Cricket today - Chapter 1 - Fast Bowling

In the early stages of an innings, a game or even a day of play, people of the game converse much about the important role the pitch plays. At the beginning of the day’s play it is usually true that there is a bit of dew and that the conditions generally favour the fast bowlers. There are numerous fast bowlers in the dressing room waiting for a turn to get out there and perform.

Teams throughout the world are more used to having fast bowlers as their strike bowlers and there have been just so many of that breed – from Wes Hall and Griffith to Lillee, Thompson and Hadlee, to Walsh, Ambrose, McGrath and Pollock – who have spearheaded their respective attacks. But what’s the situation of the quickies today?

Well, one thing’s for sure - there’s lots and lots of talent around. There’s a host of medium pacers coming into their national sides as freshers, many doing well, some performing averagely.

Almost every test nation has a decent pace attack or at least one which shows promise for the future. Some pacers – most conspicuously from Australia (Mitchell Johnson, Nathan Bracken, etc.) – are coming of age, gaining experience and enjoying the international stage. Some pacers are in the news for all the wrong reasons. Unfortunately, since the departure of McGrath, the cricketing world is looking for a fast bowler who will find a place in history books and the records for their exemplary performances. Although Pollock is still there, he is not exactly performing as well as we all know he can of late.

The positive point of today’s pace bowling situation world over is the wonderfully combined blend of the different styles of fast bowlers. There are genuinely quick fast bowlers – Malinga, Tait and Shoaib – and the bowlers with the more subconsciously and emotionally pleasing and satisfying methods of getting the batsman to walk back like Pollock, Mathew Hoggard, Zaheer Khan, Mohammad Asif, etc.

The disappointing fact is that the number of constantly probing bowlers has come down sharply in the international circuit. There is a constant question in my as to who will take over from McGrath as that great great bowler of the contemporary generation who every batman in the world fears inside. Only time will tell.

There are a lot of new faces who have started performing. One example is the English Ryan Sidebottom. After playing a single test a few years ago, the southpaw was picked for the series against the West Indies and picked up 8 wickets in the second match of the series. No spectacular deliveries; just intelligent, tidy and consistent bowling. A look at his pitch map will confirm this.

A point - Jason Gillespie scored a double hundred in the last match he played and hasn’t played for more than a year (he’s a bowler and night watchman) but is surprised that his contract has been renewed by CA!

There’s just so much to look forward to in the fast bowling ranks in the future – so many things to be finished, so much suspense.

This is part of a series discussing every kind of bowling (fast bowling, off spin bowling, leg spin bowling, left arm spin bowling.)-BS

Records, Tons and Missapprehensions

India’s test victory in Bangladesh was certainly commendable and the team deserves credit for this victory. It is correct to say that the team has not received as much credit as they really deserved. Against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe - unfortunately for our national cricketing representatives – if the team emerges triumphant, the commons don’t pay much attention to it saying that it was only Bangladesh and there is hue and cry if they lose.

India has shown good batting form - I am told Ton Ton Ton Ton was the headline in the Times of India - in Bangladesh and deservedly came out victorious. But, the team – amongst other more important issues – must be wondering what it is that the country wants from them. This form they have now should be used to the fullest and should be capitalised upon. India next goes to England. The conditions there are a little more trying from our point of view. England is performing extremely well against the West Indies, with the southpaw Ryan Sidebottom staging a remarkable comeback, Kevin Pietersen coming of age and Michael Vaughan reminding his fans of the class he possesses (at least in test cricket.) Still, England has performed against West Indies and really has not dominated over a good opposition in the recent past with the exception of the ODI series against New Zealand and Australia after the Ashes earlier this year.

India will go to the former home of cricket with the memories of the record they set with all four top batsmen scoring centuries. But, the fact that the batting was so successful partially because of the weather - which is prima facie against the players – has to be appreciated. Had the heat not taken its toll on Wasim Jaffer, had he not retired and batted through, Dravid would have come in later and we all know that every minute with the pads on in the pavilion reduces the potential out in the middle. More significantly, if the heat was just a little less and Dinesh Karthik continued batting, he could not have been in a condition bad enough to go out and yet so tired that he would have had to work twice as hard to bring up that century. Sachin and Dravid batted with that extra bit confidence that they had come in without a single wicket having fallen.

I am in no manner taking credit away from the Indian batsmen. It is important that they do not get complacent and overconfident – which by the way was why they so badly lost the World Cup – ahead of the English tour. By the way, four batsmen accounted for that 408 run first wicket stand. Let’s see what revolutionary Dav can do -BS

P.S.:- Cricket Opinions is back.

Missapprehensions and Solutions

The ICC knows that the World Cup 2007 has been a failure in most aspects. But the word around is that the recently concluded tournament has aided the ‘minnows’ in their cricketing progress.

This progress of the minnows as a result of this World Cup as portrayed by the ICC, the electronic media as well as the written media is illusory. Results of matches involving these teams in the future will corroborate this fact.

The ICC World Cup 2007 saw some surprising results. Pakistan and India were thrown out of the tournament in the group stages. This gave way for two teams – Ireland and Bangladesh to go through to the Super Eights. This was success for these two teams.

But it is not progress for the minnows. In the first place, calling the Bangladeshi team as a minnow side is incorrect. Ireland certainly achieved some progress.

But that is just one side. There were also other minnows that played the World Cup – namely Bermuda, The Netherlands, Scotland, Kenya, Canada and even Zimbabwe can be considered minnows. None of these other teams gained much progress out of this World Cup.

The ICC, surprisingly enough, has misunderstood what progress is. Progress for the minnows is when they gain exposure by playing more matches against better teams. This did not happen in this World Cup. The format of the previous World Cup - every team would get to play a minimum of seven matches, whether they win or not - clearly is a more progressive format. The minnows are minnows because they do not have sufficient experience to beat the more significant sides. The aim of the ICC should be to provide this experience.

The solutions to this problem are many. Teams of lesser prominence and experiences should be made to play in triangular series along with more significant test sides. Unless the lesser experienced sides play against better ones, there is little hope for progress. The ICC should promote the ICC Intercontinental Cup to a greater extent. The Intercontinental Cup should be telecast around the cricketing world. This will open up sponsorship to a greater extent and also promote the prominence of these teams.

Hopefully the ICC is thinking on the right lines.-BS

Technology in Cricket

There is an increasing amount of technology being used in cricket. The third umpire is being used for more and more decisions; hawk-eye is being used (only by broadcasters) increasingly.

This advent of technology in cricket has sparked many debates as to how useful this technology is, whether the umpires on field still have as significant a role to play as they previously did, how accurate some of this technology actually is, whether the technology is being overused, etc.

Sachin Tendulkar was the first man to be declared run out by a third umpire with the help of his TV screen. The third umpire is plays a very significant role in the game nowadays. The third umpire coming in is an advantage as the room for error in certain decisions (mostly line decisions) is much lesser. From this point of view, it is an advantage.

In the Super Series in 2005, referrals to the third umpire in the cases of even LBWs were permitted as a trial. Unfortunately, this was not a successful venture and should not have been. It reduces the role of the on field umpires and makes them no more relevant than the crowd in the stands. In this case they are reduced to man managers only to make sure that there is no misbehaviour or mishaps on the field. It was a good decision though to try this during the Super Series. Also this excessive number of referrals meant that the fielding captain will have to work faster to maintain the over rate.

Permitting referrals to the third umpire for LBWs just does not work. Unlike in the case of run outs, the umpires are inevitably in a good position to take decisions regarding LBWs. In the case of run outs, the facts for the decisions are placed point blanc in front of the umpire. But, in the case of LBWs, it is a matter of judgement, anticipation and prediction. Assuming that the umpire is in fact in a good position to give the decision, the third umpire has no advantage over the field umpire as all he has is repetitive views of the delivery in question which could in fact lead the umpire the wrong way. Therefore the decision to permit referrals for LBWs, if taken by the ICC is regressive.

As for Hawk-eye, at least in cricket, it is not at all precise. Hawk-eye is very accurate in tennis but it is not the same in cricket. Even the television broadcasters who promote Hawk-eye sometimes do not agree with Hawk-eye’s verdict.

Then there’s the Snickometer which has proved to be extremely useful and accurate. It is more accurate than Hawk-eye as it does not deal with prediction and what might have happened. Snicko analyses what has happened and is very elementary technology. The innovation of bringing in visual representation of sound using a wave in cricket is commendable and is proving useful.

Also, the use of headphones for umpires which are connected to the stump microphone are useful and reduce the need for other less useful and less necessary elements of technology. Technology in cricket is progressing, but the necessary authorities have to understand that the on field umpires cannot be done away with in some time at least.-BS

Umpiring - International and otherwise

Although I do not wish to raise many names, Aleem Dar and Simon Taufel have consistently performed exceedingly well. Although Dar along with Bucknor created a bit of a blunder, labelled the ‘biggest farce in the recent history of international cricket’ towards the concluding stages of the final of The Cricket World Cup 2007, Dar has not committed a major error in some time. But that very incident can have only one justification; that being insufficient knowledge of the laws and conditions of play as specified by the ICC.

Umpires in the international circuit of late have been suspect under pressure. The pressure of the match situation at that particular point of time is getting to them. The only plausible reason as to why this pressure gets to even umpires is that the umpires realise that in that particular situation, every decision that comes their way is crucial.

Cricket umpiring is rated one of the toughest jobs in the world. This job is certainly underrated. It is even under rated by the players (at a juniour level.) Umpiring requires the concentration of the umpire throughout the six hours of play on all continuous five days of a test match which is a tough job. A large number of the players, at least when their team is batting, get some time out of the sun. But there is no break for umpires, the umpires have to supervise the rolling of the pitch (if turf,) marking of the crease, etc., during the breaks.

Thus, criticising the umpires is not correct.-BS