The heartland of London’s Jamaican community isn’t as big on the game as it once used to be

Richard Browne18-Oct-2012Brixton, just down the road from The Oval in south London, has long been a home from home for Jamaican expats in the UK. The West Indies’ victory in the World Twenty20 recently did not quite invoke street parties or memories of Caribbean exuberance of the ’70s and ’80s, but there was a certain amount of celebration all the same. “We [Jamaicans] love our cricket and we always will,” Blacker Dread of Blacker Dread Records, a local reggae music store, said. “We had ten people in my living room watching and we had a party. Cricket, music and dominoes. Just like the old days.”Things are not quite like the old days, though. Tony Moody came to England from Jamaica in 1967, when there were ten cricket clubs in the borough of Lambeth, which Brixton belongs to. Now Tony and his son Jordan run the Lambeth Cricket Academy on a shoestring budget and without a pitch to call their own. Other than The Oval there is no specialist cricket pitch in Lambeth, and not a single cricket club left. West Indian faces in the crowds at international matches at The Oval have also all but disappeared, and Tony Moody is in no doubt as to why.”First they banned block booking, then drumming, and then there was the big crackdown on short-pitched bowling. The rhythm of the drums and the courage that short-pitched bowling requires is a huge part of cricket for people from the Caribbean. For us, watching cricket at The Oval lost its humour and fun.”Of the people I spoke to in Brixton’s pubs, markets and barbershops in the days following the T20 win, there was a clear split in enthusiasm for cricket between the over-35s and the rest. The older people were almost unanimously elated and proud of West Indies’ success, the younger ones indifferent at best. Most of the fans watched with friends at home or listened on the radio. Two pubs on Brixton high street showed the cricket rather than the Premiership football, as they otherwise would have.Chris Gayle’s return was applauded, as was Marlon Samuels’ new-found dominance. Darren Sammy was compared to Clive Lloyd (“A real man, with manners and all, he’s got everyone together and when the West Indies are together, no one can live with us.”)One gent made the point that if Dwayne Bravo was fit to bowl and Dwayne Smith replaced Johnson Charles, the team would be the only international outfit in the world with ten bowling options. “We won without our death bowler [Dwayne Bravo] being fit,” he said. Elsewhere, the elder Bravo was described by one lady as being “like a silly little boy, who has eaten all the sweeties” in his post-match interviews.A long-retired former fast bowler bemoaned the lack of aggression in Kieron Pollard’s bowling (“If God give you a physique like that, he is telling you to bowl fast”), while a table of drinkers in the Beehive pub, worried that “kids today are too lazy to bowl fast” and questioned why the tall men in the team generally bat and the shorter ones bowl fast.A general gripe in a part of London that is not flush with cash is the lack of cricket on English terrestrial TV. Since Sky got the rights to all England cricket in 2006, the resultant money has produced many tangible successes, but for those who can’t afford the subscription fee, the annoyance of not being able to watch any cricket reigns. “How can we get our kids into the game if there’s nowhere to play it and no chance of watching it? Cheapest seat at Oval Test is £55, and to take my two boys, too much,” moaned one frustrated punter.Be that as it may, Surrey, and the Moodys for their part, are trying to use cricket in the community to create strong characters and to get kids off the street, in a borough that has its fair share of gang and drug problems.I met the Moodys when they were conducting a coaching clinic at Sudbourne Primary School in Brixton, under the apologetic autumnal London sun. Thirty or so children were taking part, virtually all of whom would have no chance to play cricket if it were not for the intrepid duo, as there is no fixed place for the sport in the state sector curriculum.”For a lot of youths around here, life is a cul de sac, and for those interested in cricket, it’s the same,” Moody senior said. “We have no pitch, but oodles of talent.” He points out that Lambeth Academy have defeated the Surrey U-19s.”I want cricket and my coaching to reflect life. Cricket can teach so much. Life is also tough and when I’m coaching cricket to kids, I pick [only] the best players for the team. Often teachers and parents are enraged that their child has not got a chance to play, but that’s not life for me,” he said.Kennington United used to be the local team, and according to George Foster, now head of marketing at Surrey, and previously community manager at the county for six years, the team had issues that reflect the general problems of cricket in Lambeth. “English clubs are driven by membership subscriptions and by using their ground for fundraisers and the like. Kennington United shared a municipal park and a lot of the players were from low-income homes.”However, Surrey are totally committed to cricket in the community, he said. “We continue to run ten-week courses at The Oval and do everything we can, both financially and practically.”Foster admitted that marketing campaigns and cheap tickets for T20 cricket have not changed the mostly white middle-class demographic of the Oval spectatorship, which shows how much work there is still to do.

As race issues festered in Brixton, leading to the infamous riots of 1981, the success of the West Indian team was, according to one retired pub dweller, “the only thing that gave us our pride”

The Chance to Shine charity has done much for grassroots cricket in England in recent years, but as Foster said, “Shine’s big push is to get players from the clubs to come to the state schools and coach. It has worked, but as we have no clubs, no good for us.”While the dream of a cricket pitch in Lambeth essentially rests on a political decision, both Foster and Moody are enthused by the prospect of a big cricket and music extravaganza next year.In the 1980s, when West Indies were dominant, Jamaican sport appeared to feed off it. Their track-and-field stars came to the fore, global success was found in the boxing ring, and their netball players lived up to their potential. The tables have now turned. Moody is hoping cricket can feed off the track-and-field glories.”Jamaican track stars are role models, and both [Usain] Bolt and [Yohan] Blake love their cricket. I want to get them and Samuels and Gayle together in Brixton Park. Damian Marley has expressed an interest to sing. Michael Holding, a great man, is the academy’s patron, and I know he will do what he can to make this happen.”The most obvious example of the decline in the interest in cricket among England’s Caribbean community can be seen in the lack of English players of West Indian origin in the national team. In the ’80s and ’90s, the likes of Gladstone Small, Chris Lewis and Devon Malcolm, to name a few, were mainstays of English cricket.Moody, a charming and charismatic man, is clear why this is so. “Our folk still do not feel like they belong, and when they get the chance to show their stuff, they are under so much pressure because they have to work harder to get there. A lot of those guys learnt their stuff back in the Caribbean.”Secondly there are too many kids in the community without father figures, and hence they lack the guidance and support they need to push on in their careers.”The famous 1950 win at Lord’s immortalised in a Lord Kitchener calypso was perhaps the first expression of West Indian culture and exuberance that the British public at large saw. The Notting Hill Carnival, now Europe’s largest street party, had its origins partly on the back of this cricketing success.In later years as race issues festered in Brixton, leading to the infamous riots of 1981, the success of the West Indian team was, according to one retired pub dweller, “the only thing that gave us our pride. We were treated second class but at cricket we were first class.” It would be a real shame if the pride, history and talent were to disappear from the Brixton community altogether.

Harsha Bhogle, Rahul Dravid and Sanjay Manjrekar discuss MS Dhoni and Duncan Fletcher ahead of two big home assignments

14-Nov-2012Harsha Bhogle: And so as India plays England in four Test matches at home followed by a little series with Pakistan in between, there’s been a lot of talk about who should play and who shouldn’t. Not as much about leadership, because, finally, I think that will have just as much of a say as, I believe, anything else. The captaincy of the Indian cricket team, the position of the coach has always been the topic of discussion. So where do India stand on this leadership issue? How stable are we? How solid are we? Is this the best way ahead? Rahul Dravid, playing for India till a couple of Test matches ago, joins us. So does Sanjay Manjrekar.In terms of leadership, in terms of the season ahead, how critical is that as factor?Rahul Dravid: The leadership is going to be very important, there’s no doubt about it. It’s going to be a couple of high-pressure series, both of them at home. Playing at home, even though India has the advantage of home conditions, brings with it its own set of expectations and pressures – having to win, and not just win but win convincingly.HB: Sanjay, is the leadership under trial in any sense, or is there a feeling that leading away from India is completely different from leading in India, and so one doesn’t imply anything about the other?Sanjay Manjrekar: I think Dhoni is under pressure, purely because of what’s happened. The 0-8 loss that we keep talking about, the overseas losses. And the popular feeling and talk is that no captain would have survived that kind of a performance. Plus, the World Twenty20 that India didn’t play too well in. So, all that is building some pressure on Dhoni.Having said that, I don’t believe he is under too much pressure in the home series, purely because the conditions suit his team. From that standpoint, he’ll get much better support from his bowlers, from his batsmen. I personally felt that Dhoni should not have been held responsible so much for what happened overseas, in England and Australia, because I thought he was one of the many reasons India had that kind of a performance.His captaincy may have been dull at times, and he was actually bailed out a bit… [but] there was Virender Sehwag who captained India in the last Test, at Adelaide, and India still had the same result and lost as badly as they did under Dhoni. So that also told you something about the team that was playing in England and Australia, specifically the batting.HB: Rahul, is it very different captaining India overseas when things are going against you or when things can go against you, and captaining in India, when you know the conditions?RD: They are completely different things because of the quality of your bowling attack. When you look at the effectiveness of your spinners in Indian conditions, and the resources that you have at your disposal, and the impact your bowling can have in India, it makes a big difference. It makes it a lot easier to captain. The challenge is when you go abroad and your spinners are not that effective and you have to rely on your fast bowlers to make the breakthroughs at various stages. Sometimes you just don’t have the quality or the fitness in your fast bowling department to be able to get teams out twice. It puts a lot of pressure on captains.When you look at Indian captains, you’ll find that they tend to be a lot more aggressive in India than abroad. Partly the reason is the kind of quality of attack, or the kind of wickets that seem to help the attack, that they have in India.I agree with Sanjay that a lot of times, maybe, captains wouldn’t have survived a 0-8 beating in other situations, but in my opinion, Dhoni has every right to survive it because he is Dhoni. And I say that because of the success he’s had in the three years leading into the last year. He’s had a disappointing last year but he’s won India a World Cup, we’ve been the No. 1 [Test] side in the world under Dhoni, and we need to give Dhoni an opportunity to show us that he’s learnt from the last year. If you put pressure on him so early in the piece, or if you try to change someone like Dhoni now, I don’t think you’ll get to see what he’s learnt from the last year.What I’m hoping in the course of the next eight Test matches is to see Dhoni, or see someone, who’s actually learnt some lessons from the defeats, learnt more about himself, more about his players and more about the team, and is looking now to the next overseas tours and looking forward to the series ahead and trying to have a better performance when India tours the next time.SM:: Yes, Rahul, but the problem here is, we won’t know whether Dhoni has improved as an overseas captain by playing in the home series.You know, I’m a huge fan of Dhoni. I’ve always been a big supporter of Dhoni. I keep saying this – once he’s gone as captain, that’s when Indian cricket will start missing him. Because he’s been there for such a long time, familiarity breeds contempt… [and] also a certain amount of indifference towards the influence he has on the team.My problem with Dhoni has been his vision for Indian cricket, or the kind of selections that he’s made. Home series, again I expect Dhoni to be a good captain because of the obvious advantage that he has with the bowling attack, pitch conditions and everything. But is he now prepared to become a better overseas captain for the next overseas tours? If that was the goal for him, to prove to all his critics that he can be a good overseas captain, which [Sourav] Ganguly was during his time, then there could have been some measures that could have been taken, which haven’t been.HB: It’s interesting what Rahul said just now because I remember talking to Sourav Ganguly some time back and he had a similar view to what Rahul did. He said you have to give captains the opportunity to make mistakes and then give them the time to learn from it. If you change your captains too quickly, they then make the mistakes but you don’t give them the time to learn from it.That might have been true for a couple of captains in the past but, Rahul, Dhoni’s had the job for a long time. And as Sanjay says, can he be a better captain overseas? Is being a better captain overseas the function of the team he will get when he goes to South Africa in 2013? Because the fact that he’s captain now means, ideally, he should be the captain in end 2013, otherwise you would have needed another captain to feel his way around.Still the best man to lead India in Tests?•Associated PressRD: Yes, I mean you’d hope that if he is the captain in South Africa then India have probably done well in these two series, against England and Australia. In some ways Dhoni, even though he’s got to keep a short-term view in terms of these two Test series – and by no stretch of imagination can he afford to take England and Australia lightly, even though we’re playing at home – he’s got to have an eye some of the challenges he faces in his career to be seen as a good overseas captain as well.That will be a function of the team that he gets but he’s got to try and have an influence on the kind of team that he gets, and that’s a process that he’s got to start now. It’s a process of, I think, communication and negotiation with selectors, coaches, working on some of the skill sets of, especially, some of the bowlers and the young batsmen coming through on what is required in a year’s time. So while he has a micro view over what needs to be done in these series, he needs to discuss with the selectors about the kind of players he wants in South Africa and entrust them with the job of actually finding those players in domestic cricket.HB: Rahul used two very good words back to back – communicate with selectors and then negotiate with them too.SM: [Dhoni] is in a bit of a fix, actually. If he wants to be remembered as one of the greatest Indian captains, his overseas performances have to improve after what happened recently. But to be the overseas captain in November 2013, he’s got to win at home and that’s where he can’t take the risks that are attached with trying new players.I firmly believe that after the kind of opening batting combination that India had in England and Australia, to go back with Gambhir and Sehwag to South Africa would be a huge gamble. So a guy with a longer-term vision would have maybe somebody else to open in South Africa, but that also means a bit of risk taken in the home series.I can clearly see Dhoni is under pressure to deliver because, until now, he seemed to be a captain who didn’t worry about the pitches that he got at home. But now I’m getting to hear that he’s very aware, and he’s talking about the pitches helping his spinners and all that, which a Dhoni who was not under pressure as a captain never did.HB: Rahul, you’ve seen Dhoni as a captain in India and as a captain overseas. Do you see him being different as a captain in India? As a person himself, his confidence level, his swagger? Or is he the same phlegmatic person that you don’t really know what’s going on inside?RD: He is the same phlegmatic person. I think his handling of the 0-8 defeat, from a personal level, his own level, was pretty good. We never ever felt he was putting himself under any undue pressure in those couple of tours. So I don’t think I’ve seen him be different either at home or away.I think on the field you can obviously see the difference, because that is where he’s got to manage that bowling attack. And when you don’t have the necessary skills with the bowling attack, you can start to look a bit defensive and a bit flustered, and start looking around for answers. So on the field maybe he is slightly different, but that is more a function of the resources he has at hand. Otherwise he’s been pretty similar and that’s been one of his strengths – his ability to stay pretty balanced, to be able to manage and stay in a cocoon and not get too affected by what’s happening around him.That’s a good thing in a lot of ways, but sometimes I think there are a lot of good suggestions outside of the cocoon and there’s a lot you can learn and pick up outside of this cocoon as well, that maybe sometimes he misses out on. And maybe now’s the time for him to, sort of, get out of that a little bit and see what he can pick up from outside of this cocoon that he sometimes puts himself in, and which has been the reason for him having this success over three to four years.HB: It’s a very interesting point you make because that’s true of leaders everywhere, that you are paid to take the call, you are given the responsibility to take the decision, but you listen to everybody because you never know where the next big idea is coming from.But, Sanjay, I get the feeling – and that could be because he’s played in those kinds of teams – that he’s happiest with his slow bowlers. You saw that with Chennai Super Kings, you see that with India in the way he handles his spinners. I remember the last time England came here, he gave Yuvraj the third over of the innings. He’s happy to experiment with it here. Is it because that’s his comfort level, playing with the slower bowlers? Or is it because that is the strength and he’s happier when that strength comes in?SM: I think more the latter, because he’s just looking at bowlers that will put the opposition under pressure and he finds that’s more the spinners that do it. He’s quite happy to use Zaheer Khan very often because Zaheer is able to do that. Give him three world-class seamers and he’ll start using the seamers very often. So, yes.And also, I think, any Indian captain, the way we are bred, right from junior-level cricket to international cricket, there’s more spinner handling than handling seam bowlers.HB: Rahul, you were captain on two overseas tours that India did well in – England and West Indies, 2006-07, in that area. Were you a little luckier in the West Indies? I thought Munaf Patel had started to bowl well, you had RP Singh and Zaheer bowl very well. Did you have a better bowling attack, from that point of view, than the team you were part of in England and Australia?RD: I think I had a more settled bowling attack. I remember in England, especially, we didn’t change the playing XI for all three Test matches. So in that sense, yes, having three settled fast bowlers, and fast bowlers who can stay fit through the tour, is critical. What we’ve had in the last couple of years, or year and a half, is bowlers who start the series and are not able to complete the series, or are not bowling anywhere near as well as they were bowling at the start of a series. And that’s the problem. In a long, three-match or four-match series, Indian fast bowlers tend to start well but by the time you reach the third or fourth Test match, they are struggling or struggling to get wickets. That can put a lot of pressure on the captain.I was lucky in that sense that we were able to keep the bowlers fit through the series and we didn’t have to make too many changes.HB: One of things that people talk about, Sanjay, is the TINA effect – there is no alternative. It’s very easy to say who should not be there. The moment you say someone should not be there or somebody should be moved, then you are almost bound to answer the supplementary question: therefore, who [instead]?Who do you think is the captain in waiting at the moment? If we are to go with the hawks, if we are to say, 0-8 – captains have been sacked for that before, who is the alternative? If you look at the senior players, Sehwag and Gambhir, they are themselves a little unsettled at this stage. Maybe they can do with just batting? [Virat] Kohli has played just seven to ten Test matches. So where was the alternative?SM: I think Dhoni knew that very well.HB: Do you think he’s that kind of person, do you think he’ll analyse everything… ?SM: No, right at the end of that series in Australia, when the pressure was building up about his captaincy, which was a little unfair… I’ve said that because the batting kept failing repeatedly and the bowling attack wasn’t great, you had to lose every Test match. He said he’d be happy to move away if you’ve got a better alternative. What happened is that Sehwag himself struggled with the bat – he was perhaps the contender to take the Test captaincy for a while from him. Gambhir also didn’t enhance his reputation. So Dhoni was fortunate.And I’ve absolutely got no issues with Dhoni being the Test captain for a while because there’s no alternative. And to give Virat Kohli the Test captaincy is far too early.HB: Will you give him the T20 [captaincy] just now?SM: Maybe one format, if you feel that Dhoni has captained a lot. If you look at the number of matches he’s played as captain, it’s 203 matches out of the 318 that he’s played, so that’s a lot of matches as captain. Even more than Sourav Ganguly, who captained 196 out of 424. So he’s also played mostly as captain and less as a player. Maybe a few years you should allow Dhoni to be a player in at least one of the formats. Let’s get to see Dhoni the player once more. When you look at Dhoni, and I’ve said this in post-match presentations as well, we sometimes are very unfair to him in that we don’t look at his other skills as much as his captaincy skills.HB: Do you think Dhoni the player has got diluted a little bit? Is that what you were suggesting just now, the player diluted because of the captaincy?SM: No. I think his Test batting has disappointed me, but I don’t know why that is because I find his technique good enough to counter Test match challenges. He’s got a rare strength that not too many of the Indian batsmen have, that he doesn’t a problem with fast bowling or short balls. If he focuses more as a batsman, there is room for improvement as a Test batsman. I think he’s done wonderfully well as a limited-overs batsman.HB: Rahul, when you became captain it was very clear who the next captain after Ganguly was going to be. It wasn’t a difficult selection. Once you knew that Sourav had come to the end, it was known to everybody that you would be the next captain. Is there a next captain in your mind – even if you don’t want to put a time frame to it?RD: Unfortunately for the selectors or for their planning, Viru and Gambhir, who probably were the obvious candidates to, sort of, be in a leadership role along with Dhoni, have their own issues, of form, of fitness. I think Viru and Gautam have both missed a lot of Test matches through injury over the last year, year and a half, which doesn’t help.Virat’s come in and done really well, but like Sanjay said, we’d all like to see him have another year like the one he’s had. If he has another 12 months like the past 12 months he’s had, then I think he’s going to start pushing himself very close to, sort of, captaincy and starting to go away from the pack. So at the moment I think the selectors themselves would have liked personally, maybe Sehwag or Gambhir to have been a lot more consistent, not only in their performances but also consistency in their ability to stay fit and playing consistently all the time, which is very important.HB: Fair call. You saw Azhar, then Sachin, then Azhar, then Sachin, then Sourav, Dhoni, and briefly you had it there as well, and you’ve been observant. Can you, sort of, watch and tell that somebody is not enjoying captaincy? That maybe, like batsmen look jaded, a leader can look jaded, or maybe that the leader’s heart is not in it anymore? Or do you actually need to be in a inner circle to realise that?RD: It’s a little difficult to tell from a distance. It’s not an easy job captaining your country, especially when you are losing games. Dhoni had three great years where we didn’t lose a lot of games and we had a lot of success. So when you have that success it is easy to have that enthusiasm and that momentum. But when you have the kind of year that he’s had, it’s but natural for him to feel a little jaded and a little despondent with how things are happening. But like I said earlier, you haven’t really noticed any change in his personality from the time he’s been doing well or the time now.

“I think, knowing someone like him, he would want to get more involved and have a say in where his own career and his own reputation is headed.”Dravid on Fletcher

But, like Sanjay said, you have to consider the fact that he is playing a lot of cricket and that is going to have an impact on you in time, especially if you are captaining in all three formats of the game. And I agree with Sanjay there that if you’re going to keep playing so much cricket, people have to look at it. From his own personal point of view, you also want the best of Dhoni as a player. He has a lot to contribute as a batsman, as a wicketkeeper. I don’t think we want to lose that, and if that means at some stage – maybe the time’s not right now but in the near future – we have to relieve him of the responsibility from one format of the game to get the best out of him as a player, then I think the selectors have to take that call.SM: There’s one important thing as well, Rahul, isn’t there? It’s okay to be slightly detached and not get affected by the results and things like that because it does help being an India captain and being insulated in a cocoon, and that has been his great strength. But the defeats also have to still hurt you.RD: I’m sure it must hurt him. But you’re right, in the sense that now he’s got to show in terms of actions and in terms of some of the decisions he takes that this has hurt him and he is thinking of the future, he is thinking about what’s going to happen ahead. I think he is the right man to lead India and the right man to take those decisions. I think he is in a position to be able to take those decisions, because, like we discussed earlier, there isn’t a lot of pressure on him from underneath from any particular player or set of players for his job.HB: It’s interesting that while all these defeats were happening, India beat England 5-0 in the one-dayers at home, beat West Indies, beat New Zealand, so there’s almost a skew there. But it’s also interesting that we haven’t even talked about the coach. Is that an indicator, Sanjay, that in this cricket team, it is the captain who’s taking the decisions and the coach is not as important a person? Or is that how it should be in the first place?SM: My view on the Indian coach has been the same. When they’re offered a contract, I don’t think it’s written anywhere that you’ll be one of the main selectors, or you’ll be one of the guys scouting for talent in the country, or you’ll be one of the two or three important voices in taking the important decisions in Indian cricket, especially the Indian cricket team. So he comes with very limited powers. And that’s why I don’t think he should be held accountable for what happens in Indian cricket because he has very limited influence.I am indifferent to Duncan Fletcher. It’s because of two things. One is the scope that an Indian coach has in the Indian cricket system – it’s very limited. And also, Fletcher by nature is not somebody like Greg Chappell, who, in spite of the scope, will try and make things happen, will try, for reasons good or bad, but won’t be afraid to rock the boat.For me, he is a very insignificant character in this Indian cricket team. The captain, and a few other major players, and bowlers, are far more important people in this team.HB: Rahul, you know him well. Is he as understated as he is allowing himself to look, and is his power, sort of, stated within the four walls of a room rather than visibly to the public?RD: I think Duncan has a lot to offer. He’s got a lot of strengths as a coach and he connects well with a lot of the players and works quite well with them. But, like Sanjay said, I guess, in some ways, the scope or power that he has to make decisions or to make selections has been a little limited.It wasn’t always the case. I remember John Wright or Greg Chappell consistently attending selection committee meetings, watching domestic matches. I think over the last three-four years we’ve seen that coaches have taken a slightly more detached role to our selections. I don’t think Gary [Kirsten] watched a lot of domestic cricket. Duncan has not really done that as well. Now, whether that’s something that the board has told him not to do… because this is the time when a lot of young players are going to need to be selected and decisions are going to be made about young players. Ideally you would have liked somebody like Duncan to come and maybe watch some of the early pre-season games to have a better opinion of who’s the better middle-order batsman, in his opinion.The thing is, he has a lot of knowledge, he’s seen a lot of players, that’s why I say that. Who’s a better middle-order player between Manoj Tiwary and an Ajinkya Rahane or a Shikhar Dhawan or Murali Vijay? At least to have an opinion, an informed opinion by actually coming and watching some games. Because I think he has a lot to offer in that area, he’s seen so much cricket. But the fact that he didn’t come and didn’t attend the selection-committee meeting tells you that maybe that’s not in his scope of work, he doesn’t have those powers…HB: There’s two opinions, aren’t there, about coaches being selectors? One is that the coaches observe players very closely, they understand their mental frailties, their cricketing strengths, and know whether or not the person is the right person or not. The other point of view that’s often been stated is that a player goes to a coach with a problem, and if the coach then uses the awareness of that problem to drop him from the side, players will stop going to him with a problem. So should the coach be a selector? Or should the coach be an advisor and travel with the team?RD: I think a coach should be more involved in the selection process. I like the coach to be more involved in the selection process simply because the coach should have the ability to differentiate between that and have the maturity to pick people. Some of these people do have the maturity to be able to understand that when players come to them with a problem, they don’t necessarily use that as a way to drop someone. But also the coach sees players from such quarters, he understands players. So I think he must have a say.SM: And also, Rahul, his job is at stake on the results. Now suddenly we are talking about Fletcher, whether he’ll survive this defeat or bad run that Indian cricket has had. Just imagine his fate. If he’s got absolutely no influence on the selection of players, how can he be held accountable for the results?RD: You want to give people powers and you want to hold them accountable, especially when you have senior, knowledgeable people like Duncan. So that’s important. None of us really knows whether he didn’t want to come [to selection meetings] or what was the scenario, but I think his reputation is on the line as well. I think, knowing someone like him, he would want to get more involved and have a say in where his own career and his own reputation is headed.HB: A couple of things before we finish on the coach. One of the reasons people ask questions about Fletcher is that nobody knows him at all. I’ve been around Indian cricket for a while; I have never once spoken to him. We’ve just sort of nodded heads. I don’t know him at all. Nobody knows Duncan Fletcher at all. So he comes through as this somewhat mystical, phlegmatic character who’s there behind the shades but no one really knows what his contribution is.And that is the reason why a lot of people want to know: What kind of coach is Duncan Fletcher? Can he be held accountable? Is he doing his job in making players play to the best of their ability, which is what a coach should be doing?RD: Yeah, firstly his job is not really to get to know the media or former players. I think his job is to get results from the team and the questions that are being raised today are because we haven’t had some of those results. In the end, finally, he is going to be judged by that. Not by what he’s perceived as. What I’ve learnt in cricket and being around the scene a lot is that perception about people and players and coaches is sometimes very different from who they actually are and what the reality is, sometimes. It’s very difficult to get that right sometimes from a distance. Having said that, he’s going to be judged by his results and the results haven’t been great in the last one year. That’s why these questions are being raised.I think I have seen a little bit of… definitely after the loss he has put a lot of emphasis on fitness and certain disciplines of the players, and knowing and talking to maybe some of them, and the basics in skill levels of some players. So, hopefully we’ll see some of that in these Test series and going forward – an improved level of fitness and some more discipline in the way they play the game.SM: I’ll add one more line. If Duncan Fletcher is going to be judged on the results produced by the Indian team, I think it’s going to be a little unfair. That’s why I was also reluctant to shower too much praise on Gary Kirsten, because of the kind of powers that they come with in this Indian cricket set-up. If they have defined powers and scope of work, then you could judge them by the results in either way. So with an Indian coach, we can always be a little unfair to them when we judge them by pure results, because they have such limited scope of work.How much of the blame for 0-8 should Fletcher bear?•Getty ImagesHB: Last one on coaches. Rahul, very different style, Gary and Duncan? Because one’s been the mentor for the other. In a sense, Gary admits the role Duncan has played in his evolution as a coach.RD: I think both of them have their own strengths. Gary was a terrific coach, a really good man-manager, very hard-working person who led with example in a lot of ways in the way he worked. Someone who, I think, became a friend of a lot of the players. Duncan, obviously because of an age difference, maybe doesn’t have that personal connect with some of the players, or the level of conversations that he can have with some of the guys are maybe a little different to what Gary could have had because he played with some of them.But I think Duncan has a lot to offer in terms of a coach, in terms of the tactics, his knowledge of the game – he works well in that area, he works quite closely with a lot of players. I think his relationship with the players and captain has been pretty good, from what I’ve seen and what I’ve noticed from a distance for the last six-eight months, because I’ve not been in it. I think the relationship is good within the team. Sometimes it might not necessarily come across like that outside, because of the things we said – he doesn’t necessarily take the trouble to talk about a lot of these things outside of the team environment.HB: Sanjay, since Rahul mentioned tactics, I’ll end with you on this issue – on the coach and captain being a good tactical combination. What has been your experience? We don’t know how much the tactical inputs of the coach are, but from a hundred yards away, have India been tactically strong?SM: Rahul would be a better person to answer that because he’s also been in the same dressing room. But from what I see from a distance, I see other strengths with Dhoni as a captain. I don’t think tactics are his greatest strength. I think the greatest contribution he’s made to Indian cricket is that he’s brought calmness to Indian cricket. Because very often in the past, when India was under pressure, captains would wilt, the team would panic. It got more and more assured and calm under Dhoni. That’s his greatest legacy.As far as tactics are concerned, sometimes he has some strange ideas. For example, in that Test against New Zealand, in Bangalore, the most successful bowler, R Ashwin, was [Dhoni’s] last preferred option in the second innings. Things of that kind, which you can’t understand. But, as I said, he’s got a lot more other strengths. And the kind of record he’s got, he’s got us three world titles. That’s got to count for something. But as a tactician, not right up there.RD: Dhoni as a tactician, he’s learning all the time. I guess he’s improving and no one’s perfect with it. He looks a better captain in India, like we said at the top of the programme, with the quality of spin he has. I think he’s a good captain of spin and he’s a good tactical captain in India. I know he sometimes does a few strange things that when they come off they look really good but when they don’t, you can sort of scratch your head and wonder why he’s done that.I think he’s got to keep improving and that’s where Duncan can help him. Duncan’s got to be able to help him and say, “Look, this is what I think and maybe we should try this a little bit.” I do agree that in that Test match, it did surprise me a little bit as well with Ashwin, who’s India’s leading bowler, not having bowled upfront. But sometimes you never know with these things whether it’s a case of injury or someone’s not feeling well. So, that could be one of the reasons. But yeah, Dhoni’s tactical nous is also going to be tested, maybe not so much in this series or the next couple of series but definitely going forward.HB: I must confess we got a lot out of this programme than I wondered when we started off. Just a quick one on the opposition that India face. How do you see this England side compared to the other England sides that have come to India? Are they strong enough? I think the return of [Kevin] Pietersen is such a big factor.RD: On paper, definitely they look a strong side. When they came here I thought they would be competitive, especially with their bowling, but now with injuries to [Steven] Finn and [Stuart] Broad, I think they’ll definitely be weakened. And with the news of Graeme Swann having gone back to England… they say he’s going to come for the first Test, but that can’t be easy and it’s not great for your preparation of your leading bowler if he’s going to make two long flights just before the first Test.I think the key will be if the England bowling attack can restrict the Indian batsmen to under 300 consistently. I don’t see, on our wickets, the English batsmen being able to pile up huge scores. If the tracks start turning and bouncing, the best England can hope for is to make this a low-scoring Test series. And from that point of view, they’ve got to have the ability to get India out twice, for under 300 runs in both innings. For that, they need the bowlers to do that. Finn and Broad, especially, for me, bowlers who hit the deck, who can make use of the vagaries of the nature of the wicket, would have been more dangerous than someone like a [James] Anderson, who relies on swing, or an [Graham] Onions, who relies on length, to get wickets.SM: [England’s] batting is a bit suspect. There’s only one thing. The thing is, when India got beaten by England, when Dravid got three hundreds in the [2011] Test series… yes, the pitches helped the seamers, but it was a quality bowling attack that England had. Do India have a quality bowling attack? That’s where England’s chance is to escape from the net on a few occasions.HB: Okay, we’ll wait and see. Thank you very much to Sanjay Manjrekar, thank you very much to Rahul Dravid. Both of them will be on air during the Test series between India and England, so we can enjoy their company all over again.Numbers Game Question: Since 1990, there have been 19 instances of overseas batsmen scoring more than 300 runs in a Test series in India. How many of those are from England, and who are the batsmen?

Mickey Arthur chased down the No. 1 ranking with South Africa previously; now, he’ll be looking to knock them off their perch with Australia

Firdose Moonda in Brisbane06-Nov-2012Mickey Arthur knows what it means to hunt. His five years with the South Africa team were spent in pursuit. He went in search of the world No. 1 Test ranking and a major limited-overs trophy for almost that entire period and his only reward was about four months as the top Test team, a period so short few remember it.What Arthur does not know is what it is like to be hunted. The time South Africa spent at No. 1 was never thought of as comprehensive, especially as the achievement was more a result of Australia’s 2009 Ashes loss than South Africa’s run of form. It came to an almost unnoticed end, so Arthur has never really known the anxiety that comes from being followed by a chasing pack.But the South African side he built is in that position now and Arthur is the one hunting them. He thinks he knows the difference between what his former chargers and his current ones, Australia, may be feeling.”Expectation is the biggest thing for a No. 1. When you are getting to No.1 you’re always chasing a dream. And then when you’re there your focus changes because the expectation to defend that title is massive,” Arthur said. “It is two different mind sets.”It probably is a little bit more difficult to adjust because every time you go out there you are expected to win. When you win, that’s what you’re expected to do and when you lose, people get on your back.”At least five of the players in Arthur’s Australian side also know what that’s about. Ricky Ponting, Michael Clarke, Peter Siddle, Ben Hilfenhaus and Michael Hussy were all part of the set up when the Australians ruled the cricketing world and have made it their mission to get back there. The rest are experiencing something Arthur is all too familiar with.”Those guys who have been there have gone back to chasing that dream again. But the new players don’t know what being No. 1 is. That’s a goal and a challenge that we’ve set for ourselves. We’re also chasing.”To begin that quest against South Africa has put Arthur back into a position with which he is completely comfortable, especially because of the similarities he can draw between the two squads. “When I look at the time that Graeme [Smith] and I got together for South Africa, it was kind of the same as the time Michael and I have come together for Australia,” he said. “We’ve both had good entrenched players and then some youngsters coming up so the journey has been the same.”Arthur could even go as far as identifying common touches in the strongly bullish Smith and the quietly classy Clarke. “Graeme is a phenomenal leader. He has an aura about him and when he talks, people listen. Michael Clarke is exactly the same. They are very similar characters and [there are] definite parallels between them. They are both very positive and lead by example. They both prepare meticulously and when they play well the teams they lead tend to be successful.”Even though Arthur is no longer part of the South Africa set-up, he appreciates how the side has grown since he left: “It is very gratifying to see that those guys have matured. They are battle-hardened players and to see the same faces here this time just means they have a lot more experience this time.”

“Graeme is a phenomenal leader. He has an aura about him and when he talks, people listen. Michael Clarke is exactly the same.”Mickey Arthur

Australia shape up a little differently. While they still have the same core group, they have a few obvious softer areas, something Australians sides of old rarely spouted. The opening partnership is one of them, the injury spate another. But it is the allrounder role that Arthur seems concerned about.”It was frustrating to lose Shane Watson, because we had been so meticulous in our planning for him,” Arthur said, referring to Cricket Australia instructing Watson to return home after three Champions League T20 matches to prepare for the Test series. “We had a plan for every one of our players and to lose Watto on the eve of the series after we had done all that planning was disappointing.”A similar thing happened to Arthur four years ago. Ashwell Prince injured his hand the day before the first Test between South Africa and Australia in Perth and had to be replaced by JP Duminy on the morning of the game. South Africa went on to win that match and the series, incidents Arthur can no doubt draw inspiration from.The success he achieved with South Africa in Australia in 2008-09 made Arthur the first coach to lead an opposition team to a series in in Australia in 15 years. Now, he may be considered in prime position to ensure South Africa do not break through again, simply because of his insider knowledge, but Arthur is not banking on that alone.”I know the guys personally. I know exactly what makes them tick. I’ve seen them prepare and train, and I know what their thought processes are around the dressing room,” he said. “[But] I can only prepare the players that I’ve got. I’m not going to influence massively what happens out in the middle.”I do bring an intimate knowledge of the South African team. I know the little idiosyncrasies of each of them. Whether that can be used to win a Test series, I’m not sure. But I’ll certainly be giving a lot of the information to our players.”

From Santanu Chakraborty, United States
Seeing Dr.Kamath’s “Memories of 1983” , I could not resist myself to share my own memories with you all

Cricinfo25-Feb-2013Santanu Chakraborty, United States
Seeing Dr.Kamath’s “Memories of 1983”, I could not resist myself to share my own memories with you all. Cricket entered my life nearly 30 years ago when I was almost 10. But till that historic day (25th June, 1983) and even in the next four years, there had not been any occasion of my watching international cricket (even through television).Cricket used to reach me through the articles of Shankari Prasad Basu, Shantipriya Bandopadhyay, Mati Nandy, Mukul Dutta, Ajay Basu or through the voices of commentators like JP Narayanan, Sushil Doshi, Murli Manohar Manzoor, Suresh Saraiya or the voices of news readers like Krishna Kumar Bhargava, Ramanuj Pratap Singh etc. The use of words in those articles or news or the same in those running commentaries along with the added excitement gave me the charm of cricket in those days. Those descriptions, those uses of words and those pulps of emotions were mainly responsible for building up my feel for national and international cricketers at that time.It was a time when I could only imagine what could be an off-cutter or a full toss or a good length delivery or a googly. To me, there was not much difference between a square cut and an on-drive or between a leg glance or a fierce pull. It was such a time that India won the World Cup. Without understanding even 1% of the technicalities of cricket, without even listening to 50% of any of those cricket commentaries in that historic tournament, I enjoyed every bit of it through the documented descriptions in the newspapers. Those printed lines were not just some amalgamation of words for me – they actually were the World Cup for me. It was a time when those articles and reports were also not written with a professionally minded approach. So, the emotions reached the sky’s limit in those articles and there were attempts to establish India as the best team in the world after the World Cup.Although logical thinking told me that it was not so in spite of the fact that I was only in my adolescence at that time (14 years old). But to me, at least for that tournament, India really deserved this victory because of the sheer emotion, self belief, determination and patriotism. There were not too many superstars in the 1983 team. The 1987 team in the Reliance Cup had more superstars. There were no plans or tactics or strategies involved in those 1983 victories. Sourav Ganguly’s India in 2003 was a much better team in terms of planning and strategies. But still India could not win in 1987 and 2003 because they probably did not have that self belief. Therefore, even after 25 years, that unplanned, strategy-less, superstar-less victory has remained India’s sole victory in the World Cup.

The Auckland Test has highlighted the difference between the England and New Zealand bowling attacks when it comes to their ability to swing the ball

Andrew McGlashan in Auckland24-Mar-2013The subject of swing is one of cricket’s most often-debated topics, but one that rarely finishes with any definitive conclusions. That is especially true when there are such clear differences between the ability of one team to move the ball better than the other.England’s bowlers barely got the ball off straight in Auckland through 152 overs of New Zealand’s first innings. Even for James Anderson, one of the finest exponents of swing in the world, it was mostly gun-barrel straight. When the home side took the ball on the second evening, however, there was distinct shape for Tim Southee and Trent Boult. It was not always straight, but the threat from one on target, such as Boult trapping Jonathan Trott lbw, was much greater.Southee continued the trend on the third morning with a high-quality spell of swing bowling that accounted for Nick Compton and Ian Bell to ensure England’s top order was knocked over with precious few runs on the board.The ball to Compton did not actually swing, but that becomes just as dangerous when there has been movement to leave the batsman wary of what is to come. Bell was set up by a series of deliveries shaping way outside off before Southee brought one back into the pads to win another lbw decision. He should have had a third during the afternoon session when he drew Matt Prior into a drive and the edge went low to Dean Brownlie, who could not cling on low at second slip.Importantly, too, the bowlers were backed up by attacking fields from Brendon McCullum, who often had four slips and rarely fewer than three. Of course, it easy to attack when on top but it is a lesson to Alastair Cook. In Wellington, BJ Watling edged through the vacant third slip when he had 2 runs and the score was 95 for 5. That moment cost England vital time in their race against weather.Numerous theories were put forward as to why there was such a difference between the two attacks across the first innings. It could be as basic as form and consistency, but Simon Doull, the former New Zealand bowler who could move the ball mile, suggested on local TV that it was to do with the position of the seam. He picked up that Anderson had the seam pointing as far as third slip, while Southee’s was towards first. Then there is the argument of bowling fuller, which New Zealand’s seamers undoubtedly did here. Stuart Broad’s six wickets in Wellington largely came from a fuller length – as did his wicket today of Ross Taylor – but Steven Finn is not a swing bowler and his full deliveries can become floaty.More prosaically, it could just come down to the ball that was picked out of the box, as sometimes one just does not swing, or whether it gets wet as it did for New Zealand in Wellington. It is often said that the darker the leather, the more likely the ball is to swing. Choosing the ball is the job of the senior seamer, so you would think that Southee is the man with that role in the New Zealand team. He may have got lucky with his choice, or he could have pulled out a blinder for his side.The mystery of swing

Trent Boult “You can present the seam as well as you want but if the conditions aren’t there to suit then I believe it won’t swing. Dunedin was a pretty hard place to swing the ball, Wellington traditionally swings but didn’t, and coming here we knew it was going to swing. There’s no doubt you’ve got to give it every opportunity to swing and by pitching it up you are encouraging it.”

Matt Prior “They’ve probably got a better box of balls. It can be as simple as that. If it’s flummoxed scientists for years, I don’t think I’m going to have the answer.”

Southee’s stock and trade is swing. He marked his debut by taking five wickets against England in Napier during the 2008 series. His career did not flourish immediately in the way that first outing suggested and Auckland is only his 23rd Test. This has also been a fairly barren series for him; his wicket of Compton was his first since his second over of the series when he bowled the same batsman in Dunedin. He deserved some reward in Wellington, especially on the second day, but started this Test with a return of 1 for 216.However, in the last couple of years he has shown, on a number of occasions, his ability to trouble top-class batting line-ups. And it has not always been on conditions you would expect. In the space of three Tests on the subcontinent – one against India in Bangalore and two against Sri Lanka – he collected 20 wickets. That included a career-best 7 for 64 in Bangalore and a match-winning haul to help New Zealand level the series in Colombo. Returns like that do not come by accident. He would not have prevented the one-sided series in South Africa, but his bowling was missed when a thumb injury ruled him out of tour.His efforts warranted more than the final figures of 3 for 44. Instead it was Boult who ended with the headline return of 6 for 68 – his maiden five-wicket haul in Tests. He had set the tone on the second evening with a spell that quickly put England’s effort into context.The combination of Boult and Southee were central to New Zealand’s most recent Test win, the victory in Colombo, when they shared 15 wickets in the match. Despite the wobble at the start of the second innings, they have a fantastic opportunity for a repeat performance.

Without time for the military-like preparation that has preceded successes against Australia and India, England were lacklustre in New Zealand and can’t afford to be off-guard again

Andrew McGlashan15-May-2013When three of England’s players spoke to the press on Monday the backdrop was adorned with “Investec Ashes”. If they really aren’t thinking about it, there are plenty of reminders. Yet before the urn is contested there are other serious matters to attend to, the first being two more Tests against a New Zealand side who caused England plenty of headaches less than two months ago.Those performances, which resulted in a 0-0 draw that England barely deserved, led to a forceful warning by national selector Geoff Miller that a repeat will not be tolerated. For a man not normally associated with strong statements when naming squads, his comments last weekend suggested intent to get a message out to the players; but they, understandably, continue to be steadfast in the belief that their mindset in New Zealand was not a problem.How they respond will be fascinating. Or perhaps that should be how they are allowed to respond. Yes, England were below their best in New Zealand but the hosts played some outstanding cricket, especially in Auckland – better than even their staunchest of supporters would probably admit to being thought possible in the wake of their previous few months on and off the field.When it was put to Mike Hesson, the New Zealand coach, that England’s difficulties were because they came up against a team playing well he said “I’d like to think so”. This series remains a battle between No. 2 and No. 8 in the world, but New Zealand certainly do not carry themselves like a team that feels inferior. They have respect for the opposition, but no fear.

Though England’s year will be remembered by what comes later, another bloody nose in the next couple of weeks would raise some awkward questions.

They are led by an outstanding cricketer. Brendon McCullum showed why Hesson wanted him as captain and he has been impressive at every turn both on and off the field. Seemingly small things, such as being happy to say what he would do at the toss, or naming his team the day before, helped build a feeling that he was confident in his own gameplan.At the England Player of the Year dinner, Alastair Cook was asked whether he felt pressure to follow aggressive captaincy that the likes of McCullum (and later this summer Michael Clarke) tend to adopt. He was adamant about being his own man, an equally admirable trait that has served him outstandingly well, but whether he starts to develop a more attacking streak or remains akin to his predecessor Andrew Strauss will be one of the many subplots to this season.McCullum out-smarted England in the previous series. “They have clearly done a lot of planning and they set some very clever fields for those wickets,” Ian Bell said earlier this week. Did England quite manage the same level of planning and preparation they would for a series against the, so called, bigger nations? Compared to their military-like approach to Australia or India, something felt a little lacking.Part of home advantage should help avoid a repeat. Andy Flower and his staff have had plenty of time to examine what happened, while the players have all – except Graeme Swann – had a minimum of two Championship matches to prepare. In fact, it is hard to say that any of the 12 in the squad are coming into the series with doubts over their form.Andy Flower will ensure England are focussed better for the return series with New Zealand•Getty ImagesEngland will expect the Dukes ball to swing – in every sense – the odds back in their favour. But serious concerns will emerge if they continue to struggle to get the ball consistently off straight. That, though, is also New Zealand’s strength. They have a strong hand of swing bowlers, especially the rapidly improving Trent Boult.In a short two-Test series (although it could be viewed as a five-match series spread over each side of the world) one bad innings can be enough to make it unwinnable. On the New Zealand tour, England had two horrendous first-innings display, in Dunedin and Auckland, from where they were only ever trying to save the game.The second-innings hundreds of Cook, Nick Compton and Matt Prior were courageous backs-to-the-wall displays, but Test matches are set up by first-innings runs as England showed in Wellington where they played an almost textbook Test for three days before the rain came. Bell is an example of someone who needs to ensure his defining innings of a series is there to set up a position of strength, rather than secure a draw as he helped to do in Nagpur and Auckland.New Zealand’s batsmen do not come into the series in the best of shape. Hamish Rutherford found his touch against England Lions (keep an eye on how many runs he scores from cover to backward point) but Peter Fulton has struggled against the moving ball. McCullum and Ross Taylor have had one innings apiece, so will need to dig deep into their experience, while Kane Williamson will need to remember lessons from his Gloucestershire stint.Despite what happened in March, England will again start favourites – not a tag that always appears to sit comfortably. But New Zealand have it them to win their first Test in Britain since The Oval in 1999 and, though England’s year will be remembered by what comes later, another bloody nose in the next couple of weeks would raise some awkward questions.

A Gayle scorcher, Tendulkar and Ponting batting together against Muralitharan, and a last-ball finish. This game had everything

Gaurav Mathur05-Apr-2013Choice of game
Since this was the first time I was watching an IPL game live, I really wanted to see Sachin Tendulkar, Ricky Ponting and Muttiah Muralitharan play. I scrimmaged for tickets and got them for this game. I had never been to the Chinnaswamy Stadium before, so this turned out to be a multitude of firsts.Team supported
When in Rome do as the Romans do. I was supporting Bangalore all the way. I even bought their official merchandise from one of the stalls in the stadium. I am always partial when it comes to Tendulkar, but my heart bled red and not blue on this occasion.Getting in
The arrangements were very systematic and the experience was quite hassle-free. The authorities had planned well and getting in was a breeze. I was seated in one of the best stands in the ground since I could see the ball move in every direction.Stadium atmosphere
Surreal, but real. The noise blew you off your feet and the music was deafening. I suddenly understood what “cricketainment” meant. This was one big party and everyone was invited. The DJ played some great music and we were dancing in our seats, and at times out of them. The entire stadium was bathed in red, with only a sliver of blue at one end.Crowd meter
Bangalore lived up to its name. The first round of the Mexican wave went around the stadium five times, and there were few more in the second innings. The crowd cheered for Bangalore, but opened their hearts for Sachin. Whichever part of the ground he went to, the crowd gave him a rousing ovation. They loved Gayle and chanted for a last-ball six. He gave them what they asked for.Star quotient
We were able to see the Bollywood actor Konkona Sen-Sharma right next to our stand, interacting with the emcee. She looked pretty in a sari and laughed when she heard cries of “Will you marry me?” from the crowd.The face-off I relished
Tendulkar v Muttiah Muralitharan. Tendulkar looked in control, hoicking Murali straight over his head and working him with ease. Ponting was at the other end as well, and for an instance it looked like it was too much for Murali to handle.Stand-outs in the crowd
We missed Lasith Malinga on the field, but not off it. There was a man in our stand who did a perfect Malinga impression, right down to the last golden curl. The original would have been impressed.Key performer
Chris “Boom Boom” Gayle. He single-handedly took on Mumbai and dragged his side to a defensible total. He didn’t take the field later due to an injury, and we missed his now customary Gangnam-style dance moves. Here’s hoping he will be back on his feet soon.Shot of the day
Gayle’s last-ball six. The man was unable to walk and was on his knees for a good couple of minutes before walking back. He was given a well-deserved standing ovation.TV versus stadium
Definitely the stadium. I could not have asked for a better experience. The crowd was well-behaved and everyone had a good time. The music and dancing in the aisles was excellent and you could see everyone let their hair down and enjoy. The crowd enjoyed the game and I could see a lot of smiles on the way out.Marks out of 10
Definitely a 10. I got what I wanted and then some. As I write this, I have a sore throat from all the screaming and I’m pretty sure I will remember this for a very long time. The face-offs, the crowd, the entertainment, the music, the cheerleaders, and the last-ball finish meant I got the whole package in a short span of time. “Cricketainment” indeed.

Plays of the Day from the third ODI between Zimbabwe and India in Harare

Liam Brickhill at the Harare Sports Club28-Jul-2013The catchIn the second match, Virat Kohli stood his ground after chipping a low catch to Malcolm Waller at mid-on. Though Waller claimed the catch, it took a second look from the television umpire to send Kohli on his way. Today, Kohli’s opposite number Brendan Taylor was the one to stand his ground. Taylor had attempted to clear mid-off with a lofted drive, but toe-ended the shot to present Mohammad Shami with a tough chance. The fielder managed to get a couple of fingers underneath the ball above the turf, but Taylor stayed at the wicket until several replays, from multiple angles, confirmed his dismissal.The shotZimbabwe’s No. 9 Tendai Chatara had batted twice in ODIs before this match, without ever scoring a run. Today, he was off the mark with four of them, thanks to an overthrow, and played the shot of the innings in the 40th over when he hooked an attempted bouncer from Vinay Kumar over deep square leg for six to give the home side’s supporters something to cheer about.The googlyAmit Mishra has taken nine wickets in three matches so far, and six of them have come via the googly. Brendan Taylor has suggested that his team-mates can pick the variation, though some apparently pick it better than others. Waller has fallen twice to the delivery, and today he was nipped out first ball by one that spun back in past his poking bat to strike his pads in front of middle stump. His dismissal left Mishra on a hat-trick, but for the second time in two matches an Indian bowler was denied that milestone.The debutantZimbabwe never had much chance of defending 183 on a benign surface, but debutant Michael Chinouya didn’t look like he was going to let a heavy defeat completely ruin his first day of international cricket. Chinouya was given some consolation with the wicket of Rohit Sharma, caught behind, as his first and after the edge was pouched, he set off on a John Cena-inspired celebratory run, waving four fingers in front of his face as he was mobbed by his team-mates.The white flagThe match ended in a flurry of boundaries, particularly off the bat of Virat Kohli, but it was Suresh Raina who hit the winning runs for India. Kohli had levelled the scores with a single to square leg off Tendai Chatara, who then offered Raina the friendliest of leg-stump half-volleys. If anything, Brian Vitori’s fielding effort at fine leg was even friendlier. He raised the white flag by trotting half-heartedly after the ball and escorting it to the boundary without a thought of a dive. The ball trickled over the rope, and with that the series was India’s.

Stats highlights from fourth and fifth days of a thrilling Ashes Test at Trent Bridge

Shiva Jayaraman14-Jul-2013

• England have now won their last five Tests in a row at Trent Bridge. The last time England lost a Test at this venue was against India in 2007. In the last five years, they have won more Tests only at Lord’s. England’s win-loss record in the Ashes is 5-7 at this venue from the 21 Tests.
• Australia have now lost three Ashes Test in a row for the first time since they lost the last two of the 1985 series and first of the 1986-87 series. This was also their fifth Test defeat in a row following their 4-0 loss in India. Their worst losing streaks are seven in a row between 1885 and 1888, then six, all to the West Indies in 1984, and five – all against England – between 1926 and 1929.
• This win ranked seventh for England, and eleventh overall, in the list of closest wins by runs in the Ashes. England have now recorded 45 wins from 154 Ashes Tests at home. They are one win away from drawing level with Australia, who have 46 wins in England.
• Including this England win, the last ten matches have all produced results at this venue. Trent Bridge is one of the only three venues which haven’t produced a single draw from ten or more matches in the last ten years. The other two venues are the Melbourne Cricket Ground and The Wanderers, Johannesburg.
• This was James Anderson’s first ten-wicket haul for the match in the Ashes, and his second overall. He is now the only bowler to take two ten-wicket hauls at Trent Bridge. His bowling figures of 5 for 73 in Australia’s second innings were his best in an innings in the Ashes. He has now taken three five-wicket hauls against Australia. Peter Siddle’s wicket in Australia’s second innings was his 50th wicket in the Ashes. He is the 13th fast bowler from England to take 50 or more wickets and the 21st bowler from England to do so. Anderson also won his first Man-of-the-Match award in the Ashes, and his fifth overall.
• Australia’s tenth wicket added 228 runs (163 – first innings, 65 – second innings) during the match. This is the most any team has scored for their tenth wicket in a match in Tests. The previous record was also held by Australia. Their tenth wicket added 189 runs in this match.
• No. 4 is clearly not where Michael Clarke performs best. His average batting at No. 4 is a disappointing 21.51 from 32 innings as opposed to his average of 63.95 batting at No.5. He has scored 667 runs batting at No. 4 with a highest score of 80. Less than one-tenth of his Test runs have come from one-fifth of his innings batting at No. 4.
• Ian Bell scored the 18th hundred of his Test career, in England’s second innings. This was his fourth in his team’s second innings. This was his second century against Australia, his first coming at Sydney in 2011 in this match. It was a carefully grafted innings, with Bell taking 237 balls to reach his hundred. When he fell for 109, he had faced 267 deliveries for a strike rate of 40.82, his second slowest hundred-plus innings.
• Stuart Broad now has three fifties in the Ashes and ten overall. His 65 in England’s second innings was uncharacteristically subdued, coming at a strike rate of 43.91. His scoring rate otherwise, in innings in which he scores fifty, or more runs, is 70.60. This was his slowest innings of fifty-plus runs. He hit only seven boundaries in his knock, which is also the least he has hit in any of his innings of fifty or more runs.
• The 138-run partnership between Bell and Broad in England’s second innings was the fourth highest for England in the Ashes for the seventh wicket. They fell five runs short of England’s highest partnership for the seventh wicket in the Ashes, between Joseph Vine and Frank Woolley, at Sydney in 1912. Also, this was the highest England have put together for the seventh wicket in the Ashes in 114 innings. Before today, Jack Russell and John Emburey added 142 runs for the seventh wicket in this match at the Old Trafford in 1989.
• Siddle’s bowling returns of 8 for 135 for the match were his best in the Ashes. His previous best came at Headingley in 2009, when he took 6 for 71, including a five wicket haul.
• Australia’s opening woes in the Ashes continue. The last time an Australian opener hit a century in the Ashes was by Simon Katich at Cardiff in 2009. Since then, Australia have gone 40 opener-innings without a century. Also, Chris Rogers’ first Test fifty was Australia’s first by an opener, not involving Watson, in six Ashes Tests. Their previous ‘non-Watson’ fifty in the Ashes came from Katich, again, at Brisbane in 2010.
• Anderson and Siddle are fast developing the reputation of being each other’s bunnies. England’s second innings was the fourth time Siddle dismissed Anderson in Tests. Anderson dismissed Siddle in both the innings of the match, taking his tally of Siddle-wickets to six.
• The seventh wicket partnership played out 487 balls (81.1 overs) in the match, all four innings put together. This is the most deliveries ever faced by the seventh wicket in the Ashes. Overall, this ranks seventh in the list. The highest number of deliveries played out by the seventh wicket partnership in a match was 778 – in a match between New Zealand and Pakistan at Christchurch.

Bangladesh made improvements in the Tests and ODIs against New Zealand but the loss in the only T20I reflected a deeper problem of the side’s ability to understand and cope with the nuances of cricket’s shortest format

Mohammad Isam06-Nov-2013Losing the one-off Twenty20 game against New Zealand has put a slight dampener on what Bangladesh have achieved over the last four weeks. Despite the drawn Test series and 3-0 whitewash in the ODIs, the hosts went back to their listless ways in the shortest format of the game.Bangladesh have now lost seven of their last eight T20s, and with the World T20s just four months away, questions are being asked of the team’s temperament and their ability to grasp the nuances of T20 cricket.”To be honest, we still cannot understand this format of the game,” Mushfiqur Rahim, the Bangladesh captain, said. “You can always say that we fought with the bat but if we play like this, we cannot improve. We need to bring more maturity in our planning and also in our power-hitting and that’s what we can earn by playing more matches. Even if we don’t win them, we can at least understand the game.”Bangladesh have already criticised the format of the 2014 World T20s because it has pitted them against three Associate Nations in the first round, and while it can seen as a bit of an affront for the host nation of such an event, there is a deeper problem facing the team – they are unsure if they can shorten the gulf between them and their opponents in a T20 game.On Wednesday, Mushfiqur was left frustrated by a bowling performance that lacked discipline, and a batting effort that was directionless despite having a target in front of them.”We didn’t bowl according to plans and gave away 20 extra runs. We haven’t become a Twenty20 side of note. You cannot expect a team to win a Twenty20 match four or months after they play their last game.”We have to play more Twenty20s, so that we can react to every situation. We should be able to handle the pressures of match situation.”The New Zealand openers scored 70 runs in the batting Powerplay and ended up on 204 for 5, to which Bangladesh replied recklessly in a gung-ho fashion. They lost two wickets in the first over, followed by a third in the second. Two partnerships followed but again, they didn’t rely on anything other than boundaries.Bangladesh struck 18 fours and eight sixes during their 189 for 9, while the visitors blasted one extra six in their total. New Zealand, like any reasonable Twenty20 side, knew how to pace their 20 overs, while in contrast, the hosts looked lost.”We cannot bat this way all the time. It was an unusual way to bat. We cannot do well by batting like this. We need to rotate the strike more, build an innings after early loss of wickets. Who will attack, who will play the anchor role. But I think we need to practise more of these situations.”We can’t attack every ball, that’s not my natural batting or Naeem bhai’s or any of our batsmen’s. I doubt we can click if we play like this in the future. We had lost too many wickets early on. In the last two overs, if we had a set batsman, I think we could have chased down the last 22 runs [needed in the last over].”One would imagine that the Bangladesh team would still leave the Shere Bangla National Stadium a happy lot. They were presented the ODI series winners’ trophy by the country’s prime minister, Sheikh Hasina.Mominul Haque, Sohag Gazi, Shamsur Rahman and Rubel Hossain have become key performers in the side. Tamim Iqbal’s new sense of responsibility, Mushfiqur Rahim’s leadership and Mashrafe Mortaza’s trouble-free comeback are the other positives that Bangladesh can take away from this series.Ultimately though, it will be the 3-0 ODI triumph and the 0-0 in the Test series that will matter the most to Bangladesh cricket.T20 cricket will remain a headache for Bangladesh, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing for the side. Players, coaches, officials and administrators quickly lose confidence when things don’t go right for a short time, and they get a sense of complacency in success. The T20 loss can keep them grounded and busy, and help them prepare for the 2014 World T20s.