Runs of the ricochet

The laws of cricket have been played with so often, always legitimately (in the recent past at least), sometimes with satisfactory reason and sometimes without. There now seems to be another need for an amendment in the laws. The issue in question is not one that is new, but one that has inexplicably left the laws unchanged for so many years.

The matter is whether runs should be awarded off a ricochet off the stumps in the form of overthrows. The situation is as follows. A fielder receives and collects the ball and throws it at the stumps in an effort to get a batsman run out, the ball hits the stumps and breaks the wicket (not literally but in terms of Law number 28 - the wicket is down) following which the ball ricochets off the wicket. The point being raised is that, following this ricochet, any runs taken should be disallowed by an amendment of the laws.

The primary point of argument is that a fielder cannot be penalised for good fielding. Overthrows after the ricochet means that if a fielder is good enough to hit the stumps, he faces the danger of conceding a few runs in the form of overthrows. This only discourages good fielding. The purpose of the fielder’s shy at the stumps is to hit it. If he succeeds, he deserves credit for it rather than penalisation.

There may be the argument that the fielders may start intentionally throwing the ball at the stumps just to prevent any further runs. In order to prevent this, the law must clearly state;

“In the event of the ball, when in play, being thrown towards the wicket by a fielder who the umpire at the end in question believes has the sole intent of achieving a run out, and breaking the wicket as defined in Law 28, the ball shall immediately be declared dead, with any runs that are taken subsequently being disallowed.”

Although an amendment is necessary, a lot of research is left to be done regarding the issue. The disadvantage of this law, if introduced as above, is that it will make the job difficult for the umpires.

Also, what should take place if the umpires believe that the intent is not to achieve a run out but only to save the runs? A lot to think about for the ICC.-BS

Uthappa, the batsman

He started off playing cricket at the Karnataka Institute of Cricket, Bangalore, then known as the Frank Tyson Cricket Academy. He was said to be a fat little kid then, eager to play but simply not fit enough. His mother was concerned about his fitness and whether it would let him continue with the game. Then there was an inspirational effort by himself and his coach.

His coach in those times, Mr.Irfan Sait has – till today - a great amount of dedication towards the game of cricket. This dedication results in so much hard work that he can build a strong player, without the player having to offer much. If the player has as much dedication as his coach does, success is almost a guarantee.

It is this dedication that made a once stout Robin a completely fit cricketer. Robin himself worked hours and hours to get him fit both physically and technically. All this effort is seen as results today, with Robin in India colours.

A naturally attacking batsman, Robin Uthappa has a great amount of strength in his forearms resulting in even the shortest of short arm jabs travelling long distances. That is just one of Robin’s positive traits. Some others are; he is cool in every situation; he puts in great amounts of effort; he exploits all he has to the greatest extent; he is dedicated and determined. The list goes on.

He had hardly batted down the order until he played for India. In England, Dravid sent him in the lower middle order and Uthappa adapted to this role with ease. He won a thriller for India there and played many a useful knock between England and yesterday. Yesterday’s innings in the 7^th ODI against Australia at the Wankhede Stadium, Bombay was a clear example of how Robin just played his own game, unperturbed by the horrible situation the Indian batting line up was in. He played on, got his 47, brought some stability to the batting, but fell a little early. Had he batted longer, his innings would have been appreciated to a great extent.

He has batted just as the team wanted him to in the number 6 and number 7 positions. Knowing the Indian cricket team’s ways, this could be a bad sign for Robin. If they persist with him at number eight, he will not get enough time at the crease. He will execute his role properly but will not get to make the big score. Furthermore, Robin will find it difficult to become a Michael Bevan as it is rarely that as an Indian number 8, you come in with a good platform set. The Indian number 8 is usually the saviour rather than the finisher.

This ‘saviour’ needs to bat in a particular manner which hinders his personal style. Robin should not be looked at as a finisher or a pinch hitter simply because he can be both as and when he chooses to. In the domestic circuit, he is an accomplished opener and cannot be brought down the order.

A better role has to be found for Robin Uthappa. This role will hinder his progress both short term and long term. Unless he somehow manages to score a century, he will be phased out of the team as was done with Mohammad Kaif. Kaif always came in at numbers 6 or 7 and had to play with a very specific style.

This should not happen to Uthappa as he is a player for the future. This fact may be able to save him as he may have to replace one of the seniors at the top of the order. Let’s hope that happens quickly.-BS

Oh Yes, The Umpires

Sachin Tendulkar was felicitated today at the Wankhede for playing 400 ODIs today. Right after that, Aleem Dar was felicitated for officiating in his 100^th ODI. As far as that match has progressed, Alem Dar has had a great day.

He has brought a little bit of the limelight onto the umpires today, and for positive reasons for a change. When he gave Yuvraj Singh not out on an appeal for both caught behind and LBW, more for the caught behind, he executed a great decision.

It was a tough decision. The ball pitched on middle and off, more off than middle and moved away just a tad. From the umpire’s point of view, there was a minuscule distance between the outside edge of the bat and the outside of the pad. The ball just clipped the top of the flap of the pad and went through to the ‘keeper.

Straight away, it didn’t look out. But it sounded so clearly out, which probably explains the Australians’ emphatic appeal. It was a bit of a surprise to the commentators as well when Aleem Dar turned down the appeal.

It looked so clearly out that the commentators said that if the decision was in fact correct, it would have to be an exceptional decision. And exceptional it was. Replays give away so much more than the real time telecast. Replays showed the ball missing the bat by a tiny margin, going on to clip the top of the flap of the pad, through to Gilchrist.

The reason it seemed convincingly out was the noise. As it had clipped the flap of the pad, the sound bares great resemblance to a nick off the outside edge. Furthermore, the bat and the point of impact on the pad were extremely close to each other. From the umpire’s point of view, the bat and pad were extremely close. This only made things tougher than they already were for Dar.

Regarding the LBW appeal, there was not a chance as the ball was missing off stump and was also very high.

It is understood that the Australians go up for everything, but they really believed this one was out – judging by the nature of the appeal and subsequently, the look on Ponting’s face after the decision was given. So often the Australians test the umpires with their appeals and Aleem Dar survives almost all the time.

It is not often that the umpires get the spotlight. Umpires do what is considered one of the toughest jobs in the world and certainly in the game for sheer love of the game. They deserve much more of the spotlight. If Dar does not get it, he decided, he would just give a spectacular decision which would help the cause. Congratulations on a rather successful 100^th ODI Umpire Aleem Dar.-BS

The Problem With The Indian Batting

The main problem that the Indian batsmen face is that each batsman – of late at least – is known for getting out in one particular manner. There is a certain pattern about the dismissals of the batsmen. This can be dangerous as not just the Australians, but all the other teams around the world will figure out strategies that can exploit these weaknesses.

Yuvraj Singh has been dismissed more than once caught behind to the inside edge. That can only happen if the batsman is playing away from his body. Every coach is bound to have brought home to every batsman the importance of playing close to the body. Yuvraj has been breaking this norm far too often.

The problem with playing away from his body is that it occasionally pays off. This comes as a problem as if the batsman gets a boundary playing away from the body, the player gains a lot of credit for the boundary. But the point that the batsman played it away from the body is ignored. This results in him venturing to do so more. And often, he loses his wicket due to this experiment.

Another problem many of the Indian batsmen are facing is regarding the movement of the feet. So regularly, we have seen the Indian batsmen, particularly Dravid and Uthappa getting out due to either lack of foot movement, exaggeration of foot movement or simply incorrect foot movement.

When he entered the international scene, and a little before that, many reckoned that his tendency to get committed on the front foot could prove fatal for him. He seems to have adjusted to that very well. Meanwhile, there is one another flaw which is causing some problems for him. Very often, Robin gets his front leg too far across the stumps and therefore becomes a candidate for the LBW. It also hampers the distribution of his body weight.

This distribution also seems to be a major problem for Dravid. This has been exposed explicitly over the past few months. Dravid tends to get his head too far across. This results in him bending over the ball and completely losing his balance. This is probably because he brings his foot too far across the stumps. Subsequently, he tries to remedy this by straightening his front knee. He tends to lean over the ball with his feet unable to move, therefore falling pray to LBWs.

This flaw is exploited further by the Australian bowlers as two of their medium pacers – Mitchell Johnson and Nathan Bracken – are southpaws. Usually, left arm fast bowlers get the natural angle away from the right handed batsmen from over the wicket and get the ball to seam back into the pads. Therefore, moving the front pad across the line of the ball is but an opportunity for the bowler to pick up a LBW. As if to emphasise the left handers’ angle, the Indian batsmen also sometimes tend to play away from the body – Dravid in particular – and get the inside edge onto the stumps.

Its all very dangerous and if a webpage with hardly any visits has noticed it, I don’t see why the Australians will not.-BS