Benefit of doubt - to whome?

Of late, more and more cases arise of the benefit of doubt going to the bowler in the case of doubtful decisions and decisions of judgement. This is good for the game – from a bowler’s point of view at least.

Many are of the opinion that cricket has been and is a batsman’s game. To me, it is not all that clear. I write this article shortly after Sachin Tendulkar was out LBW to Simon Taufel. The preceding sentence has no error. Collingwood was the bowler, Tendulkar was on 91. Tendulkar was struck inarguably outside the line of the off stump. The ball was not going on to hit the stump – both from judgement of the naked eye first up and as per hawk eye - and Simon Taufel gave Tendulkar out. A crucial point is to be noted here – Tendulkar did not offer a shot.

The law states that a batsman may be given out if the ball has struck him outside the line of off stump when he is not offering a shot. Although this is how it is, the umpires have been apprehensive to give a batsman out under these circumstances. That is changing in the recent past, which is for the good. Batsmen have to be penalised for taking advantage of the protective covering in such a manner.

Now, with Tendulkar’s decision, it may have just gone a bit too far. Simon Taufel is a modern umpire and for all I have seen of him, an exemplary one. Today’s decision against Tendulkar says a lot. The whole outside off stump and not offering a shot rule was brought in to tilt the game a little bit towards the bowler. These decisions should be given. But, in the case of such decisions in particular, the benefit of doubt has to go to the batsman – and this comes from a bowler.

It is unfair to give these decisions in favour of the bowler for a very simple reason. A wicket - at test match level and of a good batsman - is equivalent to about 30 runs on average. There will be an opportunity for a wicket every thirty runs on an average. If you argue that these opportunities do not come, then you’re simply not good enough.

The benefit of doubt being given to the bowler in such cases is a very dangerous thing. It will result in a lot more controversy. The batsmen are bound to lose if this goes on. There is one significant question which arises in the minds of the umpires in this kind of a decision and that is whether the batsman has offered a shot or not. If the umpire goes wrong, he could cause a horrible blunder and even inflict a collapse in the batting line up of the team in question.

A lot of thinking has to go into this and it is a very dodgy issue.-BS

Cricket Opinions thanks you for the wonderful response of late. Keep coming back and one day,….maybe…..

Dinesh Kaarthick

Guts, determination and perseverance – that sums up Dinesh on the field. I will stick to just Dinesh as there are many versions of the spelling of his second name. He is the new kid in the team who everyone loves.

He has only played useful knocks. Often, when the rest of team performs, Dinesh gets out cheaply. But, when the rest of the team is not able to hang on, Dinesh more often that not, sticks around. When he’s at the crease scripting one of these utilitarian innings, he has two methods of helping the team.

Very often, connoisseurs of the game comment on how players also play second string to the batsman on fire. A lot of batsmen do this very well, and so does Dinesh. From as much as I have seen of him, Dinesh seems to have the capability to understand the situation of the game very well – and as a result of this, plays as the conditions demand. He has great control over his cricket. He is capable of adjusting the construction of his innings as the situation demands. Playing alongside an in form Tendulkar for example, Dinesh can tighten one end up and let the genius take care of the rest. Giving the senior or in form batsman more strike, not going for too many gambles are some ways in which he does this. But, it is important to point out that this does not mean he can open the batting. As I write this, Dinesh has fallen LBW to Sidebottom for next to nothing.

On the other hand, if he is batting with a tailender for example, he is capable of taking complete control over proceedings and making sure that the lesser batsman does not get too much of strike. What’s more, Dinesh does this without sacrificing too many runs.

Technically, he probably has one noticeable flaw which at this stage in his career, can be corrected. Often – as has just occurred – he tends to bring his front foot too far across the stumps and is prone to being trapped in front. Further observation will reveal that Dinesh is not exactly comfortable with the ball coming into him after the pitch. A personal opinion – as far as ‘keeping goes, he is miles ahead of Dhoni.

Different people may have differing opinions. Mine is that Dinesh is a great asset to the Indian team.-BS

England vs India - A preview

The English side has been performing exceptionally in the longer version of the game recently. England’s innings have been lasting longer; bowlers have been probing longer and with more consistency and fielders are not being caught sleeping. Although Monty still has some work to do, he’s not asleep as much as he is sloppy.

As for India, their situation is a bit uncertain. India has only one frontline spinner – Kumble – travelling. Although Powar is travelling, he still has a lot to prove. Although India has a lot of pacers in its ranks, these pacers also still have a lot to prove. Zaheer is doing really well. As has been pointed out by many, Zaheer is the only one who has any kind of experience in English conditions. Ranadeb Bose is on his first expedition with India.

Sreesanth has been with the Indian team for some time now but still has to curb that extra aggression in him which is misinterpreted by many as good spirit. He has no experience in England. But, the way he bowled in South Africa last year in those conditions says a lot about him. He has shown that he can read the conditions well and that he can bowl as the conditions demand. It is reassuring for the team management to know that they have someone who can do that.

The Indian batsmen are pretty solid. Although Jaffer has to be a little careful, Karthick has seen the importance of staying on for a bit early in the innings and reading and understanding the conditions clearly before trying anything. Sachin is pretty confident and that 171, I suspect has got him into the test match mood once again after those 90s.

The question that arises is who will go behind the stumps. A point to be noted at this stage is that after the Dravid experiment, initially the selectors chose to keep Karthick ‘keeping in tests and Dhoni in one dayers. The decision by the selectors to bring Dhoni into the test side after his ODI fireworks was a decision in haste. This is because prior to this change, Karthick had some pretty useful knocks; one against Pakistan in Chennai (if my memory supports my) was a gem and one to remember.

The English have no problems with players not performing with the exception of Andrew Strauss. But he certainly deserves a place in the side. Furthermore, his presence in the side will balance the batting. He also scored a fifty recently. If Strauss and Cook open, that will give Vaughan a good opportunity to go in at number three or number four – where I believe he will do his best.

England has a really solid batting set up. Cook, Strauss, Bell, Vaughan, Collingwood, Pietersen, Prior. What’s more, the last of them - arranged as per probable batting order – scored a fifty in his last test played and also a hundred recently.

As for bowling, Sidebottom is keeping the areas consistent and Hoggard is so reliable. I won’t discuss Monty at all. We know that England are a good fielding set up (they’ve got Collingwood!) Prior is pretty reliable behind the stumps as well.

As a conclusion, the English have a 51% percent chance of winning – but its going to be interesting.-BS

Did you see God bat?

India’s tour to Ireland and England is just into its second stage – England. A highlight at this stage of the section of the tour that has passed is certainly Mr.Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar.

Watching a batsman play the hook gives the viewer a certain amount of confidence in the batsman’s form, his confidence, and the situation of his game at that point in time. The hook – at least in the modern day - signifies confidence. In the early days, batsmen without helmets would hook without much ado. But, in more recent times, the hook has been used less often. This is primarily because of the limitation on the number of bouncers a bowler can bowl in an over. This has reduced the opportunity for the batsman to play the hook. Therefore, it is not their fault that the hook has not been used much of late. The batsmen are now more comfortable leaving hookable balls alone – after all how many can he bowl there?

Often bowlers attack batsmen with repetitive short deliveries around the chest. The Proteas are good at doing this. They also have bowlers with more than formidable pace to keep the bounce high (Nel and Ntini.) It is this duet that decided to attack a little guy from India - who’s been playing international cricket for eighteen years - with short balls.

Sachin has not been in good form lately. There has been a lot of criticism regarding his performance. The South Africans thought a few short balls would see him back in the pavilion.

At this point, it is crucial to analyse as to why Sachin was not in good form. The Sachin we saw in the 90s had in him an aggressive competitive little kid. Sachin at one point seemed to have completely neglected this kid and tried to bat without him. He got runs for sometime. But the runs were of really no use. He was just piling on the runs, but would still get out to balls which, when the little kid dominated would be ineffective.

This kid inside him is very important. Without his natural game, he is just not capable of tailoring an innings of quality. People may argue, that even against the South Africans, he played as the situation demanded. That may be true, but is an invalid point. Playing as the situation demands does not mean losing one’s natural game. It is just curbing the natural game for a short period of time.

We come back to the hook. It was his natural game that came in when he decided to hook Nel and Ntini. Had he played as he has for a few years recently, he would have been bogged down by the short deliveries and the South Africans would have been successful. But Tendu decided to take the attack to the bowlers. He played near perfection. He got out in the 90s due to lapses of concentration. But, the sublime strokeplay, inspirational determination and dedication set a few of us in a daze. This is probably Tendulkar reminding the world that he still knows cricket.

It is this dominating nature – and the visually pleasing strokeplay – of Tendulkar that has provoked some of my classmates - even those not so interested in cricket - to ask me whether I saw God bat after the games against South Africa and England Lions.-BS

My apologies for all that time without updates. As I said, I was caught in Indian education.