Especially when, by its very nature, T20 and more so, the IPL, is hit and giggle fluff that one watches to forget.
Especially, when one has written off this IPL as a travesty and a sham on this website (in the comments) and tried to popularize the #iplsucks hashtag on twitter.
Especially when one has no connection, emotional or parochial, to any of the teams in question.

Why would anyone want to watch the highlights of an IPL match?

I did. Today. For the first time ever, of the Kochi Tuskers Kerala v Deccan Chargers match.

May I advance two pieces of evidence in my defence?

Exhibit 1

A friend and me were talking cricket yesterday and he wistfully remarked that he’d like, just for once, to be able to see an Indian bowler glide into the crease, leap like a gazelle and swing the ball at 90mph into the batsman’s stumps. Repeatedly. Both of us having no memories of Kapil Dev in the pomp, we couldn’t do more than remind ourselves of Perth 2008, when Ishant Sharma suddenly turned into a lanky, Indian Dennis Lillee. Minus the magnificent mo.

Our hopes for the future were small. Injuries, loss of form, general insanity and an unmanageable workload were slowly breaking down our brightest fast bowling hopes, or worse, turning them into workaday seamers.

Exhibit 2

You don’t expect to be woken up at 11.00 p.m. in the first stages of REM sleep by a phone call from your father excitedly asking you if you were watching the match.

Who? What match? It’s the IPL. Why would I be watching it?

He describes to you the sequence of wickets falling, barely stopping to catch his breath as rattles off the fall of wickets (1-0, 2-1, 3-1, 4-2, 5-6, 6-11!!!) and then goes on to describe the scorecard at one stage (0,4,0,0,0,)

It’s the IPL, who cares.

Then he says something about Ishant Sharma, five wickets and fast bowling and it just about registers in your brain.

uhuh. Right.

It was something else, he says. It was beautiful. He’s lost for words. There’s the sound of someone who’s seen something remarkable and amazing and is struggling to find the right words in about two different languages to capture it. He gives up after a point of time.

You go back to sleep.

In the morning, you wake up, see the scorecard, and realize that Ishant Sharma has caused complete mayhem. You want to see the highlights now.

It. Is. So. Totally. Worth. It.

Right from the start you are treated to an RP Singh special. Bounding in from over the left-armer’s over the wicket, he pitches it perfectly on the good length, on middle and off and swings it in, just enough to beat the batsman’s prod, hit him on the pads but not too far to be missing the long stump. LBW. In front.

2007. That was when we last saw RP at his best. In that match against South Africa and right through the World Cup in South Africa he bounded in, got the ball to pitch middle and off and made the ball swing both ways. At pace. He was the Next-Great-Left-Arm-Swing-Bowling-Hope after Zaheer Khan seemed to fade away and Irfan Pathan disappeared right off the map. Zaheer’s back now, and Irfan’s still gone, but there was always, and remains, hope for RP.

Next and most stunning of all, was Sreesanth bowling for the Kochi Tuskers. Bowling at full tilt and swinging the ball away from the left hander he was more than a handful on this pitch.

And he was in full control of his emotions.

Then he unfurled, undoubtedly, the ball of the match.

Bowling over the wicket to the left hander (Kumar Sangakkara), he got the ball to land on a good length on the left hander’s off stump and knocked out middle stump. Through the hard-to-discern gap between bat and pad. Kumar Sangakkara is easily one of the best left handers going around these days, but even he stood no chance against this gem of a ball.

Except, it was a no-ball.

Amazingly, Sreesanth, sporting a sane haircut and a lot less bling, showed no emotion this time as well, as he walked back to his mark and continued his spell.

Sreesanth and RP’s spells were only the set up. The opening gigs to Metallica. The hors d’oeuvres to a grand entree.

Ishant’s spell.

He was fast, he was magnificent, he was brutal.

Hair streaming behind him, his bling swaying from his neck as he ran into the crease with all the intent of a particularly vicious velociraptor. Sure, he won’t win any Michael Holding prizes for the smoothness of his run up, but the same intent and venom was evident.

In his first over, he picked up three wickets. Three balls that the best batsmen, on the best of days would have been hard pressed to keep their wickets intact to.

The first landed on a good length and took off as Parthiv Patel, all of five-foot-nothing, fended off ungainly and could only feather an edge to the ‘keeper. You may blame the pitch, but when a six-foot-five seamer lands it on a length and at 145kmph, you’d want to credit the bowler on that. 2 down for 1

The next was the mirror image of Sreesanth’s pearler. On the right handed batsman’s off stump line and curling in, beating the batsman completely for pace. Raiphi Gomez (who’s the spitting image of Salman Butt) probably doesn’t face this kind of pace in the Plate League of the Ranji or any of India’s first class tournaments, and the look of surprise was understandable. Three down.

Brad Hodge, on the other hand, is from the complete opposite end of the quality spectrum from Raiphi Gomez, having been oh-so-close to selection into the great Australian team of old. He was stunned by the full length inswinger that slammed into the base of his stumps. He looked around like a man who’d just seen a monster. Four down.

Another fast and furious one does for Jadhav in the next Ishant over as he can’t get his pads out of the way. Five down.

Next comes another pearler. On a good length, around off stump, would have been hitting the top of off stump if it didn’t take off like a rocket and aim for Mahela Jayawardene’s body. He fended off, in the same manner as Parthiv, only to get the edge to Sangakkara, in the same manner as Parthiv. Six down.

Few batsmen acknowledge that they’ve been beating by great bowling. Mahela looked down at the pitch as though some untamed demon lay there. He said as much in the press conference. But when really pressed (hah! a pun), he wouldn’t deny the brilliance of Ishant’s spell.

5 for 12 and he only bowled 3 overs.

This from the bowler who looked exhausted and jaded the last one saw him playing for India and struggling with injuries that kept him out of the World Cup.

What one saw was not just another good bowling performance. It was something glorious.

Three young, fast bowlers, sprinting into the crease, leaping in full rhythm and unleashing terrific spells of fast swing bowling. Mahela Jayawardene and Kumar Sangakkara will be on anyone’s list of all-time greats and they were blown away by the bowling (or at least would have been but for a no-ball).

The brilliance and the sheer visual spectacle of this still defies words.

And this was just the highlights.

As the dust settles on India’s euphoric victory in the world cup and things get back to normal, what seems to have gone unobserved in this cricketing labyrinth is the Indian government’s largesse to bestow a charity worth Rs. 45 crores approx. (presumably highly undervalued) in the form of income tax breaks to the money spinner global cricket regulator, the International Cricket Council (ICC). Evidently, in the year 2005, the Cabinet had approved the proposal to amend the income tax laws to provide an exemption to the income of persons/entities arising from an international sporting event conducted in India. Accordingly, section 10 (39) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was inserted in the year 2006 to empower the Government to grant such tax waivers to the global sporting bodies in the event they organize play offs in India (provided more than two countries participate and the same is notified by the Government).

Purportedly, the recent Cabinet decision to confer income tax exemption to the subsidiaries of ICC for their income arising in India from the Cricket World Cup, 2011, seems dubious and arm twisted. The said proposal apparently made its way through the Cabinet deliberation, despite ruckus from within and a suspected perceptible bias and ‘conflict of interest’ tainting the Cabinet decision.

Even if we choose to close our eyes to the colossal loss to the exchequer or give the benefit of doubt to the ICC chief cum Union Cabinet Minister (who reportedly was a silent spectator in the Cabinet deliberation), the grant of such form of tax subsidy at the cost of siphoning tax payers’ money to a cash-rich cricket governing body (non-charitable, mind you) that has milked the tournament from broadcasters, spectators and sponsors, appears to be skewed. Rather such an exemption should be sanctioned to promote and endorse games/competitions in India for sports that lack financial merit. While cricket is already a rage, nothing short of a religion in India, it hardly needs any fiscal benefits.

For this, all credit goes to the money minting, Board for Cricket Control in India (BCCI), which is unparalleled in its riches. Besides, a similar immunity from income tax was provided to the ICC for the Champions Trophy in the year 2006. Although the Federation of International Hockey (FIH), the organizers of the hockey world cup in New Delhi last year, reaped exemptions on luxury tax (for hotel accommodations for the players and delegates) and entertainment tax (to lower the costs on tickets at the stadiums in order to promote the games), nevertheless, no question of income tax waiver ever arose then. That said, with least offered by the ICC to the Indian tax payers at the world cup (in terms of cuts on ticket prices for matches or any fringe benefits), ICC makes an appalling case for entitlement of any such tax exemptions from the Indian Government. Therefore, shouldn’t the Government re-consider such discharges under the law that present occasions for political patronage and instead dole out the same funds to publicize, encourage and manage monetarily stifled sports like hockey, athletics etc.?

Cricket is not just a game anymore. With the game being the product, players the assets, spectators and TV viewers the market, and revenues pouring in from the in-stadium advertising, player endorsements, tickets and broadcasting rights, it’s a business and that too a gigantic one. When players pay taxes on their match fee and endorsements, and the broadcasters and media firms follow suit, there seems little wisdom in letting ICC (a profit-making entity) scot-free.

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/till-2015 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sport/till-2015#comments Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:26:07 +0000 Arghya http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=2754 Dear reader,

Scarcely have I felt as much joy as I did when Dhoni smashed Kulasekara for six last Saturday. Actually, I’ll rephrase that- I have never felt as much joy and I don’t think I will for a long time. Last Saturday erased 24 years of miserable losses, gallant performances in losing causes, meek surrenders, inexplicable defeats and tearful exits by team India that I had been witness to, every four years as far as my memory goes. Those happy pictures of Mohinder Amarnath getting Michael Holding lbw etched firmly in my memory have become happier now as they share space with Dhoni’s six and the steely determination in his eyes watching the ball and India sail away to a glorious future.

It has been an absolute joy bringing the World Cup to you on CriticalTwenties. We were worried when we put Sachin’s watermark on the World Cup section; would he have his swansong? Or would it be another case of so-near-yet-so-far? As we close the World Cup section, the questions have answered themselves. So in celebration, we bring to you a final set of World Cup posts by Suhrith, Anisha and Alok, our World Cup team, on the topsy-turvy journey of an Indian cricket fan from the depths of misery in 1987 (or 1992 depending on where in the CriticalTwenties each of us are!) to the giddy heights of delirium in 2011.

I hope you have enjoyed reading this section as much as we have bringing it to you. Till 2015!

Arghya.

The hallmark of a great sportsman lies in his sense of timing – his ability to churn out his best when it’s most needed. Up until the Final, Dhoni’s scores meandered around the mediocre, his captaincy was adequate if not inspiring – with his choices concerning the selection (or non selection) of R. Ashwin, particularly coming under intense criticism. But stand by his decisions he did, and come the final, he seized greatness with nerveless serenity.

When Virat Kohli fell to a quite magnificent return catch by Tilakaratne Dilshan, Yuvraj Singh – later to be declared the man of the tournament – was expected to walk in. But, Dhoni, not a single feeble thought in his mind, strode in to the middle and clutched the initiative in an inspired and brilliant partnership with Gautam Gambhir. Gambhir, who had till that point, in company with Kohli, nudged and nurdled away at the Sri Lankan total, was reinvigorated by Dhoni’s presence. Together the pair found gaps in the field against the spinners with remarkable precision and ran between the wickets like a dream.

Muttiah Muralitharan – Sri Lanka’s champion spinner playing his last international game – and Lasith Malinga – who had accounted for both the Indian openers – were treated with adequate respect if not complete reverence. When Murali erred, though, Dhoni punished. In fact, the off-spinner was hit for three boundaries by Dhoni, each of them crashed through the offside with extraordinary accuracy.

When Gambhir, fell three runs short of what would have been a hugely memorable century, Dhoni was joined by Yuvraj with 52 runs required off as many balls. But the pair went about the rest of the chase with commanding assurance. In the first ball of the 43^rd over, Dhoni slashed Thisara Perera over point for a brutal six – the noise of which continues to reverberate in my ear. In the 48^th over, with 16 runs still required, he dealt to Malinga, perhaps, the cruellest blow he has received all tournament – a brace of astonishingly powerful whips to the long leg boundary.

And then in second ball of the next over came The Moment – the winning runs – a moment of untainted ecstasy. The victory settled by another violent blow from Dhoni’s blade off Nuwan Kulasekara – the bat coming through in its unusual yet hugely effective arc and striking the delivery with astounding fury. Even as the ball was deposited into the stands, and with Yuvraj Singh rushing to embrace him, Dhoni stood there eyes glazed, just for a jiffy, until the enormity of it all began to sink in. Yet there weren’t any histrionics from him – as if the moment was always inevitable. He clinched greatness over the course of his beautifully paced innings, but the cherry on top of it – that glorious swoosh for the win – will remain captured in a perpetual web of delight.

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.

After watching another miserable performance by Team India, I am left to wonder why the team, despite some truly exceptional individual performances, has put up such a despicable showing in the World Cup. Analysing our performance in the group stages, I think there are three key areas of failure: a complete inability to score in the final ten overs of the innings batting first including anything to do with the batting powerplay; particularly unimaginative captaincy by Dhoni in the field and a lack of stability in the bowling department.

Even to a passing observer of cricket, India’s performance towards the end of their innings batting first will seem woeful. The four matches that India has batted first—against Bangladesh, England, South Africa and now West Indies we have either managed to get bowled out without surviving fifty overs despite having heaps of wickets in hand with ten overs to go (England, South Africa, West Indies) or significantly under-performed against some mediocre bowling (Bangladesh). Now I would venture to suggest that the reason for this complete non-application of mind has been the pervasive influence of IPL and 20-20 cricket on our middle and lower order. In the crash-boom-bang format of 20-20, the middle and lower order batsmen are given the license to throw their bats around at everything because even if one or two connect, an ‘innings’ of 14 runs of 4 balls is deemed a success. Unfortunately for India, its middle order in the 50-over format is still under this spell. Yusuf Pathan is a prime example of this, attempting to whack every ball he faces, irrespective of its merit and irrespective of the situation of the game, out of the ground. The fact that most of our Indian commentators, former stalwarts of the game, who for lack of anything better to say, build up this sense of hype and expectation does little to help, other than fill the ordinary cricketers who comprise our middle and lower order with a faux hubris that they are capable of hitting a yorker for six. Not only does this make for ugly cricket—an attempted hoik off a full length delivery such as the one Kohli attempted to play today—but ugly cricket that is born out of incredible stupidity. Few things can be worse.

One such thing which has been worse has been Dhoni’s captaincy this World Cup. Our subsequent performances notwithstanding, in the group stages, time and again Dhoni has been found wanting—with his field placements, bowling changes and general ability to being the dynamic leader we have been accustomed to seeing. I have a strong suspicion that part of the reason for this is certainly the hype that the media has built around Dhoni and the famed gut instinct which drives his captaincy. Now it must be said Dhoni does have such a raw instinct on which he operates (giving the last over of the 20-20 World Cup Final to Joginder Sharma is a prime example) and generally has a calm demeanour that does much to inspire confidence. But I would conjecture that this celebration of Dhoni’s casually cerebral approach to captaincy has gone to his head ever so slightly. The completely uninspiring bowling changes and field placements during Strauss and Bell’s partnership, handing the ball to Nehra for the last over against South Africa after two economical overs by Harbhajan Singh before and despite South Africa’s well known inability in understanding the concept of spin bowling which led them to naturalise a Pakistani, let alone playing it are signs of utter complacency. If such complacency persists, an early farewell from the World Cup would not be entirely surprising.

But if such an exit does happen against Australia, I can safely say that the prime culprit will be our uninspiring bowling. The key problem with our bowling has been a lack of stability- we have played different bowling line-ups in four of our six matches. Zaheer Khan has had moments of brilliance in the midst of forgettable mediocrity, Munaf Patel has been consistently inconsistent, Harbhajan Singh is still fighting his demons as to whether he should primarily be a wicket-taking bowler or an economical one, Chawla has shown that though he can turn the ball, he lacks a brain which tells him how, when and against whom to use the turn and Sreesanth and Nehra have been themselves. The only whiff of fresh air was provided by Ashwin today with his intelligent, economical and aggressive off-spin. Wonder which cards Dhoni was playing in keeping him hidden away for so long. It is imperative that Team India settle on a combination—Zaheer, Munaf, Harbhajan and Ashwin select themselves really—work on their fields to the Australian batsmen, watch how they meekly capitulated against Pakistan and ensure they have a strategy in place in the Powerplay overs. A failure to do so will either mean a huge total to chase or a repeat of the loss to South Africa while defending a total, which was not really a failure of any individual in the team as much as a failure of ideas, strategy and intelligent thinking in the bowling department.

With the group stages ending and a month of the World Cup having passed, as a cricket fan I am delighted that it’s been exciting stuff to watch for the most part. As an Indian cricket fan however I have a feeling of emptiness, watching a team that is sublime and ridiculous in quick alternation, and frustration thinking of how much better we could have been. As we prepare to take on Australia on Thursday, as long as the emptiness and frustration don’t translate into another four-year wait for the first time I get to see an Indian lift the World Cup, I will be happy. And will take all my arguments back as quickly as I made them.

More crucial, though, in the larger scheme of this World Cup is the confidence that South Africa may derive out of this victory. Having choked itself out of many World Cups in the past, the climax of this chase would have done little to sooth its nerves, but the result could banish many a demon from its players’ minds. With 13 to get off the last over, and with the team’s spine-tingling defeat against England fresh in memory, the prospect of a cruel World Cup exit would have been at the forefront of their thoughts. But Robin Peterson in flaying Ashish Nehra – albeit aided by a fortuitous inside edge off the first ball – ensured a South African victory that was far in keeping from its usual form at such crucial junctures. The chase could give the Proteas not only a faith in its talents, but could also ensure that it evades Australia – so often its nemesis – in the quarter-finals.

South Africa has been perennial World Cup underachievers. It has gone into virtually every edition since it made its debut in the tournament in 1992 as one of the favourites, only to come undone either by nasty bits of luck or a failure to hold its nerves at the most decisive of occasions. On the back of its failure to chase down 171 against England in an admittedly difficult wicket at Chepauk last week, its pursuit at Nagpur yesterday invoked several déjà vu moments, not least when Johan Botha having hammered 23 of 15 deliveries fell with 17 runs left to get. What transpired though was a rare piece of brilliance from Peterson.

Had Peterson and South Africa failed to cross the line, this may well have represented the end of the road for the country in this World Cup. No doubt its remaining two fixtures look easy enough on paper, but if it had been forced to play Ireland – a team that, if nothing else, has showcased that it belongs at this level – and Bangladesh – never an easy proposition in its own home – on the back of a defeat to India, it may have been left clutching at straws. As it stands, though, its remarkable chase against India may not only give it the impetus to top its Group but the confidence to win games under pressure in the knockout rounds. Ominous signs, indeed.

We watch sport for a variety of reasons and a riveting story is often what we search for. In that sense, this game fulfilled our needs – constantly remaining on a knife-edge. But when you cut through the brilliance – admittedly there was a lot of that, especially from the two centurions, Sachin Tendulkar and Andrew Strauss – you are left to grapple with lots of dismal performances in the field. Easy catches were dropped, misfields were aplenty, the lines from the bowlers – barring Tim Bresnan – were wayward and the captaincy and the field settings from both M.S. Dhoni and Strauss lacked verve and imagination. All of this, while contributing heavily to the narrative, certainly did not make for pretty viewing. So to say that the contest was ‘a perfect advertisement’ for the one-day game – which it may well be, considering the general obsession with runs – veils the quality that both teams lacked.

On current form, regardless of their batting prowess, it looks unlikely that either India or England will be in contention towards the end of the tournament. Unlike test-matches, one-day games can, no doubt, be won on the strength, purely, of a team’s batting. But World Cups tend to be different – might in a single department has never been sufficient to lift the trophy. At least England was missing Stuart Broad, who is easily its best limited overs bowler. India had no such excuses. Its bowling – barring a brief yet stirring spell from Zaheer Khan – was uninspired and consistently poor, outdone in its sloppiness only by the fielding. India must, therefore, consider the option of playing five bowlers, a buffer that is necessary on sub-continental pitches for teams lacking sufficient bowling quality – an option that is particularly viable in India’s case, considering the strength of its batting. This would, of course, mean that one of Virat Kohli, Yuvraj Singh, Gautam Gambhir or Yusuf Pathan would have to be excluded; not an easy decision by any means. But the exigency of the situation calls for a bold move and in view of the form of Kohli (not to mention his fielding skills), Yuvraj’s usefulness with the ball and Pathan’s undeniable match-winning abilities, it may well have to be Gambhir who makes way.

Gambhir is a fine one-day batsman, whose worth to the team is undeniable. Yet, in a squad filled with as many batting stars as India’s is, it is inevitable that one of them will have to miss out. India could learn from Spain’s football team, which for much of the 2010 World Cup, started without Cesc Fabregas, favouring the more defence minded Sergio Busquets in the interests of team-balance. Winning a World Cup is no easy feat. And it certainly won’t be possible if sentiment is preferred over pragmatism.

And the prospect of a mighty upset, yesterday, was what provided the ongoing World Cup with its first dash of allure. No doubt the track at Nagpur was placid, the English bowling hapless and their fielding disgraceful, but a sparkling batting performance by the Dutch unquestionably provided the delight and the merry that the ongoing tournament has thus far lacked. And by making the chase difficult for England, the Dutch ensured that the game remained tantalisingly poised for much of its duration.

At the core of the Netherlands’ excellence was a marvellous all-round showing by Ryan ten Doeschate, who scored 119 off 100 balls with the bat and just as importantly bowled with purpose and economy, finishing with figures of 2 for 47 from his ten overs. As all-round performances in World Cup games go, this is up there with the very best – the Imran Khans and the Kapil Devs would have been proud of a display of this ilk.

Coming into bat at 58-2, ten Doeschate took eleven balls to get off the mark, but not once during the period did he look ruffled, giving the impression of a man utterly confident of his talents. Once he got rolling, he set about his task with breezy ebullience, displaying a particular proclivity for the cow-corner, repeatedly finding either the gap between wide long-on and deep midwicket or the stands behind the fencing. The innings was by no means chanceless – James Anderson at long-on and Kevin Pietersen at long-off allowed a skier when, ten Doeschate was on 47, to fall smack between them – but it was paced to perfection. There was a time when Graeme Swann and Paul Collingwood operating in tandem allowed the batsmen little leeway to play a forceful shot, but ten Doeschate remained serenely disposed, knowing that his time will come. And when Andrew Strauss brought on Pietersen, in collaboration with his batting partner at the time, Tom Cooper, the off-spinner was ripped apart, taken for nineteen runs off his two overs.

After the loss of Cooper and Bas Zuiderant – one of the survivors from the 1996 World Cup – ten Doeschate began to up the run-rate, striking boundaries as and when he pleased. A flick off Graeme Swann for six over midwicket – easily England’s best bowler of the game – showcased the excellence of his timing and the suppleness of his wrists.

The very best batsmen often appear to possess a lot of time to play their strokes – ten Doeschate is no different, possessing an ability to alter his shots at the final moment. After his partnership of 64 runs with Tom de Grooth came to an end in the first over of the batting power-play, he ensured that the field restrictions did not go unutilised, plundering the English attack with disdainful alacrity. His century came courtesy an overthrow from Jonathan Trott that ricocheted off the stumps onto the boundary – an anticlimactic completion of a glorious landmark. After ten Doeschate fell to Stuart Broad for 119, the Dutch aided by some clever batting from their captain Peter Borren and some inept fielding from the English ended their innings on 292. Borren bowled by Stuart Broad in the 49th over was allowed to stay on the field as England had only three fielders inside the 30 yard circle, an incident that epitomised their dreadful day in the field.

Nevertheless, chasing 293 on a flat deck against a rather feeble bowling attack should have been a simple enough task. But England being England made heavy weather of it, needing fine hands from Paul Collingwood and Ravi Bopara to settle the tie in the penultimate over. The Dutch, for the most part, bowled sensibly, with ten Doeschate again proving the star act. It was his dismissal of Ian Bell in the final ball of his spell that made the prospect of a Dutch victory even more tenable. No doubt England ultimately averted defeat and retained an element of honour, but the prospect at the change of innings in particular – and at various junctures during England’s chase – of an upset, provided the World Cup with a sprinkling of allure that it has desperately required. Sadly, there will be no such charm to look forward to in 2015.