point. That we need fitness and speed. The game has progressed to a level beyond our 10 thousand wallahs in twilight. My support for SG all this while was based on the temporary requirements of fielding the best side for this World Cup. Now that it is over for us, SG should either quit or be phased out. Young people should be drafted and allowed to sink or swim towards 2011.

4. Lastly, I desperately want SG/RD/SRT to be dropped or 'rested' for the BD tour. We Indians have short memories. If the big three cart around the after all mediocre attack in flat tracks, hit a few hundreds, all will be forgotten. I fear though that that will not happen, despite Pawar's big talk. People and commercial interests will be too scared to send a young team to BD and lose a series there at this juncture. That might be the death knell for big money Indian cricket. What do you guys think?

[LosingNow]

OK Ok guys. I don't know anything about baseball apart from the names I pick up from the undergrads that I teach. The Sosa part was a miss.  . The only other baseball name I know is that of Yogi Bera. I did not include him because I don't think he had a beer belly. Anyway, LN and Atticus, basically I wanted to convey the following ideas in my post. It was not meant to be a rant against youth.

1. I find this disturbing and opportunistic that too many writers are writing about this spectral thing called 'youth' when it does not exist in India at the moment. That is very very worrying, but one does not need to melodramatize that. One has to address it (as many in this DG has done) by talking about problems in the BCCI infrastructure, domestics, pitches, A team tours, planning, coaching etc. I  like the youth energy principle, but let us accept that at the moment it is only a principle for us. It would not be if we had a bunch of 18 year old Tendulkars waiting in the wings.

2. A good article has to be nuanced and multi dimensional. This is where Gupta's article as a matter of fact qualifies to be a rant. What we are missing is talent, not just energy and youthfulness. Make no mistake. Despite the upset, none of the Bangladeshis, except for maybe a Mortaza would come even near the Indian team. We should and desperately need to find replacements for SG/RD/SRT, but not with the likes of Ashraful, who, despite his talent, averages in the early twenties after four years in international cricket.

3. Yes there is no doubt about the fact that I agree with Gupta's larger and quite obvious point. That we need fitness and speed. The game has progressed to a level beyond our 10 thousand wallahs in twilight. My support for SG all this while was based on the temporary requirements of fielding the best side for this World Cup. Now that it is over for us, SG should either quit or be phased out. Young people should be drafted and allowed to sink or swim towards 2011.

4. Lastly, I desperately want SG/RD/SRT to be dropped or 'rested' for the BD tour. We Indians have short memories. If the big three cart around the after all mediocre attack in flat tracks, hit a few hundreds, all will be forgotten. I fear though that that will not happen, despite Pawar's big talk. People and commercial interests will be too scared to send a young team to BD and lose a series there at this juncture. That might be the death knell for big money Indian cricket. What do you guys think?

I am convinced you were thinking of "Samosa" when you mentioned Sammy Sosa
--
On #4. I agree, these 3 will go to BD (maybe as India Seniors while the Blues will go to England? ) due to commercial interests, get their freebie scores, keep the sponsors happy..and they will survive for another 2 years.. and then 2 years before the WC, it will be too late to groom and blood the youngsters...and everyone (Bengal for SG, Maharashtra for SRT, K'taka for RD) will ask for their "favorite" senior to be kept in the team because there is no alternative and the "youth experiment" is not working......on and on and on. I hope someone in BCCI can see beyond the short-term commercial challenge of carrying a "mediocre team" as Team India ..who knows the young may spring a surprise or 2!!

[CLR James]

LN,

I do share your fear. The BD tour will be a savage assault and will be looked upon by myopic eyes as a return of the jedi kind of thing. Now let me share a secret. Frankly, this is the luxury of being a non-journalist who knows a little bit of cricket. From henceforth, I will be glad if one of the seniors get injured (like SRT's elbow whatever). And that includes SG. If the Big 3 do not retire with grace. If the mind does not, let the body tell. That is a fair expectation isn't it?

[RicePlateReddy]

I don't think the point being made was age related. Just recently in the SL match we saw the active and jack-in-the-box effect of Muralitharan who is well on the wrong side of 30. Ditto for Ponting and many of the Australians and even a few SAfricans.

I think J Gupta is right on the mark when he says there is a distinct speed shift that has occurred over the last year or so in the one day game. Seeing Australia's innings and SA's initial reply was underlining this case. The analogy with hockey is reasonable -- they way these guys throw themselves on the field and make a habit out of hitting the stump and backing up was quite chilling as much as it was riveting.

I think there is a case to be made that touch and timing artists (like someone in the mold of VVS or GRV) will find the boundary less often for their glorious shots because of the highly elevated fielding and more dynamic field placements. Further, they won't be able to run as many  singles unless they are super athletic so there will be a net decrease in score. Add to this the likelihood that when fielding, if not up to par, they will be conceding more runs in the field to batsmen who place and run like their lives depend on it and with no stamina issues. All told it will amount to a 40+ run balance (20 when batting 20 when fielding) that will have to be compensated every game.

There was a statement made by the Indian think-tank that 'we just have to score 20 - 30 more runs to offset the efficiency on the field'. This looks increasingly like an underestimate!

[RicePlateReddy]

I should also add, I track baseball almost as much as I have tracked cricket in the last 15 years. I have seen about 10 MLB games in the park and have been completely amazed at how much ground the outfielders cover.

The composition of a baseball team is invariably a combination of speed and raw power. The guys who juice up on steroids for the power have to justify their sluggishness if at all by super high averages. Also, the numerous substitutions allow for swapping power for speed (and vice versa on occasion) -- the use of this pinch running (and pinch hitting) is very strategic and depends on score lines etc.

Moreover, a lot of big guys in baseball move very fast. Another observation - a team rarely has more than 1 sluggish big man and he is relegated to a position where speed of running is least - like 1st base. Rarely do you see a viable team with 2 big sluggish guys.

[CLR James]

Yes Kop, but baseball does not, at any stage, call for things like consolidation, sheet anchoring, playing out 50 overs etc. does it? It is a different game altogether.

[atticus]

Yes Kop, but baseball does not, at any stage, call for things like consolidation, sheet anchoring, playing out 50 overs etc. does it? It is a different game altogether.

Well, obviously baseball is a different game. You were the one who intially made the comparison about how it is not a contact sport and hence does not need speedy and athletic players. Now, did that fact change? The fact is fielding is a very very important part of the game now. Cricket has changed. It is up to us to either accept this fact and try to improve or lag behind and keep talking about our artistry, wristiness and elegance of the strokes. This is where the comparison with hockey was perfectly valid. Australian team have used baseball coaches for their fielding for a long time now. In India, we still haven't realised that fielding is an important part of cricket too. We remain happy and content with a few gracefully hit sixers and fours.

[TheWall]

Summarising what Gupta, CLR and others have been saying:

 Skills to play the game come foremost. Because they help you score runs or take wickets. There is no denying this. Now whats happening to ODI bastsmanship is that if you need x-level skills to score y no of runs at z strike rate, you can achieve that by having a less talented player with just .75x skills who brings in a great running angle (Bevan the epitome, Dilshan the small fish) to compensate. Thats where this article is important. Granting that its tough to unearth, as also unwise to wait for, a Tendulkar or a Inzi, we have to realise that something like fitnesss/running-btwn-wkts is there for the taking, so that lesser talented players can suffice, can provide viable bench strength.

India may not have the talent amidst the young players at this point - but we cannot for a moment forget where the game is heading. Simply, make it obvious that younger players have to be fit, have to run well, cos who knows when their fluency with the bat will dip? I dont want someone to be dependent on being able to 'time' his shots well on that day, within the limited overs that they get to play. If you can't time stuff, run your heart out, so that you gets runs at a good pace. Simple enough right?

Also, as grounds are smaller, the totals being posted higher, you have to reach the boundaries more often than not. Power is simply an indispensable ally here. If a reasonably talented player has power they will keep clearing the infield. One w/o power (like RD) will be a liability. In some bowling conditions, where runs are hard to score, maybe power wont be the name of the game, but for the most part, it seems like we are headed to higher and higher totals.

Finally, one thing to keep in mind is that at the top the fight is amidst teams with access to talent. So there is no point worrying about Bangladesh or whether all their fitness will make them to beat us regularly. No, we have to worry about the bigger teams with talent pools similar or better than ours. And there the ODI game is going to be unforgivable without athleticism and skilled running btwn the wkts. 

[LosingNow]

Yes Kop, but baseball does not, at any stage, call for things like consolidation, sheet anchoring, playing out 50 overs etc. does it? It is a different game altogether.

CLR:
Watching the replay of Aus vs SA.. the Aussies are batting now in the late overs - it is quite a treat. (sorry, KOP used the right word - riveting!!)

The way the Aussies are batting .. words like consolidation and sheet anchoring..are very soon going to be consigned to the dustbin of ODI cricket terminology. I think in this WC (and I am sure in future too) the Aussies are going to outbat the opponents by aggressively batting from the start to finish (especially given their "potential" weakness in bowling).

Perhaps the Aussies are treating cricket as a game not that different from baseball.

Let's see where this takes them.
 

[TheWall]

Yes Kop, but baseball does not, at any stage, call for things like consolidation, sheet anchoring, playing out 50 overs etc. does it? It is a different game altogether.

Well, obviously baseball is a different game. You were the one who intially made the comparison about how it is not a contact sport and hence does not need speedy and athletic players. Now, did that fact change? The fact is fielding is a very very important part of the game now. Cricket has changed. It is up to us to either accept this fact and try to improve or lag behind and keep talking about our artistry, wristiness and elegance of the strokes. This is where the comparison with hockey was perfectly valid. Australian team have used baseball coaches for their fielding for a long time now. In India, we still haven't realised that fielding is an important part of cricket too. We remain happy and content with a few gracefully hit sixers and fours.

Let me say this: We are super lucky cricket is a day long game and not a 2-3 hour sport. Thanks to its duration, we wont see the hockey situation of being pushed down the pecking order soon. New countries will just not get into the sport. If they did, in the ODI world, with our near genetic (it seems) inability to see macro-trends and implement changes to cope with a changing big picture, we'd have found a hockey being done to us in cricket too. Thank God for small mercies.

[LosingNow]

Yes Kop, but baseball does not, at any stage, call for things like consolidation, sheet anchoring, playing out 50 overs etc. does it? It is a different game altogether.

Well, obviously baseball is a different game. You were the one who intially made the comparison about how it is not a contact sport and hence does not need speedy and athletic players. Now, did that fact change? The fact is fielding is a very very important part of the game now. Cricket has changed. It is up to us to either accept this fact and try to improve or lag behind and keep talking about our artistry, wristiness and elegance of the strokes. This is where the comparison with hockey was perfectly valid. Australian team have used baseball coaches for their fielding for a long time now. In India, we still haven't realised that fielding is an important part of cricket too. We remain happy and content with a few gracefully hit sixers and fours.

Let me say this: We are super lucky cricket is a day long game and not a 2-3 hour sport. Thanks to its duration, we wont see the hockey situation of being pushed down the pecking order soon. New countries will just not get into the sport. If they did, in the ODI world, with our near genetic (it seems) inability to see macro-trends and implement changes to cope with a changing big picture, we'd have found a hockey being done to us in cricket too. Thank God for small mercies.

I would not bet on it.. the Chinese are coming

[TheWall]

Yes Kop, but baseball does not, at any stage, call for things like consolidation, sheet anchoring, playing out 50 overs etc. does it? It is a different game altogether.

CLR:
Watching the replay of Aus vs SA.. the Aussies are batting now in the late overs - it is quite a treat. (sorry, KOP used the right word - riveting!!)

The way the Aussies are batting .. words like consolidation and sheet anchoring..are very soon going to be consigned to the dustbin of ODI cricket terminology. I think in this WC (and I am sure in future too) the Aussies are going to outbat the opponents by aggressively batting from the start to finish (especially given their "potential" weakness in bowling).

Perhaps the Aussies are treating cricket as a game not that different from baseball.

Let's see where this takes them.
 

The Aussies have been aiming to this for a while now. Just that they haven't figured out how to not lose too many wkts early on in any game
Consolidation/sheet-anchoring have actually already changed in their meaning. When the Aussies actually 'consolidate' they run like mad - so it only means reduced-risk play but they milk your for loads of singles and twos. This is where India has suffered. When we lose quick wkts, our score stops to move, cos we can't keep runs flowing by running superlatively. In our SL game, when Dilshan/Silva got together, SL was in a bit of a bother with the need for the proverbial 'consolidation'... I was even convinced that they would slow down and we could tighten the noose. Lo and behold, a near run a ball partnership without risks got going, and here I was screaming in frustration. We couldn't stop the singles. To stop this, you need disciplined bowlers AND great fielders. We had neither.

The funny this, as I alluded to in my earlier post, is that by the time we Indians wake up to these changes, the next paradigm shift in the game will be happenning. Its like we just can't see the big picture or react and adjust fast enough.

[RicePlateReddy]

Yes Kop, but baseball does not, at any stage, call for things like consolidation, sheet anchoring, playing out 50 overs etc. does it? It is a different game altogether.

My point in drawing out the analogy CLR was only to highlight that fielding is a huge component of baseball. The Golden Glove (best fielder) award is made for every fielding position in baseball (including the pitcher!) and this is a hugely respected attribute when sizing a player and executing a player trade. Moreover errors in fielding are minutely tracked and the fielding average for each player analyzed and utilized both by coaches and the opposing teams. MLB players throw the balls regularly and most often exactly into the first baseman's mitt from quite a long distance (third base to first is sqroot of 2 * 90 feet = 127 feet). Relative to cricket that is a little more than twice the distance from stump to stump, and the throw is often done in a single pick up and throw motion. This has become so routine in baseball, that the difficulty in accomplishing it every time is only appreciated when you get on the field and see the distance and accuracy.

Baseball aside, I think I saw something special this Australia / SA match and hence this article by Gupta resonated for me. I wonder if that motivated him to write it too. I think this was not a flash in the pan -- this dominance is here to stay. I feel Australia pipped SA not because of the score which was huge but because the Australian fielding simply squeezed Kallis and co to death. Shane Watson's throw to run out De Villiers accentuated their totally superior effort.

[LosingNow]

Yes Kop, but baseball does not, at any stage, call for things like consolidation, sheet anchoring, playing out 50 overs etc. does it? It is a different game altogether.

My point in drawing out the analogy CLR was only to highlight that fielding is a huge component of baseball. The Golden Glove (best fielder) award is made for every fielding position in baseball (including the pitcher!) and this is a hugely respected attribute when sizing a player and executing a player trade. Moreover errors in fielding are minutely tracked and the fielding average for each player analyzed and utilized both by coaches and the opposing teams. MLB players throw the balls regularly and most often exactly into the first baseman's mitt from quite a long distance (third base to first is sqroot of 2 * 90 feet = 127 feet). Relative to cricket that is a little more than twice the distance from stump to stump, and the throw is often done in a single pick up and throw motion. This has become so routine in baseball, that the difficulty in accomplishing it every time is only appreciated when you get on the field and see the distance and accuracy.

Baseball aside, I think I saw something special this Australia / SA match and hence this article by Gupta resonated for me. I wonder if that motivated him to write it too. I think this was not a flash in the pan -- this dominance is here to stay. I feel Australia pipped SA not because of the score which was huge but because the Australian fielding simply squeezed Kallis and co to death. Shane Watson's throw to run out De Villiers accentuated their totally superior effort.

Excellent observation.. Kallis struggled but your point is very valid. There are no stats to measure this in cricket.. but in your gut, you just see it and know it. That is the difference between the eye of a keen cricket fan and a cricket statistician.
Applause

[Blwe_torch]

It is not age so much, but lack of inspirational leadership, which is the undoing imo.
You can have a team of younger players, who will inevitably show a lack-lustre performance in the absence of good leadership. There is nothing new in it. We have seen enough of such instances in the past couple of years.

[Prafulla]

How can leadership inspire our batsmen - specially to the players like sachin / saurav, sehwag, dravid, dhoni. Do not they have pride to play for their country. I recall Sidhu - who after becoming man of the match for India Pak - Quarter final in Banglore - where he said - This inning is decicated to the country.
If the players do not have pride for the country in such big event, then nothing can motivate them.

[Blwe_torch]

How can leadership inspire our batsmen - specially to the players like sachin / saurav, sehwag, dravid, dhoni. Do not they have pride to play for their country. I recall Sidhu - who after becoming man of the match for India Pak - Quarter final in Banglore - where he said - This inning is decicated to the country.
If the players do not have pride for the country in such big event, then nothing can motivate them.

Those things sound like nice quotations. Cricket remains an unique game which has both individual and team aspects. The captain/coach must get the support/confidence issues right. Somehow, this team never gelled. Yes, they are all passionate individuals, proud to represent their country. But left to themselves, their job got doubly difficult.

[Prafulla]

How can leadership inspire our batsmen - specially to the players like sachin / saurav, sehwag, dravid, dhoni. Do not they have pride to play for their country. I recall Sidhu - who after becoming man of the match for India Pak - Quarter final in Banglore - where he said - This inning is decicated to the country.
If the players do not have pride for the country in such big event, then nothing can motivate them.

Those things sound like nice quotations. Cricket remains an unique game which has both individual and team aspects. The captain/coach must get the support/confidence issues right. Somehow, this team never gelled. Yes, they are all passionate individuals, proud to represent their country. But left to themselves, their job got doubly difficult.

If they are proud individuals, then - they could have put some extraordinary determination. But the tame submission creates doubts on their prioirites and more on the understanding of the priorities.

[Blwe_torch]

How can leadership inspire our batsmen - specially to the players like sachin / saurav, sehwag, dravid, dhoni. Do not they have pride to play for their country. I recall Sidhu - who after becoming man of the match for India Pak - Quarter final in Banglore - where he said - This inning is decicated to the country.
If the players do not have pride for the country in such big event, then nothing can motivate them.

Those things sound like nice quotations. Cricket remains an unique game which has both individual and team aspects. The captain/coach must get the support/confidence issues right. Somehow, this team never gelled. Yes, they are all passionate individuals, proud to represent their country. But left to themselves, their job got doubly difficult.

If they are proud individuals, then - they could have put some extraordinary determination. But the tame submission creates doubts on their prioirites and more on the understanding of the priorities.

Effective man-management is very important.......more so, when a team is involved.

[Prafulla]

True - but management responsible for man management are empowered to take tough decisions. Could Indian coach / captain decide to keep Sachin / Saurav out of final 11 ? When Sachin is asked to play at No 4 - he did not like it and we saw the consequences.

[LosingNow]

This is what running between wickets can do.. 6-7 RPO are for the taking ..and boundaries come the total moves to 10-12.

From Aus vs WI today..
--
End of over 29 (7 runs) - Australia 164/2 (RR: 5.65)

MJ Clarke    37* (41b 4x4)      DJ Bravo    2-0-17-0
ML Hayden    72* (90b 7x4)      CH Gayle    4-0-29-0
 
28.6 Bravo to Clarke, 2 runs, slower ball on off stump, Clarke gets over it and flicks it to square leg for two 
28.5 Bravo to Hayden, 1 run, back of a length on leg stump again, easy pickings for Hayden, who works it to square leg for one 
28.4 Bravo to Clarke, 1 run, back of a length on leg stump again, worked fine for one 
28.3 Bravo to Hayden, 1 run, good length on middle and off, Clarke shuffles across and flicks it around the corner for one 
28.2 Bravo to Clarke, 1 run, well bowled, the slower one almost in the blockhole, Clarke too backs away to leg and has to adjust to keep it out 
28.1 Bravo to Hayden, 1 run, back of a length on leg stump, Hayden's already backed away and so he has to drive down the ground for one 
These two just motoring along here. Hayden has picked up his strikerate and Clarke looking good. No more jitters as far as the manic running goes, either.

End of over 28 (12 runs) - Australia 157/2 (RR: 5.60)

ML Hayden    69* (87b 7x4)      CH Gayle    4-0-29-0
MJ Clarke    33* (38b 4x4)      DJ Bravo    1-0-10-0
 
27.6 Gayle to Hayden, 1 run, quick, flat and spinning into leg stump, Hayden waits for it and tucks it off the pads for one wide of square leg 
27.5 Gayle to Clarke, 1 run, short and flat, Clarke makes room and slams it down to long-off for one 
27.4 Gayle to Hayden, 1 run, a mis-hit as Hayden charges and has to adjust to the length and flicking with the inside-edge to short fine leg 
27.3 Gayle to Hayden, no run, tossed up outside off stump, Hayden comes forward and defends to the covers 
27.2 Gayle to Hayden, 2 runs, fired in flat, Hayden uses the feet and flicks into midwicket for easy runs again 
27.2 Gayle to Hayden, (no ball) 2 runs, he oversteps, firing it down leg stump and Hayden helps it on its way 
27.1 Gayle to Hayden, FOUR, hah! Hayden dances down the track and hammers this through midwicket for four! 
The local weather men forecast dark, overcast conditions for today

End of over 27 (10 runs) - Australia 145/2 (RR: 5.37)

MJ Clarke    32* (37b 4x4)      DJ Bravo    1-0-10-0
ML Hayden    59* (81b 6x4)      CH Gayle    3-0-17-0
 
26.6 Bravo to Clarke, no run, slower one, full on off stump, worked right to midwicket 
26.5 Bravo to Clarke, 2 runs, good length on the stumps, he whips it through midwicket out in the wide open spaces, easy as they come 
26.4 Bravo to Clarke, FOUR, gives himself room to smack this one in the gap between cover and mid-off for a thumping four! 
26.3 Bravo to Clarke, 2 runs, short of a length on middle and leg, Clarke adjusts and semi-pulls through backward square for a well-judged two, helped by the fumble at fine leg 
Drizzle getting heavier...
26.2 Bravo to Hayden, 1 run, on leg stump, Hayden tickles it to short fine leg for one 
26.1 Bravo to Clarke, 1 run, back of a length outside off stump, Clarke drives past point out to the man on the ropes 
Here is Dwayne Bravo

[LosingNow]

..and I just saw Ponting's direct hit runout by Sarwan.

There ..that could be the difference between 350 and 300 (out of the game vs still in game).

[TheWall]

..and I just saw Ponting's direct hit runout by Sarwan.

There ..that could be the difference between 350 and 300 (out of the game vs still in game).

To get Ponting run out needs a special effort, and this total single-stump hit was simply amazing.