So India were bowled out under 150 runs under 40 overs. Australia have been doing this to teams in the first innings, but the Indian batting just was not up for it today... it can happen against the Aussies...
So when Australia came to bat, Dhoni started with Harbhajan- just to cut the pace, exploit the dry pitch and take early wickets to try to defend the low score. If India were to win or make Australia work hard, spinners were the key. So recognizing the given situation he had to make some execution changes. Perhaps a fair idea to start with Harbhajan (he could also have tried few overs of pace with keeper standing up and had they got a wicket, he could rotate the pacers. This way he could defer the spinners till 10 overs and power plays could be deferred as well).
However, as I have mentioned in my book, the key is to recognize the peculiar nature of any situation and try to adjust the execution accordingly. So what else should have been done or could have been done, to follow up the decision to start with Harbhajan (and Zaheer Khan from other end with pace). As some TV commentators pointed out, perhaps having more close-in fielders to add to the pressure, was perhaps required for wicket taking... perhaps, but it is not easy defending such a low score with many more fielders up close.
My major point was the line Harbhajan bowled
He bowled outside leg stump and over the wicket to both the left-handers (Gilchrist, Hayden). He was getting turn from ball one. This was a red dusty surface made for Indian spinners. He sure tested the batsmen frequently and got in many dots- as evident from his good economy rate. But when strike rate is not a major issue, will the outside leg-stump balls threaten the batsmen? (in usual ODIs it would be effective, since strike rate is of concern and balls from around the legs will have to be played at more often).
In my view, this is an instance of recognizing the peculiar imbalance of the situation (by Dhoni- low score, dry pitch, and the fact that Aussie openers can murder pace)- to convert to an execution issue (sending in a spinner). But the manner in which the spinner bowled (good turn, but outside leg stump line) was the chess equivalent of sharp positional play when a forcing tactical approach was required. Perhaps bowling round-the-wicket (since there was turn), and making the batsmen play a turning ball but pitched in line with leg/middle, could have been the line and then mixing it up with his variations of a doosra or even wide outside off...
Sharp Positional Play would be the answer if Australia were chasing 240 plus. Imbalance was recognized but the execution, in my view, should have been more drastic (tactical, with more risks if needed).
Not that Australia would have lost... but if you try something different, let the difference be as different as is demanded...
But the good news is that Dhoni looks like the captain who will keep trying, provided the rest of us let him...
Sep 21, 2007
Twenty20 Cricket vs Blitz Chess?
India have just made it into the T20 Cricket World Cup Semi-Finals.
Since I written about Chess in Cricket (Tests/ODIs)- the theory for the 20 over format is still to be developed. It is the beginner's mind- as Zen followers would perhaps call.
Yes shorter versions are possible but...
So is this format a valid competition or just a circus of sorts?
Well, there are many ways to answer this and as I have hinted in my book, there are many ways to create shorter versions of any sport. Just reducing the duration (overs in cricket), may not be the answer. However, one thing is sure that the answer to the validitiy of T20 as a real competition, does not lie in the often cited argument -but flawed- that people said similar things about ODIs when they became popular the 1970s, and today we accept it as a valid variant of cricket (so we should accept T20 as well). Then why not have a 10over match after a few more years, and accept it as well?
The fact is that every sport has certain skills to be tested, and that test takes some minimum time depending on the nature of the skills.
How much is that 'some minimum' time?
For Olympic throw/jump events, it means a few attempts- typically 3 to 6, before we can spot the winner. This will last perhaps less than an hour (depending on number of participants). So why does this seem fine? Because what we are testing is 'can' the contestant maximize a feat. Six attempts may be enough to test that.
In contrast, Classical Billiards (the English sport, which Indians love just as much)- can be set up for multiple sessions of 2 hours each. Why this long? Well, in this sport the key thing is how the cueist can demonstrate delicate control of seemingly repetitive shots- again and again. Players often have breaks (unbroken sequence of shots) of 100-200 shots without losing control. This means that adequate time must be allocated for both players to demonstrate their abilities to repeat subtle sequences- typically at the top of the table (yes, they are messing this sport as well with 150 point formats).
In my book I have explained why a 5 day Test Cricket is not too much longer than a 90 mins soccer game (the logic is based on man hours involved. Cricket being a 'one at a time' participation- for batting and bowling, versus soccer being near simultaneous, means the man hours per player in cricket is not too far apart from soccer)....
In chess, they did have timeless games, and today Classical Chess is a few hour game- which is considered a fair test of depth of knowledge as well as spontaneous skills. There are Rapid and Blitz formats which last a few dozen minutes. Usually such games throw up errors - often from both players - as they have to beat the clock. However, like the ODI and T20 versions, there can be uncanny and exciting lines of play- tactical and often by instinct- rather than deeper calculation or positional depth. It does test what one 'can go for' even if it is not so sound in a longer format.
So is T20 like blitz chess?
As mentioned, there will be flaws and holes in games in this format like in blitz chess and there will be something nifty and brilliant as well- as we saw the clean hitting when Yuvraj launched six sixes in an over, just the last match.
But there is a fundamental difference between cricket and blitz chess. It is in the nature of skills involved. Cricket is not a symmetric format - batting and bowling are radically different disciplines, as compared to chess skills- where both players have the same pieces and attempt to gain material or attack the opponent's king using skills to maneuver pieces which are same (although the overall approach for black and white is different, because white makes the first move).
Once we understand this, then we can appreciate that 'the minimum' time required to test certain skills will differ between chess and cricket (obviously we cannot test all classical skills in short forms, either in cricket or in chess).
a) The first fact in Test cricket is that scoring for a batsman is 'dense' whereas it is 'sparse' for bowlers. What this means is that batsmen - although they can get out on first mistake - have more options to score regularly such as a single, two, four or six, (and even legbyes), whereas a bowler in test cricket usually gets a wicket every 50-60 balls. Moreover, bowlers score no points for beating the bat or inducing edges or other instances when they got the better of the batsman. They have to get the better by some degree and then they may get a wicket. This is Test cricket.
Now in ODIs, bowlers do get 60 balls/bowler. This is a fair number of balls to 'earn' a wicket on their own merit, not by a batsmen's blunder or rash stroke. So in an ODI, if a bowler bowls well, he can earn two wickets and get more due to pressure of dot balls. There is something in it for bowlers- in terms of economy and wickets. For batsmen, they have the same old scoring options, and can try to innovate once they earn their position by holding wickets and scoring briskly. ODIs in fact offer both batsmen and bowlers to exhibit those skills, which may not be of direct impact in Tests (economy skills for bowlers and few big shots for batsmen). But ODI has contributed to Tests indirectly. This is why Richie Benaud is of the opinion that he would welcome new versions of cricket if they enhance certain Test skills as well- such as accurate bowling, sound improvised shots, and athletic abilities in fielding- which ODIs did in some manner.
Now, let's see where Twenty20 fits in.
A bowler gets 24 balls each (4 overs). This may not be the ideal 'minimum' number of balls a bowler can get a wicket, on his merit. Sure there will be days when a bowler does knock a few batsmen over (as RP Singh did brilliantly today against South Africa- those balls would have got him wickets in Test as well). But when pitches are not really juicy for bowlers, this format fails the test. Bowlers may get wickets, and so might the batsmen who bowl.
Whereas, batsmen still have 'dense' scoring options, just as regularly and perhaps a lot more since it may take them 2-3 overs only to ensure the wickets column is not falling apart. I think the regularity with which batsmen score cannot be taken away, since a scoring shot is a scoring shot, and there will be many in this format. However, there is a possibility to compress the scoring pattern a bit.
b) Does there have to be six different levels of scoring in Batting?
As I have explained in my book, since the scoring format - the numbers attached to a shot - was created in cricket over 100 years ago, it need not be valid with modern bats and smaller grounds - especially in a format where 10 wickets are squeezed in 20 overs.
Is a 'six' still six times more difficult than a 'single' (it must have been 100 years ago, and in a format where batsmen's wicket was worth gold). Today, is a one-bounce-four, really twice as difficult as a well earned two? These numbers were created by humans, and just as we create compressed formats, we need to look again to the numbers we attach to the shots.
I like the fact that in Billiards and in Baksketball the points given are two and three for a scoring shot. It does not favor a particular type of shot too much. What if they made a three pointer in basketball worth 9? (this a long range shot into the basket from outside the 'D'). The game would change for sure and Michael Jordan would begin to look mortal, averaging just 30 points per game.
This in my view needs to be addressed in compressed formats of cricket, since the risks on batsmen getting out are different from Tests and ODIs.
Ask your self- is a six worth 3 twos or 6 singles today. Likewise, should bowlers be given some more rewards, since scoring (wickets) is by nature, sparse in their art compared to batsmen (it was nice to note Harsha Bhogale hint that this format seems more exciting if there is something in the pitch for bowlers. This means that on such pitches wicket taking is not as sparse).
Blitz Chess is far more sound!?
As you can see, the unsymmetric nature of skills of batting and bowling, imply that the minimum time for compressed games should either be longer (50 overs seems good, as 60 balls/bowler is good) or some scoring pattern changes are needed or the games can be played as 'pairs' as I have suggested in my book.
Blitz Chess as it is now, is a lot more 'sound' since it still is chess skills on both sides, at a given time. A GM losing to a much lower ranked player is still not that frequent in any form of chess. In T20, we saw Australia struggle and also South Africa losing out after having a good tournament.
I have no problems with some of the flashy and ungainly shots in T20- that is the nature-, but there is too much weightage on a six or a one-bounce four, and not enough reward for a good over by a bowler.
Or talk to me for other short variants- just compressing a format is not the answer to the Television and Media era...
Saumil
Mumbai, India
Since I written about Chess in Cricket (Tests/ODIs)- the theory for the 20 over format is still to be developed. It is the beginner's mind- as Zen followers would perhaps call.
Yes shorter versions are possible but...
So is this format a valid competition or just a circus of sorts?
Well, there are many ways to answer this and as I have hinted in my book, there are many ways to create shorter versions of any sport. Just reducing the duration (overs in cricket), may not be the answer. However, one thing is sure that the answer to the validitiy of T20 as a real competition, does not lie in the often cited argument -but flawed- that people said similar things about ODIs when they became popular the 1970s, and today we accept it as a valid variant of cricket (so we should accept T20 as well). Then why not have a 10over match after a few more years, and accept it as well?
The fact is that every sport has certain skills to be tested, and that test takes some minimum time depending on the nature of the skills.
How much is that 'some minimum' time?
For Olympic throw/jump events, it means a few attempts- typically 3 to 6, before we can spot the winner. This will last perhaps less than an hour (depending on number of participants). So why does this seem fine? Because what we are testing is 'can' the contestant maximize a feat. Six attempts may be enough to test that.
In contrast, Classical Billiards (the English sport, which Indians love just as much)- can be set up for multiple sessions of 2 hours each. Why this long? Well, in this sport the key thing is how the cueist can demonstrate delicate control of seemingly repetitive shots- again and again. Players often have breaks (unbroken sequence of shots) of 100-200 shots without losing control. This means that adequate time must be allocated for both players to demonstrate their abilities to repeat subtle sequences- typically at the top of the table (yes, they are messing this sport as well with 150 point formats).
In my book I have explained why a 5 day Test Cricket is not too much longer than a 90 mins soccer game (the logic is based on man hours involved. Cricket being a 'one at a time' participation- for batting and bowling, versus soccer being near simultaneous, means the man hours per player in cricket is not too far apart from soccer)....
In chess, they did have timeless games, and today Classical Chess is a few hour game- which is considered a fair test of depth of knowledge as well as spontaneous skills. There are Rapid and Blitz formats which last a few dozen minutes. Usually such games throw up errors - often from both players - as they have to beat the clock. However, like the ODI and T20 versions, there can be uncanny and exciting lines of play- tactical and often by instinct- rather than deeper calculation or positional depth. It does test what one 'can go for' even if it is not so sound in a longer format.
So is T20 like blitz chess?
As mentioned, there will be flaws and holes in games in this format like in blitz chess and there will be something nifty and brilliant as well- as we saw the clean hitting when Yuvraj launched six sixes in an over, just the last match.
But there is a fundamental difference between cricket and blitz chess. It is in the nature of skills involved. Cricket is not a symmetric format - batting and bowling are radically different disciplines, as compared to chess skills- where both players have the same pieces and attempt to gain material or attack the opponent's king using skills to maneuver pieces which are same (although the overall approach for black and white is different, because white makes the first move).
Once we understand this, then we can appreciate that 'the minimum' time required to test certain skills will differ between chess and cricket (obviously we cannot test all classical skills in short forms, either in cricket or in chess).
a) The first fact in Test cricket is that scoring for a batsman is 'dense' whereas it is 'sparse' for bowlers. What this means is that batsmen - although they can get out on first mistake - have more options to score regularly such as a single, two, four or six, (and even legbyes), whereas a bowler in test cricket usually gets a wicket every 50-60 balls. Moreover, bowlers score no points for beating the bat or inducing edges or other instances when they got the better of the batsman. They have to get the better by some degree and then they may get a wicket. This is Test cricket.
Now in ODIs, bowlers do get 60 balls/bowler. This is a fair number of balls to 'earn' a wicket on their own merit, not by a batsmen's blunder or rash stroke. So in an ODI, if a bowler bowls well, he can earn two wickets and get more due to pressure of dot balls. There is something in it for bowlers- in terms of economy and wickets. For batsmen, they have the same old scoring options, and can try to innovate once they earn their position by holding wickets and scoring briskly. ODIs in fact offer both batsmen and bowlers to exhibit those skills, which may not be of direct impact in Tests (economy skills for bowlers and few big shots for batsmen). But ODI has contributed to Tests indirectly. This is why Richie Benaud is of the opinion that he would welcome new versions of cricket if they enhance certain Test skills as well- such as accurate bowling, sound improvised shots, and athletic abilities in fielding- which ODIs did in some manner.
Now, let's see where Twenty20 fits in.
A bowler gets 24 balls each (4 overs). This may not be the ideal 'minimum' number of balls a bowler can get a wicket, on his merit. Sure there will be days when a bowler does knock a few batsmen over (as RP Singh did brilliantly today against South Africa- those balls would have got him wickets in Test as well). But when pitches are not really juicy for bowlers, this format fails the test. Bowlers may get wickets, and so might the batsmen who bowl.
Whereas, batsmen still have 'dense' scoring options, just as regularly and perhaps a lot more since it may take them 2-3 overs only to ensure the wickets column is not falling apart. I think the regularity with which batsmen score cannot be taken away, since a scoring shot is a scoring shot, and there will be many in this format. However, there is a possibility to compress the scoring pattern a bit.
b) Does there have to be six different levels of scoring in Batting?
As I have explained in my book, since the scoring format - the numbers attached to a shot - was created in cricket over 100 years ago, it need not be valid with modern bats and smaller grounds - especially in a format where 10 wickets are squeezed in 20 overs.
Is a 'six' still six times more difficult than a 'single' (it must have been 100 years ago, and in a format where batsmen's wicket was worth gold). Today, is a one-bounce-four, really twice as difficult as a well earned two? These numbers were created by humans, and just as we create compressed formats, we need to look again to the numbers we attach to the shots.
I like the fact that in Billiards and in Baksketball the points given are two and three for a scoring shot. It does not favor a particular type of shot too much. What if they made a three pointer in basketball worth 9? (this a long range shot into the basket from outside the 'D'). The game would change for sure and Michael Jordan would begin to look mortal, averaging just 30 points per game.
This in my view needs to be addressed in compressed formats of cricket, since the risks on batsmen getting out are different from Tests and ODIs.
Ask your self- is a six worth 3 twos or 6 singles today. Likewise, should bowlers be given some more rewards, since scoring (wickets) is by nature, sparse in their art compared to batsmen (it was nice to note Harsha Bhogale hint that this format seems more exciting if there is something in the pitch for bowlers. This means that on such pitches wicket taking is not as sparse).
Blitz Chess is far more sound!?
As you can see, the unsymmetric nature of skills of batting and bowling, imply that the minimum time for compressed games should either be longer (50 overs seems good, as 60 balls/bowler is good) or some scoring pattern changes are needed or the games can be played as 'pairs' as I have suggested in my book.
Blitz Chess as it is now, is a lot more 'sound' since it still is chess skills on both sides, at a given time. A GM losing to a much lower ranked player is still not that frequent in any form of chess. In T20, we saw Australia struggle and also South Africa losing out after having a good tournament.
I have no problems with some of the flashy and ungainly shots in T20- that is the nature-, but there is too much weightage on a six or a one-bounce four, and not enough reward for a good over by a bowler.
Or talk to me for other short variants- just compressing a format is not the answer to the Television and Media era...
Saumil
Mumbai, India
Sep 10, 2007
India lose 3-4 to England, ODIs 2007
The 'final' match at Lords has concluded with India failing to post a good score.
However, this is not the equivalent of a 'finals' of a tournament, because the 7th match, although a must-win for both sides, was an avoidable-must win. This is quite different from finals as in other tournaments as it has to be played as such. In this case, both sides missed chances to finish the series prior to the last game. India could have won 4-2 (the Stuart Broad chase with Bopara for 100 runs with only 3 wickets remaining hurt them bad), and England could have won 4-2 as well (after posting 316 they lost a close one).
This 7th match however, should not be counted towards stats about 'India's performance in finals', since every series-game affected the ulitmate equation, not just the final match (as can be in finals of other tournaments, where you can win all matches and lose the finals). In a 7 match series one must look to get their best team performances in the early half, to put the must-win-to stay-alive burden on the other side (like India beat Sri Lanka at home two years back 4-0). In a tournament which has a finals after a league, you can try to reserve your best for the last- that is if you can afford to sail past the league phase.
However, all in all India did well in all three tournaments (vs South Africa in Ireland won 2-1; vs England Test series won 1-0; and vs England ODIs lost 3-4). Tendulkar adjusted his game to the conditions brilliantly, and he is still the key to India's success in ODIs and Tests. He can retire when he feels like, as India still struggle to find reliable players in ODIs (with strike rates above 80, and who can anchor the innings).
May be the ICL will have answers? Also there is some good news for parents- they need not take their children for a circus- as the biggest circus takes off in South Africa- the Twenty20 World Cup, where most teams have yet to play 10 international matches. I cannot wait for the day when all 11 are batsmen who can bowl- perhaps like Gayle and Jayasuria- and perhaps a Mascharenas as in this ODI series in England.
Good luck,
I cannot wait to get my hands on the iPodtouch- it has a Wifi browser and the pinch interface of the iPhone.
Saumil
However, this is not the equivalent of a 'finals' of a tournament, because the 7th match, although a must-win for both sides, was an avoidable-must win. This is quite different from finals as in other tournaments as it has to be played as such. In this case, both sides missed chances to finish the series prior to the last game. India could have won 4-2 (the Stuart Broad chase with Bopara for 100 runs with only 3 wickets remaining hurt them bad), and England could have won 4-2 as well (after posting 316 they lost a close one).
This 7th match however, should not be counted towards stats about 'India's performance in finals', since every series-game affected the ulitmate equation, not just the final match (as can be in finals of other tournaments, where you can win all matches and lose the finals). In a 7 match series one must look to get their best team performances in the early half, to put the must-win-to stay-alive burden on the other side (like India beat Sri Lanka at home two years back 4-0). In a tournament which has a finals after a league, you can try to reserve your best for the last- that is if you can afford to sail past the league phase.
However, all in all India did well in all three tournaments (vs South Africa in Ireland won 2-1; vs England Test series won 1-0; and vs England ODIs lost 3-4). Tendulkar adjusted his game to the conditions brilliantly, and he is still the key to India's success in ODIs and Tests. He can retire when he feels like, as India still struggle to find reliable players in ODIs (with strike rates above 80, and who can anchor the innings).
May be the ICL will have answers? Also there is some good news for parents- they need not take their children for a circus- as the biggest circus takes off in South Africa- the Twenty20 World Cup, where most teams have yet to play 10 international matches. I cannot wait for the day when all 11 are batsmen who can bowl- perhaps like Gayle and Jayasuria- and perhaps a Mascharenas as in this ODI series in England.
Good luck,
I cannot wait to get my hands on the iPodtouch- it has a Wifi browser and the pinch interface of the iPhone.
Saumil
Aug 15, 2007
iPhone Copy Paste?
On a recent TV review on NDTV India, Virkam Chandra and his colleague commented that the Safari Browser in the iPhone was implemented in a revolutionary manner with pinch zooming and crisp rendition. They however felt that the lack of copy paste was a serious ommision- perhaps a lapse on Apple's part.
Well folks, as it turns out most webpages are as such copyrighted material and owned by the site creator or licensed from another source. Not having copy-paste should have been a natural implementation on the early web days- to encourage more serious econtent which is not dependent on ads or sponsors. Then ebooks publishers and independent authors can consider the web as a serious medium for content and charge even nominal fees- per view/reading or annual subscription.
(The fact that a travel publisher such as Lonely Planet still prefers to look at the print medium - even though loads of books and tons of text have to be re-printed every other year for each destination, is an indicator that content sharing failed on the web. Lonely Planet should have benefited immensely from the web in the past decade- in theory - since they are a text based publisher with emphasis on little details or simple maps for every other area of a town. A hypelink and search approach should have enabled them to focus on their job of creating guides rather than estimating stock to print. But so far content can be lifted off from webpages, even after initial payment. So neither the publisher is interested in serious content creation, nor do readers get reliable e-content at affordable prices)
I have not yet put my hands on an iPhone but I hope this paves the way for e-books and audio books. Those who wish to publish free info can then find a way to release the data and allow download or copy-paste.
The iPhone is doing many things right, which the net could not earlier on. This product promises to be a content-platform for sure, hopefully.
Saumil,
Mumbai
Well folks, as it turns out most webpages are as such copyrighted material and owned by the site creator or licensed from another source. Not having copy-paste should have been a natural implementation on the early web days- to encourage more serious econtent which is not dependent on ads or sponsors. Then ebooks publishers and independent authors can consider the web as a serious medium for content and charge even nominal fees- per view/reading or annual subscription.
(The fact that a travel publisher such as Lonely Planet still prefers to look at the print medium - even though loads of books and tons of text have to be re-printed every other year for each destination, is an indicator that content sharing failed on the web. Lonely Planet should have benefited immensely from the web in the past decade- in theory - since they are a text based publisher with emphasis on little details or simple maps for every other area of a town. A hypelink and search approach should have enabled them to focus on their job of creating guides rather than estimating stock to print. But so far content can be lifted off from webpages, even after initial payment. So neither the publisher is interested in serious content creation, nor do readers get reliable e-content at affordable prices)
I have not yet put my hands on an iPhone but I hope this paves the way for e-books and audio books. Those who wish to publish free info can then find a way to release the data and allow download or copy-paste.
The iPhone is doing many things right, which the net could not earlier on. This product promises to be a content-platform for sure, hopefully.
Saumil,
Mumbai
Aug 14, 2007
India draw to win Test series in England, 2007
So what was the difference in the end? Both bowling sides had inexperienced fast bowlers who bowled really well - not scary or fearsome- but with hard work and passion. Zaheer Khan and Anderson deserved their reward of the Man of the Series for each side. However the difference came down to a few factors:
1. Openers- for a change the Indian flag was flying higher than their opponents in this department. Jaffer and Karthik gave what India deserved for decades- an opening pair who could ensure that the rest of the batsmen bat at meaningful batting orders.
2. Second new ball- India handled this phase better. Tendulkar played out Sidebottom making 3 of some 48 balls (2nd Test) and in the third test he made some 6 runs when Laxman added 30 in that phase. Tendulkar only began attacking after 110 overs and phased the team lower order to bat when the sun was shining hard on the English bowlers... Kumble and Dhoni made a lot more hay than expected! England always gave a wicket in the 2nd new ball, and opened the door to more wickets...and never really pushed the score to convincing volumes- as Vaughn admitted after the match.
Test matches demand 150 plus overs of play in the first innings.
3. Kumble v Monty- Experience v Youth? Monty Panesar could only do so much. There were phases when England did not give Kumble too much, but Kumble either got the early breakthroughs or cleaned up the tail (which has plagued India for years, not being able to knock the tail off, after making massive inroads).
Hope it all lasts for India. They better not fiddle around with the openers now.
Saumil
Mumbai
1. Openers- for a change the Indian flag was flying higher than their opponents in this department. Jaffer and Karthik gave what India deserved for decades- an opening pair who could ensure that the rest of the batsmen bat at meaningful batting orders.
2. Second new ball- India handled this phase better. Tendulkar played out Sidebottom making 3 of some 48 balls (2nd Test) and in the third test he made some 6 runs when Laxman added 30 in that phase. Tendulkar only began attacking after 110 overs and phased the team lower order to bat when the sun was shining hard on the English bowlers... Kumble and Dhoni made a lot more hay than expected! England always gave a wicket in the 2nd new ball, and opened the door to more wickets...and never really pushed the score to convincing volumes- as Vaughn admitted after the match.
Test matches demand 150 plus overs of play in the first innings.
3. Kumble v Monty- Experience v Youth? Monty Panesar could only do so much. There were phases when England did not give Kumble too much, but Kumble either got the early breakthroughs or cleaned up the tail (which has plagued India for years, not being able to knock the tail off, after making massive inroads).
Hope it all lasts for India. They better not fiddle around with the openers now.
Saumil
Mumbai
Aug 11, 2007
Positional Masterclass from Tendulkar, 3rd Test India vs England, The Oval, 2007
So this is a flat track and Tendulkar for the second consecutive time in test matches, comes in to bat after 40 overs and more than 175 runs on the board. Sounds like the ideal platform to cut loose? Sure, in normal cases that would be true- but here is how the calculations work out:
1. In approx 50 overs, India are 200 for 3 with Tendulkar and Ganguly batting. On this pitch, a score of 400 will perhaps loose the match, or at least give England some chance to put India back in (the pitch does not have any scary bounce, just a bit more than what batsmen would expect, from time to time)... Moreover, a team which won the toss on this pitch should bat nearly two days or at least 150 overs (110 overs is a minimum any side should plan to bat on most pitches which are fair to both bat and ball).
So at about 50th over losing 3 wickets is tricky for sure.
2. Tendulkar therefore continues to dot it out, aided by England bowling the legside stuff (one shot bowling!), expecting him to glance it into leg-slip, or chip it to short leg (and if not, give a single to fine leg). The English approach is fine under 'normal' matches where you need to keep the run rate in check from overs 50-80, and yet hope that Tendulkar would try to work it around.
3. However, Tendulkar had other plans- to dot it out all the way to 30 overs past the second new ball (remember the unfortunate way Vaughn got out in the last test during the second new ball phase- allowing Zaheer to clean up the lower middle order). A strike rate of 35-40% will not matter- you would be 15-20 runs fewer than needed, but it is important that the rest of the lower middle order bat well after the second new ball- when bowlers are in their sixth or seventh spells. This 'positional aspect' of the lower order batting after 110 overs was the target, and Tendulkar achieved it with Ganguly and Laxman doing normal scoring off normal bowling. Only then did Tendulkar attack the bowling, when it was ensured that the team will now get a good shot to play 150 overs or more, without being bundled out in the second new ball overs.
4. Obviously, nobody expected Kumble to score a century. However, with Dhoni and the tail, on a good track- with bowlers being half-dead, India could hope to add 100 odd runs to reach about 550 by tea. They did that and more!
5. Kumble made 100 off about 190 balls, Tendulkar made 82 WITH 192 balls. If a team has to bat 150 overs (900 balls), one of the top order batsman must get a big hundred. Tendulkar did it with 192 (balls, not runs). A costly miss by Prior to drop Tendulkar when he had not yet played 100 balls!
Will Tendulkar bowl some legspin- full and wide outside of off stump- since England have to try to score some quickly? We need to wait and watch.
Also, was the -inswinging down the legside line to Tendulkar- similar to Sir Alec Bedser to Sir Don Bradman?
1. In approx 50 overs, India are 200 for 3 with Tendulkar and Ganguly batting. On this pitch, a score of 400 will perhaps loose the match, or at least give England some chance to put India back in (the pitch does not have any scary bounce, just a bit more than what batsmen would expect, from time to time)... Moreover, a team which won the toss on this pitch should bat nearly two days or at least 150 overs (110 overs is a minimum any side should plan to bat on most pitches which are fair to both bat and ball).
So at about 50th over losing 3 wickets is tricky for sure.
2. Tendulkar therefore continues to dot it out, aided by England bowling the legside stuff (one shot bowling!), expecting him to glance it into leg-slip, or chip it to short leg (and if not, give a single to fine leg). The English approach is fine under 'normal' matches where you need to keep the run rate in check from overs 50-80, and yet hope that Tendulkar would try to work it around.
3. However, Tendulkar had other plans- to dot it out all the way to 30 overs past the second new ball (remember the unfortunate way Vaughn got out in the last test during the second new ball phase- allowing Zaheer to clean up the lower middle order). A strike rate of 35-40% will not matter- you would be 15-20 runs fewer than needed, but it is important that the rest of the lower middle order bat well after the second new ball- when bowlers are in their sixth or seventh spells. This 'positional aspect' of the lower order batting after 110 overs was the target, and Tendulkar achieved it with Ganguly and Laxman doing normal scoring off normal bowling. Only then did Tendulkar attack the bowling, when it was ensured that the team will now get a good shot to play 150 overs or more, without being bundled out in the second new ball overs.
4. Obviously, nobody expected Kumble to score a century. However, with Dhoni and the tail, on a good track- with bowlers being half-dead, India could hope to add 100 odd runs to reach about 550 by tea. They did that and more!
5. Kumble made 100 off about 190 balls, Tendulkar made 82 WITH 192 balls. If a team has to bat 150 overs (900 balls), one of the top order batsman must get a big hundred. Tendulkar did it with 192 (balls, not runs). A costly miss by Prior to drop Tendulkar when he had not yet played 100 balls!
Will Tendulkar bowl some legspin- full and wide outside of off stump- since England have to try to score some quickly? We need to wait and watch.
Also, was the -inswinging down the legside line to Tendulkar- similar to Sir Alec Bedser to Sir Don Bradman?
Jul 28, 2007
Posted for cricinfo article on Indian middle order (Lords test 2007)
This is in response to cricinfo article:
http://blogs.cricinfo.com/cricinfoselect/archives/2007/07/flabby_in_the_middle.php
Our middle order is still the best we have. We are paying a heavy price for neglecting the opening situation as a 'pair' for few decades now. Did we ever hear of a great batting team which did not not know who will open on the eve of every series? Tendulkar, Laxman, Dravid and Younis Khan (Pakistan) have slogged it out to ensure that the team has a chance to last for 100 overs plus. To do this one needs to bat out a lot of dot balls till 40 overs, (when the middle order bats inside the first 14 overs)... Even in school and club cricket, we usually have openers who open. Until this is fixed as a 'pair', middle order batsmen will be doing a repair job to ensure it does not fall apart. In tests, teams need to bat between 110-150 overs to be dominant/competitive. Hopefully, we found the openers who will be there as a 'pair' for some time.
Besides, The last few series India played have been low scoring, so scores need to be 'normalized' to the pitch conditions. I have mentioned how to do this in my Cricket book.
And on a side note- India batted better then England in the wet conditions (days 2-5 at Lords). After it began raining, Engalnd lost 15 wickets in 320 runs, India lost 19 in about 480 runs. England were also lucky to get the best of the weather on day 1!
No wonder England are struglling in Trent Bridge day 1... Some more positional play from their top order was perhaps needed- like Tendulkar and Jaffer did in the first innings at Lords... Be ready for more positional play from the middle order folks!!! Tactics can only flow from good positions as Anand and other tactical GMs say in chess... Keep a close watch on the Fall of wickets by over number, not just runs to see how batsmen will play in this series.
http://blogs.cricinfo.com/cricinfoselect/archives/2007/07/flabby_in_the_middle.php
Our middle order is still the best we have. We are paying a heavy price for neglecting the opening situation as a 'pair' for few decades now. Did we ever hear of a great batting team which did not not know who will open on the eve of every series? Tendulkar, Laxman, Dravid and Younis Khan (Pakistan) have slogged it out to ensure that the team has a chance to last for 100 overs plus. To do this one needs to bat out a lot of dot balls till 40 overs, (when the middle order bats inside the first 14 overs)... Even in school and club cricket, we usually have openers who open. Until this is fixed as a 'pair', middle order batsmen will be doing a repair job to ensure it does not fall apart. In tests, teams need to bat between 110-150 overs to be dominant/competitive. Hopefully, we found the openers who will be there as a 'pair' for some time.
Besides, The last few series India played have been low scoring, so scores need to be 'normalized' to the pitch conditions. I have mentioned how to do this in my Cricket book.
And on a side note- India batted better then England in the wet conditions (days 2-5 at Lords). After it began raining, Engalnd lost 15 wickets in 320 runs, India lost 19 in about 480 runs. England were also lucky to get the best of the weather on day 1!
No wonder England are struglling in Trent Bridge day 1... Some more positional play from their top order was perhaps needed- like Tendulkar and Jaffer did in the first innings at Lords... Be ready for more positional play from the middle order folks!!! Tactics can only flow from good positions as Anand and other tactical GMs say in chess... Keep a close watch on the Fall of wickets by over number, not just runs to see how batsmen will play in this series.
Apr 29, 2007
Congratulations to Gilchrist!
Turns out that everything between the Australians and Sri lankans was more or less the same- decent bowling from both sides, but nothing special, and lots of light-gray shots and top edges from both as well. The difference was Adam Gilchrist who demonstrated his clean hitting with only about half a dozen unintended mis-hits (acceptable by modern standards).
Was the Gilchrist caught and bowl chance off Fernando costly. None of the commentators seems to bother about that, as it would have made some difference, since no Australian could break away in the last ten overs.
The only disappointing thing was that Sri Lanka did not have some special defensive fall-back plan for say 3-5 overs, in case wickets did not fall. They got Dilshan to replace Fernando (when Ausssies targeted him), and then got Fernando back. But as mentioned in my preivew blog just before the finals, something more drastic was needed.
I will post a report of the World Cup soon, as a follow up to my book. The Aussies are ahead, but not by as much as most of us believe they are (as we saw the finals came down to one magical innings plus tons of luck for both sides). Most teams have not used their resources well, except Australia/Sri Lanka....
But the era of light-gray shots has set-in worldwide (the Malinga six was just as effecient as any other). Just that Australia have made a science out of it. Can someone please tell us how many boundaries in this World Cup were played along the ground and how many were smacked one bounce into the fence? How many mis-hits landed safely, if not for six....
It is time to relax a bit...more later
Saumil
saumilzx.com Mumbai
Was the Gilchrist caught and bowl chance off Fernando costly. None of the commentators seems to bother about that, as it would have made some difference, since no Australian could break away in the last ten overs.
The only disappointing thing was that Sri Lanka did not have some special defensive fall-back plan for say 3-5 overs, in case wickets did not fall. They got Dilshan to replace Fernando (when Ausssies targeted him), and then got Fernando back. But as mentioned in my preivew blog just before the finals, something more drastic was needed.
I will post a report of the World Cup soon, as a follow up to my book. The Aussies are ahead, but not by as much as most of us believe they are (as we saw the finals came down to one magical innings plus tons of luck for both sides). Most teams have not used their resources well, except Australia/Sri Lanka....
But the era of light-gray shots has set-in worldwide (the Malinga six was just as effecient as any other). Just that Australia have made a science out of it. Can someone please tell us how many boundaries in this World Cup were played along the ground and how many were smacked one bounce into the fence? How many mis-hits landed safely, if not for six....
It is time to relax a bit...more later
Saumil
saumilzx.com Mumbai
Apr 28, 2007
Cricket World Cup Finals preview
World Cup: Cricket Dot Chess
Aus-SL Finals will take off in a few hours, in Barbados...
1. Australia have a batting line-up wherein all players can keep a high strike rate, and they have about 3-4 batsmen who can give volume of runs as well (Hayden, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey). Sri Lanka has a split- Jayawardene can provide a volume of runs at moderate strike rates; Jayasuria and Sangakara have strike rates but will they provide a volume? Australia can exploit the fact that Sri Lanka will have to hit the right combination in the middle. But on the bright side the younger Sri Lankans are doing fine.
2. The bowling looks good on both sides and with similarities in the variety (Malinga/Tait, Vaas/Bracken, Murali/Hogg...). However, McGrath and Murali are both in different class, so the probabilities can hinge around these two. What looks good is that both teams have ample wicket taking options to keep the finals interesting. But if Australi bowl first, they will try to throttle the opposition under 150-170, as we had discussed against South Africa...
3. However, Australia batters will go after most bowlers (because each batsman having a strike rate capability). But will they target Jayasuria or Fernando (who had run-up trouble) in particular? Can we expect Tom Moody to come up with active defensive tactics for a few overs, if needed, apart from a basic dot strategy? (Lanka got Dilshan in when Styris attacked Murali, but will that be enough against the Aussies).
Good luck to both teams.... The world is waiting for Sri lanka to stop Hayden/Ponting...
Saumil
saumilzx.com
Mumbai, India
Aus-SL Finals will take off in a few hours, in Barbados...
1. Australia have a batting line-up wherein all players can keep a high strike rate, and they have about 3-4 batsmen who can give volume of runs as well (Hayden, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey). Sri Lanka has a split- Jayawardene can provide a volume of runs at moderate strike rates; Jayasuria and Sangakara have strike rates but will they provide a volume? Australia can exploit the fact that Sri Lanka will have to hit the right combination in the middle. But on the bright side the younger Sri Lankans are doing fine.
2. The bowling looks good on both sides and with similarities in the variety (Malinga/Tait, Vaas/Bracken, Murali/Hogg...). However, McGrath and Murali are both in different class, so the probabilities can hinge around these two. What looks good is that both teams have ample wicket taking options to keep the finals interesting. But if Australi bowl first, they will try to throttle the opposition under 150-170, as we had discussed against South Africa...
3. However, Australia batters will go after most bowlers (because each batsman having a strike rate capability). But will they target Jayasuria or Fernando (who had run-up trouble) in particular? Can we expect Tom Moody to come up with active defensive tactics for a few overs, if needed, apart from a basic dot strategy? (Lanka got Dilshan in when Styris attacked Murali, but will that be enough against the Aussies).
Good luck to both teams.... The world is waiting for Sri lanka to stop Hayden/Ponting...
Saumil
saumilzx.com
Mumbai, India
Apr 26, 2007
Aussies did it again
Firstly, I have to clarify that I am not a fortune teller and I cannot predict what someone else will do or attempt to do. We can at best anticipate possible scenarios. (see Apr 25th blog)
Unfortunately for South Africa, they fell to Australia's first inning bowling of ODI.. Yes, I had indicated that Australia can restrict under 150-170, when bowling first and why it happens is clear in my book.
Also, my third point was about when Gibbs should bat ahead of Kallis. Today, when Smith was out they should have done so, or tried to send someone else (from their lower order hitters) to smack or pinch, if they wanted to be positive against Australia....
Sending in Kallis, and then asking him to fabricate shots is not worth it, as you waste your top orthodox batsman.
However, Australia finally batted well in the semis...Congratulations!!!
Other points about Sri Lanka/Australia finals later.
Stay tuned and check more updates on saumilzx.com for excerpts
Thanks
Saumil
saumilzx.com
Unfortunately for South Africa, they fell to Australia's first inning bowling of ODI.. Yes, I had indicated that Australia can restrict under 150-170, when bowling first and why it happens is clear in my book.
Also, my third point was about when Gibbs should bat ahead of Kallis. Today, when Smith was out they should have done so, or tried to send someone else (from their lower order hitters) to smack or pinch, if they wanted to be positive against Australia....
Sending in Kallis, and then asking him to fabricate shots is not worth it, as you waste your top orthodox batsman.
However, Australia finally batted well in the semis...Congratulations!!!
Other points about Sri Lanka/Australia finals later.
Stay tuned and check more updates on saumilzx.com for excerpts
Thanks
Saumil
saumilzx.com
Apr 25, 2007
Chess in Cricket World Cup 2007
Track it here and on my website: www.saumilzx.com
Sri Lanka have just won the first semis. My points/questions for South Africa-Australia semis (today) are still on my site but I include them here.
Australian batting in the semi-finals has failed in the last three World Cups, only to be bailed out by their bowlers. However, here are some issues to ponder about.... it is the knock-out phase...
1. Can South Africa put pressure if Australia bat first? Should Andre Nel open & bowl full-wide to Hayden to dot around? Type 3 bowling makes more sense than type 2, based on what we have seen.
2. If Australia bowls first in the semis/finals, will they restrict the opposition to 150-170? They have done that in many finals, exploiting some of the advantages of bowling first in ODIs...on good pitches and without any special bowling... hmm..
3. When should Gibbs bat ahead of Kallis? The Aussies will expolit this fact for sure.
Saumil
www.saumilzx.com
Sri Lanka have just won the first semis. My points/questions for South Africa-Australia semis (today) are still on my site but I include them here.
Australian batting in the semi-finals has failed in the last three World Cups, only to be bailed out by their bowlers. However, here are some issues to ponder about.... it is the knock-out phase...
1. Can South Africa put pressure if Australia bat first? Should Andre Nel open & bowl full-wide to Hayden to dot around? Type 3 bowling makes more sense than type 2, based on what we have seen.
2. If Australia bowls first in the semis/finals, will they restrict the opposition to 150-170? They have done that in many finals, exploiting some of the advantages of bowling first in ODIs...on good pitches and without any special bowling... hmm..
3. When should Gibbs bat ahead of Kallis? The Aussies will expolit this fact for sure.
Saumil
www.saumilzx.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
