***

Edward Cowan’s batting today was an absolute pleasure to watch. It was a really good, old-fashioned test match innings. He was composed and assured throughout; left the ball superbly well in the first session – a high art that we don’t get to see often enough these days – allowing, first, David Warner to get on with the scoring and then, Ricky Ponting. But once the Indian bowlers began to waver with their length post lunch, with the sun beginning to shine, he opened up with a blaze of gorgeous drives, cuts and pulls, particularly off Umesh Yadav. Much like Michael Hussey, he sometimes has a tendency to pull off the front foot, with his weight transferring backward at the very last minute. And for someone who leaves the ball so well, he did show a propensity to drive away from his body, albeit displaying fine judgment of length on every such occasion. All in all, though, a compact and proper test match opener who should dovetail beautifully with David Warner in the future. This, though, could mean that when Shane Watson is fit and back in the team, he is likely to drop into the middle order.

***

Zaheer Khan – with his fitness shrouded in doubt – cut a leaner figure, but his bowling in the first two sessions was substandard at best. He did start well, however, maintaining a fine line to Cowan, but the debutant displayed tremendous patience to get through the testing phase. After lunch, Zaheer was shockingly poor, bowling without any pace and dropping the ball far too short, allowing Ponting and Cowan to break loose easily. Post tea, though, with a hint of reverse swing in the air, Zaheer was a different beast – suddenly there was a greater spring his step and the pace was upped. Bowling from around the wicket to Michael Clarke, he used the crease ever so cleverly, getting the ball to dip in and causing Clarke, who thought he had the room to cut, to drag on. The very next ball, Michael Hussey was cut to ribbons by an absolute snorter that took off from a good length, but was unlucky to be given out by Marais Erasmus – the ball had clearly missed the bat, striking Hussey’s shirtsleeve en route to the keeper. The 6-over spell served as a lovely pointer of Zaheer’s value to the team. India certainly needs a substantial, consistent contribution from him, if they are to harbour any hopes of winning the series.

***

Umesh Yadav was terrific in some phases – bowling with pace and extracting bounce off the wicket – and tripe in others – bowling far too short and wide. He went through a particularly torrid period post-lunch, when he struggled to hit the right length, leaking runs aplenty to Cowan and Ponting. He does, though, have a unique knack of bowling wicket-taking deliveries with remarkable regularity and it was this skill, which kept India in the game for large parts of day one. Just when it looked like David Warner could cost India dear, after he had raced away to a typically effervescent start, Yadav produced a quick, short delivery that Warner top-edged to M.S. Dhoni, first ball after a brief rain delay in the morning session. Shaun Marsh, batting at one-drop, fell soon after, edging Yadav’s full and slanting delivery to point. After lunch, however, Yadav dropped the ball far too short, and Cowan and Ponting capitalized with alacrity. After a spell of sustained dominance from Australia, though, Yadav came back into the attack to snarl Ponting, who edged a beautiful, quick delivery that nipped away off a length to V.V.S. Laxman at second slip. It was no doubt an inconsistent showing from Yadav, but the potential was there to be seen.

***

It took until over number 65 for the inevitable debate on the DRS (decision review system) to be ignited. Erasmus’s decision to rule Hussey out was clearly egregious and Virtual Eye showed no mark on Hussey’s bat. This was a particularly terrible decision, an obvious error that required reversal. I still think a system needs to be put in place whereby errors of this ilk can be reversed, but a microcosm of the problem with the system as is proposed – and as has been applied in many series’ – was evident a few overs later when Cowan was ruled caught behind, by Ian Gould, off Ashwin. To begin with, there seemed little doubt about the decision – there was a clear sound and Cowan certainly seemed to have nicked it, yet Virtual Eye showed no mark. It may well be the case that Cowan didn’t in fact edge the ball, but Virtual Eye has hardly proved itself foolproof, thereby triggering an element of doubt. Indeed we need a reliable system – and a uniform one at that – to help review obvious errors made by umpires, but the technology currently in place fails to pass muster.

Ricky Ponting and Mahela Jayawardene conjured centuries of differing style if equally fine merit in the quarter-final and final respectively, but India emerged as the winner on both these occasions without any of its batsmen reaching the three figure mark or any of its bowlers scalping a substantial portion of the wickets. Likewise against Pakistan in the semi-final, it was an amalgam of exceptional fielding from almost every member of the team and a collectively excellent performance from all the bowlers that won India the tie. This is in stark contrast to the World Cups between 1983 and now, in which the team has relied, almost solely, on individual performances for success.

In 1987 as defending champions, playing at home, India was a much-fancied team, but in the semi-final against England, the bowlers wilted, allowing Graham Gooch to sweep his way to a marvellous 115 and in reply, barring a fine, stylish hand from Mohammad Azharuddin the team yielded without a whimper. In 1992, India failed to make the semi-finals, with its victory against Pakistan – a team to which it has never lost in World Cups – the only bright spark. In the next edition, held in the sub-continent, India was amongst the favourites, even though the side was virtually a one-man army, which was perhaps the cause of its undoing. Sachin Tendulkar had a magnificent tournament, but when he fell for 65 against Sri Lanka in the semi-final, the team capitulated under the pressure of the chase, albeit on a deteriorating Eden Gardens wicket.

1999 again contained many moments of individual brilliance – most notably Rahul Dravid’s and Sourav Ganguly’s partnership against the Lankans at Taunton and Tendulkar’s hundred against Kenya, a day after he had returned from India to complete his father’s funeral, but the team lacking in verve and imagination, succumbed in the decisive fixtures. It defeated only Pakistan in the Super-Six, failing to qualify for the semi-finals.

In 2003, no doubt, India had an excellent tournament. But in the final it surrendered to a combination of a masterful showing from Australia and its own lack of command over the situation – blatant over-excitement amongst the players, exemplified by that infamous first over from Zaheer Khan. Inside the opening exchanges of the game, India had the wind knocked out of its sails.

Four years down in 2007, as Alok mentions, the World Cup was altogether forgettable, memorable neither for notable individual showings nor for the team’s performance – an embarrassing exit ensuing at the Group stage.

The recently concluded World Cup, though, as I mentioned earlier, may not have contained many moments of statistical individual brilliance, but in displaying wonderful skills collectively, the team has, as a group, captured our imagination. In the tournaments between 1983 and 2011, what we remember are those solo displays – whether it be Tendulkar’s 97 against Pakistan in 2003, Ganguly’s and Dravid’s partnership at Taunton in 1999, Ashish Nehra’s 6 for 23 against England in 2003, possibly even Sunil Gavaskar’s only ODI century, a 103 that came, wonder of wonders off a mere 88 balls against New Zealand in 1987, to name a few. But in the years to come, when we look back upon the triumphant 2011 campaign, it is perhaps the team as a collective which we will remember – an incredible achievement indeed.

]]> http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sport/an-incredible-journey/feed 4 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sport/the-icc-gentlemens-club-cup-non-members-need-not-apply http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sport/the-icc-gentlemens-club-cup-non-members-need-not-apply#comments Wed, 06 Apr 2011 12:53:21 +0000 Anisha http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=2736

To the manner born: ICC CEO, Haroon Lorgat

Update (April 19): Sharad Pawar requested the ICC to reconsider the World Cup format in end-June. There is hope yet for some more dynamism in the top tier of world cricket. 

I landed in South Africa 36 hours after Mahendra Singh Dhoni deposited Nuwan Kulasekara several rows over the long on boundary at the Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai. The mad frenzy that ensued after that sweet, sweet shot was struck swept up millions of people, irrespective of whether they were Indian or even fans of cricket. I received messages from the unlikeliest friends – French, Belgian and American. Newspapers and channels around the world were carrying scenes of revelry at Marine Drive in Mumbai and India Gate in Delhi. The ICC had transformed its flagship tournament from that swamp of a wash-out in the Caribbean to the colourful carnivale it was always intended to be. In doing so, they rescued the fifty-over format of cricket from what some considered a near-certain death. After struggling with hard criticism over all sorts of issues – poor governance structures, shocking event management, rampant cronyism, and soulless capitalism – the ICC could now bask in the glory of a hard-fought success, where cricket was the greatest winner. 

Instead, the first news story that whacked me in the face as I settled down to some obligatory cricket-surfing and time-wasting at the office on Monday was this: ‘An Absolute Black Day for the Sport’. The evening after the World Cup final, the ICC sat down to decide that the 2015 format of the game would comprise 10 teams only, and that all these teams would be the full members of the body. The Associates would be shut out of the tournament entirely, at least until 2019. 

The responses from the Associates have varied from rage to bitter cynicism and deep disappointment. Most of the anger has emerged, unsurprisingly, from Ireland – the plucky giant-killers, who managed to test quite a few of the full members and completed an unforgettable victory over England. Irish captain, William Porterfield, called the decision a joke. Their coach, former West Indies all-rounder, Phil Simmons, described the ICC as despicable. It’s argued that the new format will effectively destroy support for the fifty-over version of the game in the Associate members, and end the careers (for Ireland, at any rate) of many of the outstanding performers for the team in this World Cup. Not for the first time, the ICC stands accused of unbridled greed and cronyism as well as actively moving to destroy the future of the sport we all love so much. 

My first response to the article was one of some shock: surely the ICC didn’t have to make this announcement just hours after the great success of the 2011 edition? Are they entirely staffed with miserable masochists who love to be flogged by an ever-obliging media? The only open support for ten-team format has come from Ricky Ponting, which gives you an inkling of the majoritarian response to the decision. There had also been some talk in the press that the ICC would shift to the 12-team format of 1996, in recognition of the contribution of countries like Ireland. Clearly that was never a serious option. 

This World Cup ended up being a lot more entertaining in the league stages than most people, including this author, had expected. Group B, in particular, went right down to the wire after inspiring defeats of England by Bangladesh and Ireland. Yet, what the viewers saw as inspiration clearly struck fear into the hearts of the Big Money Interests that dominate cricket – primarily the broadcasters and key tournament sponsors. If even this sheltered format of the tournament couldn’t protect the big guns till at least the quarterfinals, then another format would be necessary – one that guarantees that India and co play at least 9 games before facing elimination. A 12-team format – with two groups of 6 teams each – would only guarantee 6 games (assuming the top guns qualify for the quarters). 

Even as this kind of blatant commercialism sickens the average cricket fan, let’s create no illusions about the cricketing might of the Associates. This World Cup featured only ten teams that stood up to be counted. Kenya, Canada, the Netherlands and Zimbabwe only managed to generate three wins between them, and all of them were in matches featuring each other. The closest margins of defeat in games between Associates and non-Associates were 46 runs (Pakistan v Canada) and 6 wickets (England v Netherlands). 

The ICC has also countered criticism of creating a dull and boring pre-knock out phase; the ten-team format, while seemingly cumbersome, will generate some thrilling match-ups between the top ranked teams fighting for survival. Winning such a World Cup would be a top achievement for any cricketing side. 

What does rankle considerably, however, is the free pass given by the ICC to full members who play pretty shoddy cricket and display remarkable inconsistency, despite having access to all the benefits of full membership. Bangladesh scored two of the three lowest totals of the tournament – 78 and 58, Zimbabwe failed to compete against any of the other members and the West Indies lumbered along in its usual farcical fashion, with only a few flashes of brilliance to interrupt an otherwise characterless campaign. Ireland is, in fact, ranked number ten on the ODI list, ahead of Zimbabwe and certainly put up a more inspiring performance on the field. Ireland also runs a far more efficient local cricket system than Zimbabwe, which is mired in shocking corruption and appalling incompetence, and is closely linked to a tyrannical government. 

Moreover, most cricket-viewers probably don’t give a damn but there was, in fact, an extensive qualification process for the Associates to get to the World Cup through the ICC World Cricket League. This process threw up epic encounters such as this one, which causes goosebumps just reading about it. With a World Cup place to fight for, the World Cricket League has a point. In football, teams in lower divisions are motivated to fight for promotion to a higher league. In a static system, there is no motivation for improvement among the worst teams of the top league and best of the rest. 

The ICC must protect against this dangerously comfortable status quo by abandoning such rigidity. This isn’t hard to manage at all; perhaps the top 8 ranked teams can automatically qualify for the Cup while the others fight for the last two spots. But surely the likes of Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and maybe even the West Indies need to earn their place in the final tournament rather than receive it on account of historical privilege. 

The one truth that has emerged from the ICC’s decision is this: cricket has certainly not succeeded in shrugging off its imperial origins. Pity that the long-colonised bully of the ICC, India, cannot provide better leadership.

But before I get to the morality of the issue of walking or the aspect of decisions balancing themselves out over the course of a cricketer’s career, it is important to point out that Tendulkar hasn’t always been a walker. To exalt his decision to walk against the West Indies as a saintly act would, therefore, be a statement steeped in misconceptions. As Sourav Ganguly remarked in an interview with a television channel, “Sachin has never done that in the past, let’s be honest, and he shouldn’t because there have been times when he has been given out and he was not out.” The headlines in many Indian newspapers, such as the Times of India, which read “Sachin Tendulkar puts integrity above quest for 100^th ton;” the Deccan Herald, which expressed his decision as “Walking tall on the cricketing pitch” and the Hindustan Times, which said that this was “another instance of the high standards he has set for himself,” are all not even worth the price of paper on which they’ve been printed. There have been numerous instances when Tendulkar has been happy to wait for the umpire’s decision; carrying on, in fact, had the decision wrongly gone in his favour. So let’s not idolize inconsistent acts and lose track of the distorted moralities of cricket.

The broad conception that has developed in recent years, particularly on the back of Adam Gilchrist’s decision to walk in a World Cup semi-final – it may also be worthwhile to point out that Gilchrist himself has failed to walk on odd occasions – is that it is the prerogative of the individual to choose whether to walk and that morality doesn’t dictate such actions. But the fact remains that cricket, albeit a game littered with individual statistics, is a team sport. Had Virat Kohli, who batted at one-drop, got a clanger from Steve Davis, I am not sure the Indian team would have been best pleased with Tendulkar. As Ganguly said in the same T.V. interview, “It could be a big game, India 100 for three, Tendulkar batting on 55 and holding the key to India’s success. I would really not want him to walk unless an umpire has given him out.” A cricketer’s decision to walk does affect the performance of his team and therefore to consign the choice as purely the prerogative of the individual is scarcely in the interest of the sport.

Further, a person’s move to walk could impact an umpire’s decision-making. If a batsman renowned to be a walker stays his ground when he has, in fact, edged a ball even if he is honestly unaware of it, psychologically the umpire may think – hang on, this fellow usually walks, so he surely couldn’t have edged it and rules, wrongly, in favour of the batsman. No doubt it is the umpire’s job to look beyond such possibilities and make decisions purely on the basis of what he sees. But that said I find it difficult to imagine that umpires, being only human, are unaffected by such psychological considerations. The game would be richer I believe if everyone did their own jobs without aiming to claim a moral high ground.

1. South Africa v Australia Semi-finals 1999

Without question, the greatest of chokes in all of World Cup history. Having restricted Australia to a paltry 213 South Africa were odds on favourites to win until a fat blonde bowling leg spin went to work on their minds. A healthy 53/1 was quickly turned into 183/7 when their man of the hour (and ultimate man of the series), Lance Klusener kept his wits and hammered boundaries to drag them closer to victory. Then, with one run needed of four balls, this happened. Watch the video again. You can almost hear the frenzied voices in Allan Donald’s head go off when Klusener hits the ball. At least that is the only explanation one can give for the the initial freeze and then the mad and futile (not to mention, batless) run to the other end for a ball hit straight to short mid on. This match was the ultimate example of why one can never hope to say with a straight face: “Even South Africa cannot lose it from here…”

2. West Indies v Australia Semi-finals 1996

After an up and down tournament West Indies seemed to have finally gotten a golden chance to make the finals again after having upset (who else, but) South Africa in the quarters and needing only 43 runs to win off the last nine overs against Australia in the semis. Oh and they also had eight wickets in hand. That they lost from where will tell you nothing about the brainlessness and stupidity behind their cricket in the next half an hour. Batsman after batsman came in, tried to hit his way out, handed over his wicket… only for the next batsman to come in and do exactly the same. All the while Captain Richie Richardson, stuck at the other end, frantically pleading (practically going down on his knees and begging) with the batsmen to show some sense and hand him the strike. The rest of the West Indian batsmen politely declined.

3. India v Sri Lanka Semi-finals 1999

It is still seen as something of a national tragedy, a great humiliation, etc etc, but take a step back and you’ll realize this one was up there with the all time great chokes of the World Cup. From having the opposition to at 3 for 35 and letting them get to 250, all the way to cruising at 98 for 1 and then collapsing to 120 for 8, this was a choke of ginormous proportions and make no mistake about it. Naturally, the Kolkata crowd were less then amused.

4. South Africa v Sri Lanka Group Stage 2003

I could have filled in half of this list with South African World Cup performances between 1992-2007, but that would be unfair to the less well known chokers of the cricket World Cup. However, it is no great surprise then that South Africa’s Duckworth Lewis Method inspired choke (in front of a home crowd that too) finds mention here. This particular choke is unique in that it is perhaps the only mathematics based choke on this list. One can almost hear the collective howl of rage in the dressing room as Mark Boucher firmly pats back the last ball to Muralitharan confident in the assumption that they have enough to get over the D/L par score. They needed one more. They forgot to tell Mark Boucher.

5. South Africa v Australia Semi-finals 2007

By 2007, even the South African team believed that it was going to choke sometime between the end of the Super-Eights and the finals. They did. In the semi-finals. To (who else, but) Australia. Faced with Glenn McGrath and Shaun Tait, a much vaunted South African battling line mustered all of 149 runs between them and saw the Australians rack up the runs in about 30 overs.

6. West Indies v India final 1983

It’s probably taboo to say it; (but say it I will) India’s one World Cup win came courtesy of a massive choke. See, the West Indies were the form team since about 1975, and in 1983 they were expected to win the tournament again hands down. They too expected to win hands down. Just that they forgot how to. Batsman after batsman kept getting out in the belief that someone after them would get them to the paltry 183 but somehow no one seemed to realize that Viv Richards and Clive Lloyd get to bat only once in an innings. It was the finals, against one of the weaker teams, on a hot streak no doubt, but with Balwinder Singh Sandhu opening the bowling? Come on! They should have won it at a canter.

They didn’t. And the rest is well… you’re living in it now, so you know.

7. England v Australia finals 1987

When you’re cruising to victory in a World Cup final, no matter how rubbish the bowling is, YOU NEVER REVERSE SWEEP. Thanks to England’s almighty choke in this match, everyone knows this sacred maxim. Mike Gatting, on a roll, cleaning up Australia and taking England to a comfortable win, gets a little too comfortable against Allan Border. He decides to reverse sweep gets an edge to the keeper, and like the seasoned World Cup losers that they are, England promptly go on to collapse in a heap. Australia climbed out of nowhere to win the World Cup, and Mike Gatting ate humble pie. Lots of it.

8. Pakistan v Australia finals 1999

Thanks to Pakistan, this mostly unloved edition of the World Cup ended as it began; a damp squib of a contest. After a thrilling semi-final and a resounding Pakistani win in the semi-finals, an almighty clash of the titans was expected. Instead, Pakistan woke up, realized they were in the World Cup finals again, panicked and threw it all away in a limp and spineless display the likes of which weren’t seen…

9. India v Australia finals 2003

… for four years at the next World Cup. In 2003, after a rousing World Cup campaign where India beat all comers (except Australia) the finals against the all-conquering Australia was (once again) touted as an almighty clash of the titans. Except of course, India managed to choke at the toss. A limp bowling and batting display followed but in fact, after Ricky Ponting’s one handed six, we all sort of figured the match was over as a contest.

10. England v India Group Stage, 1999

In front of their home crowd (as defined as those who managed to pass the Tebbit test) England were on the verge of being kicked out of their own party. They needed to win this match against India to stay alive in the World Cup and keep a bit of interest alive. They were up against a team that had itself choked spectacularly against Zimbabwe but had come back strongly to keep their Super-Six hope alive. All the cues were set up for a thrilling game and a close contest. Of course it was a match involving England. Of course they choked. Of course they got kicked out of the World Cup. Even before the official song was released.

11. India v Bangladesh/Pakistan v Ireland group stages 2007

I really couldn’t decide which was the worse choke between the two, but considering the fact that both happened on the same day in the same tournament, I feel compelled (and in the interests of Indo-Pak comity) to jointly hand this place on the list to both India and Pakistan. The tournament format had been changed to give teams an opportunity to get kicked out of the World Cup earlier than before. Guess which teams took this glorious opportunity?

For the Indian fan, the agony of watching India stumble and fumble against Bangladesh was set off by the delight at the sight of the Irish pouring cold Guinness on Pakistani hopes ( I’m sure the opposite was also true for Pakistani fans that day). The ensuing Bangladesh-Ireland Super-Eights match was one more reason the 2007 World Cup will go down as probably the worst ever, thanks to the great sub-continental choke. (This is also perhaps the only choke to be attributed to a coach’s death; one would think Greg Chappell was happy he just got fired.)

As has already been pointed out in painful detail, the World Cup is really not going to get going till we reach the quarterfinals at least, but we can be sure of at least a good choke or two. Will India misunderstand the UDRS, panic and lose by 10 runs? Will Australia finally make their entry into the above list with a performance straight out of this winter’s Ashes? or will South Africa surprise us all… and find a new and hitherto impossible way of choking in the semi-finals? Again?

I can hardly wait to find out.

His innings in the 2003 final is often overlooked in favour of Ricky Ponting’s bludgeoned 140, perhaps rightly so. But frequently forgotten is that Martyn was the one who got to his half century first – in spite of a six over handicap – the one who provided the impetus to a partnership that set the tone for a victory of resounding brilliance.

The nine editions of the World Cup have provided many excellent batting performances. The nature of the shortened format, though, has usually meant that an innings constructed with graceful ingenuity is reduced in its prettiness by grotesque hitting that is seen as a necessity in the slog-overs. Martyn’s elegance, however, was never cheapened by the layout of the game – he could make a swish over extra-cover look like a stroke from Picasso’s paint-brush. That he played the 2003 Final with a broken finger was never apparent. A batsman couldn’t have looked calmer at the crease.

If one were to generalise, Australian batsmen would fall into a prosaic category, ‘the gritty and the determined’. But the country has also been blessed with some of the most artful batsmen in the history of the game – Doug Walters, Greg Chappell and Mark Waugh to name the finest of a class, in which Martyn, most definitely belongs. Peter English once wrote that ‘Martyn can make Mark Waugh’s strokes look ugly and hurried.’ The knock in the 2003 finals explicitly paraded the truism in English’s words. It was compiled with a perfect amalgam of crafty placement and sublime timing. Martyn played the spinners so late, almost after the ball had passed him, and yet not once did he look ruffled. Although punctuated by seven fours and a six, the hallmark of the innings was the manner in which he found the gaps off the spinners, rotating the strike with metronomic ease – an aspect of the game that is often ignored in highlights packages. The pick of his boundaries was a six over extra-cover off Zaheer Khan – a graceful six if ever there was one. He may have eventually only played second-fiddle to a rampant Ponting, but there was enough in his innings to leave an indelible mark in my mind. We will be lucky if the upcoming World Cup produces a performance half as elegant as Martyn’s was.

All four results are possible. It is going to be a great day for Test Cricket tomorrow. The team which holds their nerve will win. It is never easy chasing a total on a fifth day pitch. There’ll be something in it for the bowlers…

There. Much better.

I missed most of today’s actions thanks to a rogue muscle pull in the lower back that I attribute to the hard plastic seats in the M Chinnaswamy Stadium. Forced to catch the action from the alleged comfort of my sofa and having to listen to the banal nonsense being served up by Arun Lal and co. in the form of commentary, my Test Match viewing experience diminished drastically.(For those in a similar position, I would suggest the test match sofa to escape the drudgery of the NEO Cricket commentary team). Also, Tendulkar got out pretty quickly, and the rest of the tail folded up so my attention drifted.

Suddenly though, Australian wickets started tumbling and the match got interesting as the Australians generally contrived to give themselves a chance of losing this match. To repeat an oft repeated cliche, this is not the great Australian team of old (i.e., four years back), and their stunning propensity to indulge in very 90s style batting collapses is a bit of a shocker to those of us used to seeing hope disappear when Ponting was followed by Martyn who was followed by Waugh and then Gilchrist.

There’s still one man standing from that great middle order though. Ricky Ponting.

Ricky Ponting is not a popular man in India. Certainly he has never tried to win over the hearts and minds of the Indian fan, and his abrasive, cussed nature is not naturally endearing to most Indians. Nor has he particularly distinguished himself in India. India continues to be the place where he’s had the worst personal batting average in any country. Plus he seems to get out to Harbhajan Singh a lot, raising questions on his abilities against quality spin on turning tracks.

Captaincy wise, he had a great start with a great team. Now he’s having a tough time, with a not so great team. He has to be the best batsman, inspirational leader and most experienced player all at once. Naturally, he’s never won a single Test match in India as captain. A record he has only one more chance to erase.

With all this on his mind, Ricky Ponting played one of the best innings by an Australian batsman in this “series” so far. Marcus North’s century was a career saving (and maybe Test match saving one too) knock, but Ponting’s 72 in the second innings of the Bengaluru Test was far more important. He’s held a crumbling innings together and single handedly given his bowlers a chance to make something of this Test. On a turning, testing track, he has kept out Harbhajan and Ojha, backed by an unusually sharp fielding unit and a vociferous and vocal crowd, long enough to keep at least one more result open as a possibility for this Test.

This innings is also more poignant in the context of his own career. Toward the fag end of his long and distinguished career, Ponting is in the danger of going out on a low. No longer as prolific with the bat as he was in his heyday, he’s still the best batsman in the side, but that only goes to show how much he’s been let down by his team. Already, he’s lost the Ashes twice, and this January, for the first time in over two decades, there’s the very real prospect that he may well see it retained by the old enemy. Australia are no longer the dominant force in world cricket, and have rapidly slipped down the ranks in Test Cricket. The latter half of Ponting’s six year term of captaincy so far has been one of slow, but certain decline. Likewise, his batting.

With all this, he still has a shot at redemption tomorrow. Today’s efforts against the tide have brought him the time he needs to take one more shot at success and glory in India. A victory here will be far more cherished than any half a dozen against any other opponent anywhere else. It may not re-write the declining fortunes of the Australian team, but for Ricky Ponting, it offers an opportunity to rage, rage against the dying of the light**.

* & ** Apologies to Dylan Thomas

“Why?”

It’s a recent phenomenon I guess, to be forced to offer justifications for leaving the comfort of one’s own tv, sofa, remote and cable connection to watch a Test Match in one of India’s concrete monstrosities, with amenities few, and noise, confusion and danger plenty. Before TV, I guess no one would doubt the superiority of watching a cricket match and one’s cricket heroes in the flesh and blood instead of having to depend on the fickle radio and the evocative descriptions of commentators. With tv, replays, all the information you need to follow a game at your fingertips, why subject yourself to the stadium and its filth to follow Test cricket?

I’ll tell you why.

It’s the only authentic experience as far as Test cricket is concerned.

Not that the filth, dust and crumbling stadia add any charm to it. It adds a level of challenge that one would rather not have to tackle, and one hopes that BCCI and the local associations get their act together and clean up some of our stadia, at least before the coming World Cup. No, there are other, real reasons why watching Test Cricket at the stadium is the authentic experience.

For one thing, TV does not show you everything.

Sitting high up in the stands you see things that you otherwise miss between the replays, the banal chatter of the commentators and of course, the endless, endless ads. You see the subtle changes in the field that take placed when strike changes between batsmen. How Harbhajan has an in-out field for Ponting and a much more attacking one for Hussey. Also how Harbhajan, unlike great spinners, reacts to batsmen and sets fields according to where the ball last went instead of coming with a plan and sticking to it.

You also see how the other players react to not-so-obvious things when the camera forgets to pan to them. Sreesanth’s obvious disappointment at having his spell cut short by Dhoni. Raina and Pujara egging each other on in the field, high fiving good saves and stops.

But all of these things are not trivialities. The other reason why one watches a Test at the ground is the total immersion it offers and the engagement it requires of you. Unlike the action packed adventures that are T20 and ODI cricket, Test Cricket is like a long 3 Act drama with multiple plot lines, twists and turns, and intrigue all coming together for a final denouement (or not… even that is in doubt). Enjoying a Test match requires a level of engagement with the material, so to speak, that TV somehow does not provide. TV is great for watching the action part of the Test Match, but it is the quieter bits, the less obviously action filled sections of the Test Match that make for the complete experience.

Watching Harbhajan try to play on Ponting’s mind with attacking fields; Sreesanth troubling Hussey with late swing away and try to rein in his excitement and keep it going; Ponting grafting and fighting his way through difficulty and then unfurling some glorious drives and ferocious pulls; all of these things require sustained and close viewing to truly appreciate and enjoy. And to truly appreciate and enjoy test cricket, one other thing is needed: context.

It is a much abused word these days on cricket blogs and fora across the internet. This one day series has no context, that T20 match has been thrown in only for money, etc. Context is not just “what-does-this-matter-in-the-grand-scheme-of-things” type context. With Test cricket’s emphasis on drama as much as action, each ball has its context in each over; each over in that spell; each spell for that hour’s play; each hour adds context to the session’s play; each session in that day and so on. Seen merely as a discrete collection of overs and fours, Test cricket loses its meaning and becomes… boring. Watching the game with an understanding of the context is what makes test cricket so compelling and unlike any other sport anywhere else.

Finally, watching Test Cricket in the stadium gives one the sheer aesthetic pleasure of a three dimensional view of cricket. The rhythmic and smooth run up of Sreesanth; the sound of the bat hitting the ball as Ponting drives as being noticeably different from the crack that resounds across the stadium when he pulls it; understanding what 140 kmph is as you watch the bowling from behind the batsman.

All of these make you forget the cramped seat, the deafening noise, the heat and the dust omnipresent in the Indian stadium. Even among the better maintained ones like the Chinnaswamy Stadium. Like the adventurer climbing up a steep, dangerous hill for the view, in the end, it is all worth it.

For the (boring but mostly accurate) report of the day’s play see here.

For a (possibly inaccurate, but greatly funny) version of the same, read this.