2nd Test, Inda v England 2008, Mohali
Listen to this blog?
England captain Kevin Pietersen is back in the news for his switch shot (where he takes guard right handed but switches to left-handed while playing a shot). This is usually a sweep and although it can be easily confused with the reverse sweep, it is a conventional sweep of a left-handed batsman.
Should this be allowed? From an innovation standpoint most viewers feel that any new type of shot is a welcome addition to the game. But technically, is this fair to the bowlers? This is what the pundits are pondering.
Here are my views on this:
1. The validity of this shot is dubious, since we need to be clear as to how to treat lbw and field placing issues. In cricket the laws restrict field placing on leg side- and also behind square on leg side. But what constitutes leg side or off side is based on whether a batsman bats right-handed or left-handed in the first place. Could Don Bradman and the Aussie's have negated leg-side fields during the Bodyline series, by switching hands? That was a marquee series as the laws for field placings were changed thereafter.
2. Innovation aspect: since there is an element of risk and entertainment, this shot does not seem unfair to the bowlers. But what happens if a batsman switches not to take risk but simply to dab it into a vacant gap on the leg-side (as during his guard)?
My bigger question is:
What if a right-handed batsman walks into the crease, but decides to take guard left-handed on a given day, and then switches to right-handed (his natural side), just as the bowler is about to bowl?
Then we have a right handed batsman batting right handed with vacant gaps on the other side!
This is not to take anything away from Pietersen's well constructed knock. This switch shot is welcome but certain restrictions and clarifications are needed for sure, else the basic logic of all laws which are based on leg-side or off-side (lbws, number fielders etc) will be exploited- at least at some phases in an innings -especially in ODIs where a few singles at a later stage are all important, even at the cost of a wicket.
Saumil
Mumbai, India
21 Dec 2008
Dec 21, 2008
Dec 18, 2008
saumilzx.com launches automated podcast of blogs
Hi friends,
I will be provided automated audio productions of my blogs and views as podcast XMLs.
My first podcast is the version of my recent blog about the Chennai Test and Tendulkar's performance.
For the podcast URL:
Bookmark Cricket Podcast
Since this is based on text to speech technology, you might often get inflection issues and varying pronunciation of proper nouns. Yet, I believe the audio is very legible and hope you can enjoy it. I will also try to get my voice in often, but this automation is smooth for most needs.
Good luck
Saumilzx
Mumbai
I will be provided automated audio productions of my blogs and views as podcast XMLs.
My first podcast is the version of my recent blog about the Chennai Test and Tendulkar's performance.
For the podcast URL:
Bookmark Cricket Podcast
Since this is based on text to speech technology, you might often get inflection issues and varying pronunciation of proper nouns. Yet, I believe the audio is very legible and hope you can enjoy it. I will also try to get my voice in often, but this automation is smooth for most needs.
Good luck
Saumilzx
Mumbai
Dec 15, 2008
Finally Tendulkar let us down! 1st Test India vs England 2008, Chennai
Listen to this blog?
India have won the first test against England, creating history by chasing close to 400 runs in the 4th innings. Prior to the start of the series, analysts had pondered over the fact that India was at World number 2 spot in Test Cricket, after defeating the Aussies 2-0. However, a Test series loss in Sri Lanka, and a drawn series against South Africa (at home), indicates that the field is still wide open and Australia, although not as dominant as they were during Warne and McGrath times, are still the team to beat. Will things change in the year or so?
Sure it can, India may well take over the reigns of the cricketing world, but we have to begin to get our analysis right. First, we can learn a few things from Tendulkar's defiant presence in recent times. (I will do a complete round up of that after the English series, which is not won yet. Remember, it is 1-0 in India's favor).
Toss plays a vital role these days, with the balance of the game in favor of batsmen. We must remember that the India-Australia matches (last year and the recent one), and the India-Sri Lanka matches, were won or dominated by the team which batted first. This is nothing new in test cricket, but the fact is that bowlers are finding it tough to knock teams over in the first innings. It has always been vital to get a good first innings lead, if not a decisive one, of 150 runs or more, and thereby give bowlers time to get 20 wickets.
This makes your team chances of winning or dominating, perhaps 9 out of 10 times. Much better to be in a 9/10 position than be in a 1/10 position - even though this 1 in 10 may fetch you glory... as it did today in Chennai. Suddenly Tendulkar has become the Rajnikanth of Chennai, as one TV channel put it (he has always been adored there, but I did not hear this earlier. I always rated Rajnikanth ahead, since piercing a fleeting bullet is a lot tougher than Tendulkar piercing the field).
So how did India fair in this match? This match explains a lot about our cricket team and what we can do and where we do fall short.
1. India did well to restrict England in the first innings to just over 300, when they had a good opening partnership. This somewhat nullified the toss advantage. India have incidentally, done well bowling first in Melbourne and Sydney last year. But the fact is that toss is a bigger advantage these days no matter who the bowlers are.
2. What was India's reply? 30 for 3!, with Sehwag throwing it away and Gambhir and Dravid just about making a mess of the first over Swann bowled in his debut. Tendulkar and Laxman revived this, to reach 100 for 3, but then fell softly being caught and bowled.
Just think of it, if Tendulkar had made 75 odd runs and played about 2 sessions, like he has been doing recently to salavage a mess in the first innings (3 times in the Australia series), we would not have seen this historic day. The fact is that this time, Tendulkar actually let us down, after many brilliant first inning recoveries. His 68 in Delhi against Australia (1st innings of the 3rd Test) is the kind of play which will win you more often, but will not be seen as memorable as this Chennai 2nd inning grind. Memorable, but not desirable.
3. Finally Dhoni and Harbhajan, got India to 75 short of England's first innings total. Just regulation batting in the first innings from our top order, should have given India, 75 plus over England, but it went the other way! The tail-enders have improved their batting, and one must say that at this point they are doing a fair job, perhaps above par to world standards.
4. Ok, so much for the first innings fiasco. But India just about took 19 wickets in the match, they struggled to get Strauss and Collingwood off the park. India with Zaheer Khan and Ishant Sharma , have done well to be a bowling attack which India has needed since decades, one that looks like getting 20 wickets and knocking off the tail. But be wary of injuries! Do not forget the backup bowlers, like RP SIngh or Munaf Patel, when we need to play 3 seamers.
5. Sehwag's flamboyance in the second innings set it up? Surely, we needed a good opening partnership upfront. But was 83 of 68 balls the need of the hour? 60 of 80 balls might have been just as good. You might say that with Viru, it just works that way, he cannot control it! But his non-shot in the first innings was a contributor to exposing the middle order by the 10th over! Can we play Sehwag at number 3, so that orthodox openers may play out 15-20 overs when needed, especially overseas?
Bradman or Richards never opened, and yet they attacked as good as any in the history of the game. In recent times, Hayden was an explosive opener, but he also had an impeccable defence and could wait and leave the new ball. I do not think they will dare tinker around with the opening slot at this moment, but again, this situation is far from solved!
All in all, this match has brought about a lot of normalization in our lives, after the terror attacks in Mumbai. And just as our commandos salvaged a lot of lives, our batters salvaged a lost match. However, I would prefer that next time we nail the issues, in our national security and our batting as well, before it gets to historic proportions.
That is, if we need to be World Number One, as a nation or in sport.
Have a good night's sleep Sachin, you have silenced those critics who never got it. Good for you, less nuisance from now. Just get back to your normal self and make sure they do the chasing in the next match in Mohali.
saumilzx
Mumbai, India
15 Dec 2008
India have won the first test against England, creating history by chasing close to 400 runs in the 4th innings. Prior to the start of the series, analysts had pondered over the fact that India was at World number 2 spot in Test Cricket, after defeating the Aussies 2-0. However, a Test series loss in Sri Lanka, and a drawn series against South Africa (at home), indicates that the field is still wide open and Australia, although not as dominant as they were during Warne and McGrath times, are still the team to beat. Will things change in the year or so?
Sure it can, India may well take over the reigns of the cricketing world, but we have to begin to get our analysis right. First, we can learn a few things from Tendulkar's defiant presence in recent times. (I will do a complete round up of that after the English series, which is not won yet. Remember, it is 1-0 in India's favor).
Toss plays a vital role these days, with the balance of the game in favor of batsmen. We must remember that the India-Australia matches (last year and the recent one), and the India-Sri Lanka matches, were won or dominated by the team which batted first. This is nothing new in test cricket, but the fact is that bowlers are finding it tough to knock teams over in the first innings. It has always been vital to get a good first innings lead, if not a decisive one, of 150 runs or more, and thereby give bowlers time to get 20 wickets.
This makes your team chances of winning or dominating, perhaps 9 out of 10 times. Much better to be in a 9/10 position than be in a 1/10 position - even though this 1 in 10 may fetch you glory... as it did today in Chennai. Suddenly Tendulkar has become the Rajnikanth of Chennai, as one TV channel put it (he has always been adored there, but I did not hear this earlier. I always rated Rajnikanth ahead, since piercing a fleeting bullet is a lot tougher than Tendulkar piercing the field).
So how did India fair in this match? This match explains a lot about our cricket team and what we can do and where we do fall short.
1. India did well to restrict England in the first innings to just over 300, when they had a good opening partnership. This somewhat nullified the toss advantage. India have incidentally, done well bowling first in Melbourne and Sydney last year. But the fact is that toss is a bigger advantage these days no matter who the bowlers are.
2. What was India's reply? 30 for 3!, with Sehwag throwing it away and Gambhir and Dravid just about making a mess of the first over Swann bowled in his debut. Tendulkar and Laxman revived this, to reach 100 for 3, but then fell softly being caught and bowled.
Just think of it, if Tendulkar had made 75 odd runs and played about 2 sessions, like he has been doing recently to salavage a mess in the first innings (3 times in the Australia series), we would not have seen this historic day. The fact is that this time, Tendulkar actually let us down, after many brilliant first inning recoveries. His 68 in Delhi against Australia (1st innings of the 3rd Test) is the kind of play which will win you more often, but will not be seen as memorable as this Chennai 2nd inning grind. Memorable, but not desirable.
3. Finally Dhoni and Harbhajan, got India to 75 short of England's first innings total. Just regulation batting in the first innings from our top order, should have given India, 75 plus over England, but it went the other way! The tail-enders have improved their batting, and one must say that at this point they are doing a fair job, perhaps above par to world standards.
4. Ok, so much for the first innings fiasco. But India just about took 19 wickets in the match, they struggled to get Strauss and Collingwood off the park. India with Zaheer Khan and Ishant Sharma , have done well to be a bowling attack which India has needed since decades, one that looks like getting 20 wickets and knocking off the tail. But be wary of injuries! Do not forget the backup bowlers, like RP SIngh or Munaf Patel, when we need to play 3 seamers.
5. Sehwag's flamboyance in the second innings set it up? Surely, we needed a good opening partnership upfront. But was 83 of 68 balls the need of the hour? 60 of 80 balls might have been just as good. You might say that with Viru, it just works that way, he cannot control it! But his non-shot in the first innings was a contributor to exposing the middle order by the 10th over! Can we play Sehwag at number 3, so that orthodox openers may play out 15-20 overs when needed, especially overseas?
Bradman or Richards never opened, and yet they attacked as good as any in the history of the game. In recent times, Hayden was an explosive opener, but he also had an impeccable defence and could wait and leave the new ball. I do not think they will dare tinker around with the opening slot at this moment, but again, this situation is far from solved!
All in all, this match has brought about a lot of normalization in our lives, after the terror attacks in Mumbai. And just as our commandos salvaged a lot of lives, our batters salvaged a lost match. However, I would prefer that next time we nail the issues, in our national security and our batting as well, before it gets to historic proportions.
That is, if we need to be World Number One, as a nation or in sport.
Have a good night's sleep Sachin, you have silenced those critics who never got it. Good for you, less nuisance from now. Just get back to your normal self and make sure they do the chasing in the next match in Mohali.
saumilzx
Mumbai, India
15 Dec 2008
Aug 18, 2008
Verstality in Sports- In Context of Olympics
The great in any sport are great because they are in masterful control of their art and versatile as well in the subtle variations as and when needed. Most Olympic events by and large are dominated by specialists- as every medal that is up for grabs usually demands total commitment for a decade or two. To be hopeful for a medal, I guess athletes have to focus on a specific event- be it a sprint, throw, jump etc.
However events such as gymnastics (all-round), decathalon, triathalon, and swimming medley are a few individual events- which test how versatile an athelte is, beyond just pushing one parameter to its limits- such as power, speed, flexibility etc as is the case in many other events.
In many other sports, such as cricket or tennis- being versatile is largely dependent on the playing surface and conditions. In cue-sports, the ball momentum/spin and contact principles follows the same laws of physics, it would mean that players are likely to play more than one format very well. However, playing well and succeeding are two different issues. Steve Davis was a legend at snooker, played Billiards well and also gave nightmares to 9-ball legends like Reyes and Strickland.
In Chess, there have been all kinds of players- strategic, tactical, sharp postional across various different openings. There has been a lack of experimentation with opening play at GM level, largely because computers have maxed out options for certain lines of play. But just playing 1 e4 or 1 d4 can be a comfort issue for even the best in the world! No matter how routine some openings tend to be, to be able to excel at the top, versatility is key- and this is perhaps where Kasparov had the edge over the very best in his time.
Then in the modern day there is huge pressure to compress matches in shorter formats. This has happened in cricket and chess, where different aspects of scoring and tactical skills are tested out . Again, only the versatile are likely to succeed.
It must be noted that the greatest sportspersons have often not succeeded in every variant or different style of play. For instance, Borg, McEnroe, Sampras or Federor have not won all grand slams events, on account of different style of play on different surfaces. In cricket, playing in India, England and Australia are so very different, that the same bloke who dominates in certain pitches, may be simply out of sorts elsewhere.
However, the fact is that great players- will yet be above par when tested in conditions which demand playing out of their comfort zone. The same list of tennis players mentioned above were versatile enough to be amogst the top few players on surfaces they do not like, even if they did not win on that surface.
Since being versatile involves blending skills in different ways, we can therefore try to define or explain it in more ways than one. Are you a master of few and good in other skills? (Michael Phelps is an Ace in freestyle and butterfly, and also excels in the other two strokes) Or are you above par in each different department (not Jack of all trades, but perhaps a Queen or King). This will largely depend on the individual and the sport.
Coming to the Olympics, I am always amazed by what the Decathletes have to undergo. Sprint 100m, 1500m laps, run with a javelin and lift a shot put as well, high jump and long jump demand different flexibility... Each of these 10 events demands a different body weight and height, not to mention the seemingly conflicting muscular activity. Surely, a decathlete may not be able to win an individual medal in any of the 10 events, because to succeed as a decathlete you perhaps need to be able to carry a body which is sort of in the middle.
In gymnastics and swimming- you will usually find that the great athletes, being versatile, usually win many medals in one competition, as they can win the all-round events and excel at a few individual routines as well- since their body structure will at least permit it. This however does not mean what Phelps achieved is not super-special (the medals won were all gold and he broke the world records as well).
It would indeed by an interesting subject to explore the type of skills and preparation required by sports persons to be versatile- across the world of sport- and be able to compare the scope of what can be achieved.
Surely, it needs to be addressed in my concepts of Universal Sports Expression and inventing cross-variants in the future.
Perhaps decathletes may be versatile enough to teach us the nuances of conflicting skills.
More later
Saumil
19 August 08, Mumbai
However events such as gymnastics (all-round), decathalon, triathalon, and swimming medley are a few individual events- which test how versatile an athelte is, beyond just pushing one parameter to its limits- such as power, speed, flexibility etc as is the case in many other events.
In many other sports, such as cricket or tennis- being versatile is largely dependent on the playing surface and conditions. In cue-sports, the ball momentum/spin and contact principles follows the same laws of physics, it would mean that players are likely to play more than one format very well. However, playing well and succeeding are two different issues. Steve Davis was a legend at snooker, played Billiards well and also gave nightmares to 9-ball legends like Reyes and Strickland.
In Chess, there have been all kinds of players- strategic, tactical, sharp postional across various different openings. There has been a lack of experimentation with opening play at GM level, largely because computers have maxed out options for certain lines of play. But just playing 1 e4 or 1 d4 can be a comfort issue for even the best in the world! No matter how routine some openings tend to be, to be able to excel at the top, versatility is key- and this is perhaps where Kasparov had the edge over the very best in his time.
Then in the modern day there is huge pressure to compress matches in shorter formats. This has happened in cricket and chess, where different aspects of scoring and tactical skills are tested out . Again, only the versatile are likely to succeed.
It must be noted that the greatest sportspersons have often not succeeded in every variant or different style of play. For instance, Borg, McEnroe, Sampras or Federor have not won all grand slams events, on account of different style of play on different surfaces. In cricket, playing in India, England and Australia are so very different, that the same bloke who dominates in certain pitches, may be simply out of sorts elsewhere.
However, the fact is that great players- will yet be above par when tested in conditions which demand playing out of their comfort zone. The same list of tennis players mentioned above were versatile enough to be amogst the top few players on surfaces they do not like, even if they did not win on that surface.
Since being versatile involves blending skills in different ways, we can therefore try to define or explain it in more ways than one. Are you a master of few and good in other skills? (Michael Phelps is an Ace in freestyle and butterfly, and also excels in the other two strokes) Or are you above par in each different department (not Jack of all trades, but perhaps a Queen or King). This will largely depend on the individual and the sport.
Coming to the Olympics, I am always amazed by what the Decathletes have to undergo. Sprint 100m, 1500m laps, run with a javelin and lift a shot put as well, high jump and long jump demand different flexibility... Each of these 10 events demands a different body weight and height, not to mention the seemingly conflicting muscular activity. Surely, a decathlete may not be able to win an individual medal in any of the 10 events, because to succeed as a decathlete you perhaps need to be able to carry a body which is sort of in the middle.
In gymnastics and swimming- you will usually find that the great athletes, being versatile, usually win many medals in one competition, as they can win the all-round events and excel at a few individual routines as well- since their body structure will at least permit it. This however does not mean what Phelps achieved is not super-special (the medals won were all gold and he broke the world records as well).
It would indeed by an interesting subject to explore the type of skills and preparation required by sports persons to be versatile- across the world of sport- and be able to compare the scope of what can be achieved.
Surely, it needs to be addressed in my concepts of Universal Sports Expression and inventing cross-variants in the future.
Perhaps decathletes may be versatile enough to teach us the nuances of conflicting skills.
More later
Saumil
19 August 08, Mumbai
Aug 14, 2008
Electric Saina Nehwal, Beijing Olympics 2008
Exhibition of Power and Balance on a Badminton Court.
Indian Badminton sensation Saina Nehwal lost in the quarter finals of the Beijing Olympics to Maria Yulianti of Indonesia. It was high quality badminton and looked like a classic rivalry of Saina's power shots vs Maria's simplicity of balance. Saina had her chances as she led 11-4 in the final set (earlier in the first game she was 20-16 up, and won after toiling hard at 28-26, which could perhaps have drained her batteries a bit).
Yet folks, she has done our nation proud, getting into the quarter-finals at an age when most of us are yearning for a driver's license- is very big indeed. Also big is the fact that her parents drove 20km every day on a scooter for training when she would fall asleep on the back seat due to hard hours of training.
But this match brought out the beauty of the game of badminton. This is a sport where there is still a balance of attack and defence- unlike other modern day sports such as table tennis and even tennis, where momentum of the ball escalates with each touch and winning or losing points is matter of going with the flow.
You react in table tennis, but in badminton you respond.
Why is badminton this way? Perhaps in my next book or another blog...
But for now, be assured there are enough megawatts in Saina to be an international powerhouse. All she needs is a few more switches to regulate the flow- to ensure players like Yulianti do not use it against herself. But well played Yulianti, she deserves her bronze.
Saumil
Mumbai
14 August 2008
Indian Badminton sensation Saina Nehwal lost in the quarter finals of the Beijing Olympics to Maria Yulianti of Indonesia. It was high quality badminton and looked like a classic rivalry of Saina's power shots vs Maria's simplicity of balance. Saina had her chances as she led 11-4 in the final set (earlier in the first game she was 20-16 up, and won after toiling hard at 28-26, which could perhaps have drained her batteries a bit).
Yet folks, she has done our nation proud, getting into the quarter-finals at an age when most of us are yearning for a driver's license- is very big indeed. Also big is the fact that her parents drove 20km every day on a scooter for training when she would fall asleep on the back seat due to hard hours of training.
But this match brought out the beauty of the game of badminton. This is a sport where there is still a balance of attack and defence- unlike other modern day sports such as table tennis and even tennis, where momentum of the ball escalates with each touch and winning or losing points is matter of going with the flow.
You react in table tennis, but in badminton you respond.
Why is badminton this way? Perhaps in my next book or another blog...
But for now, be assured there are enough megawatts in Saina to be an international powerhouse. All she needs is a few more switches to regulate the flow- to ensure players like Yulianti do not use it against herself. But well played Yulianti, she deserves her bronze.
Saumil
Mumbai
14 August 2008
Aug 12, 2008
Ajantha Mendis- stock bowler without a stock ball
Ajantha Mendis has mesmerized everyone in the current Sri-Lanka win over India in the Test series. Before the series began, many including myself had doubts if he would succeed in Tests, as he looked like a bowler who could do many nice things without a stock ball. I have mentioned in the earlier blog that surprise bowlers with a lots of little tricks will be common, as T20 and shorter versions get popular. They may not beat the batsmen defensilvely, but may cause shot selection problems
Mendis however has proved himself to be more than that. He got Rahul Dravid out defensively a few times and beat Laxman in flight just as much. Gambhir, Sehwag and Tendulkar played him well but the pressure of facing Mendis with Murali was felt all along.
How is Mendis doing it without a stock ball? As they say, one must have a stock ball around which you make variations much like in chess openings and strategic lines of play from which tactics unfold.
Well, he does not have a stock ball but has a stock bowling action!
It all comes down a straight line, much like Kumble but with subtle varieties which no other wobbly bowler ever has perhaps had! After a few dozen deliveries it is much like the parallax experiments in optics. He can make a mockery of hand-eye coordination for sure....
Saumil
Mumbai
12 Aug 2008
Mendis however has proved himself to be more than that. He got Rahul Dravid out defensively a few times and beat Laxman in flight just as much. Gambhir, Sehwag and Tendulkar played him well but the pressure of facing Mendis with Murali was felt all along.
How is Mendis doing it without a stock ball? As they say, one must have a stock ball around which you make variations much like in chess openings and strategic lines of play from which tactics unfold.
Well, he does not have a stock ball but has a stock bowling action!
It all comes down a straight line, much like Kumble but with subtle varieties which no other wobbly bowler ever has perhaps had! After a few dozen deliveries it is much like the parallax experiments in optics. He can make a mockery of hand-eye coordination for sure....
Saumil
Mumbai
12 Aug 2008
Jul 15, 2008
Chinese Tricks in Cricket? Praveen Kumar, Sohail Tanvir, and now Ajantha Mendis...
With limited overs format becoming more dominant, bowlers who can wobble the ball or do unconventional things, will succeed. As a batsman, before you sort them out, you are gone- as strike rate dictates the intent.
The Chinese, never short of puzzles and mind games, are know for sneaking in fringe and awkward players in World Table Tennis Championships (in the early '80s the forehand and backhand rubbers could be the same color, which meant anti-spin and fuzzy surfaces looked the same as fast topspin surfaces). Such players would eventually be sorted out, but not before they knocked a few top Europeans in the early rounds. By the time you got to the quarter finals, the medals table looked Chinese- nothing puzzling about that.
Will the T20 era promote and launch players who are one season wonders? I am not suggesting that Praveen Kumar, Sohail Tanvir or Mendis do not have a future as regular bowlers- they are good since they did grow up during the 90s, watching and learning the basics from great bowlers. But the next generation may throw up those Chinese wonders who will puzzle batsmen, and be gone once the puzzle is solved, much like the Rubic cube. But with the dollars flowing in, one IPL or a few T20s is all they might need.
Watchout for the China-men, they need not be bowling left-hand googly.
Saumil
Mumbai
July 15, 2007
The Chinese, never short of puzzles and mind games, are know for sneaking in fringe and awkward players in World Table Tennis Championships (in the early '80s the forehand and backhand rubbers could be the same color, which meant anti-spin and fuzzy surfaces looked the same as fast topspin surfaces). Such players would eventually be sorted out, but not before they knocked a few top Europeans in the early rounds. By the time you got to the quarter finals, the medals table looked Chinese- nothing puzzling about that.
Will the T20 era promote and launch players who are one season wonders? I am not suggesting that Praveen Kumar, Sohail Tanvir or Mendis do not have a future as regular bowlers- they are good since they did grow up during the 90s, watching and learning the basics from great bowlers. But the next generation may throw up those Chinese wonders who will puzzle batsmen, and be gone once the puzzle is solved, much like the Rubic cube. But with the dollars flowing in, one IPL or a few T20s is all they might need.
Watchout for the China-men, they need not be bowling left-hand googly.
Saumil
Mumbai
July 15, 2007
iPhone 3G delivers the Original Internet Promise?
I have always maintained that the commercial fallout of the internet and B2C in the 90s was not due to 'revenue model' issues. It was the interface, stupid! And the interface is not just a point and click thing- it about the way you interact with the machine to accomplish tasks- or rather avoiding those cumbersome things that you should not be doing, which undermine the very 'reach-out' advantage of the net.
What was, or rather is needed for B2C to succeed is tracking user identity and therby enabling smooth payment processing, and an assurance to the user that he will be able to get what he paid for. Also assurance is needed that the user will not misuse what he pays for, by eSharing it. Then one could pay 10 cents for a cybercard, without filling up forms and learning various shopping cart interfaces- not to mention the dozens of passwords to be managed. If you like something, and I am willing to pay the price, it should be done, without any further interaction. Also, the buyer must not be able copy-paste and misuse content.
The promise of simplicity of buying and paying for something is perhaps here at last. The user now just has to decide what he wants and whether the price is right or not- rather than wait for Javascript to tell you that your zip code is incorrect! The iPhone/iTunes System is perhaps delivering the original promise of the internet, today, which could have been done years ago by prepaid internet cards to track users and products and pay as you go- but without getting into mechanics of forms and e-commerce nonsense.
Go Apple, go! They better not mess up in India! Every rural and small town in Asia needs the iPhone/iTunes app & content distribution- not just to buy stuff but to be able to publish their little dreams and earn just enough to live on and dream another day...
Saumil
Mumbai
15 July 2008
What was, or rather is needed for B2C to succeed is tracking user identity and therby enabling smooth payment processing, and an assurance to the user that he will be able to get what he paid for. Also assurance is needed that the user will not misuse what he pays for, by eSharing it. Then one could pay 10 cents for a cybercard, without filling up forms and learning various shopping cart interfaces- not to mention the dozens of passwords to be managed. If you like something, and I am willing to pay the price, it should be done, without any further interaction. Also, the buyer must not be able copy-paste and misuse content.
The promise of simplicity of buying and paying for something is perhaps here at last. The user now just has to decide what he wants and whether the price is right or not- rather than wait for Javascript to tell you that your zip code is incorrect! The iPhone/iTunes System is perhaps delivering the original promise of the internet, today, which could have been done years ago by prepaid internet cards to track users and products and pay as you go- but without getting into mechanics of forms and e-commerce nonsense.
Go Apple, go! They better not mess up in India! Every rural and small town in Asia needs the iPhone/iTunes app & content distribution- not just to buy stuff but to be able to publish their little dreams and earn just enough to live on and dream another day...
Saumil
Mumbai
15 July 2008
Jul 6, 2008
iPhone vs Android
Google is releasing Android, an open source platform for handheld devices. They will not manufacture devices but will license it to vendors. Sounds like the Apple v Microsoft days of the '80s. iPhone will have an advantage of tightly integrated interface with the phone/pda to create a product(s) which is sleek and easy to use, whereas Android will try to be ubiquitous but every vendor will close it the way they want to.
As a first reaction, Steve Jobs has done well in slashing iPhone to $199, a move which Apple had missed during the early Macintosh days. However, since Android will be Java/Open Source based you can expect portability with genuinely different hardware, not like DOS/Windows on PC clones which were not offering a compelling difference as such.
Are we entering the Golden Era of Personal Computing and Communication?
Proprietary gadgets to offer seamless and customized functionality for a given task, whereas Java based devices to help deploy variety of useful and general purpose products to meet flexible demands.
Perhaps, hopefully...
Saumil
6 July 2008
As a first reaction, Steve Jobs has done well in slashing iPhone to $199, a move which Apple had missed during the early Macintosh days. However, since Android will be Java/Open Source based you can expect portability with genuinely different hardware, not like DOS/Windows on PC clones which were not offering a compelling difference as such.
Are we entering the Golden Era of Personal Computing and Communication?
Proprietary gadgets to offer seamless and customized functionality for a given task, whereas Java based devices to help deploy variety of useful and general purpose products to meet flexible demands.
Perhaps, hopefully...
Saumil
6 July 2008
Jun 3, 2008
Who sorted whom? IPL 2008- Part 2, Mumbai Indians Bowling
Part 2 of 2
Mumbai Indians- only team since Windies in 80s to dominate in India without a spinner?!
After that Harbhajan incident, it meant that Mumbai Indians would have a bowling attack without a top-quality spinner for 11 of their 14 matches. It is no wonder, that Tendulkar had to try Chitnis, because he knew it that deeper into the tournament, you cannot play in India without a spinner. Did it surprise any viewer that no channel analyzed Mumbais run in the context of not playing with a spinner?
Every other team had a top quality spinner, and except for the initial matches where dew was a big factor, later on spinners were the key. So give credit to Mumbai Indians for dominating 7 of 10 matches, and of the three they lost- they sorted the top order of two. Folks, Tendulkar and Pollock have worked out immaculate plans- for bowling the apt length and angles to dot around, and then sneak in the sort-of-score-able-ball to get the wicket. (Chennai did it to Punjab in the semis, and this exploiting of the dot dilemma happens in the first innings. Sehwag tried it in the semis to Rajasthan but with results on the wrong side).
In fact, expect Shaun Marsh (Punjab)- Mumbai had the better of every other side (if you take home and away, they lost marginally, but won convincingly). Here is their record.
How teams fared against Mumbai Indians:
1. Punjab- won both. The only team to get the better of Mumabi Indians.
2. Rajasthan- they won one on the last ball but lost their first encounter completely sorted and messed up. All out under 120.
3. Kolkata- lost both, and in Mumbai- they were dismantled with terrific dot bowling from Bravo and Pollock- 67 all out
4. Chennai- they won marginally by 6 runs but were sorted when they came to Mumbai. Dhoni, it must be said did salvage a 150 score by waiting around. This was the first match Tendulkar played and Jayasuria was given a serve and volley license- but on the opponent's serve!
5. Deccan- they routed Mumbai through Gilchrist but got beaten badly as well, with Nehra beating Gilchrist. Fernando got him and then trapped Rohit Sharma lbw by pitching middle and straightening.
6. Delhi- they won their home encounter in the last over but were cleaned up for 133 in Mumbai, with Sehwag as the lone hope after Delhi lost the plot in the first two overs.
7. Bangalore- they won in Mumbai in the last over, but were folded up badly at home.
As you can see it was the early losses against the 'weak' teams- Deccan and Bangalore that cost Mumbai dearly. Mumbai Indians were the only team not have an established opening anchor for 7 matches on account of Tendulkar's injury (Jayasuria is better off as an explosive opener, as we saw later). And Tendulkar's absence cannot be compared to how some other teams missed top Australian/NZ openers- because it was known that they would not be involved for the entire tournament before they were chosen.
And as far as trying to analyze those last three matches which went down the wire- where fans say this one should have bowled or that one should have fielded- the fact of the matter is that no team should let it get that close, if possible. And to get a decisive advantage while bowling through the middle overs in India, in any format, one needs a regular spinner, which due to unfortunate events they did not have (and they should have had a backup in their team anyway).
However, Tendulkar and Pollock need to be applauded for their dominance and sorting out top orders clinically, using a variety of pace in Indian conditions.
More later,
Saumil
Mumbai
3 June 2008
Mumbai Indians- only team since Windies in 80s to dominate in India without a spinner?!
After that Harbhajan incident, it meant that Mumbai Indians would have a bowling attack without a top-quality spinner for 11 of their 14 matches. It is no wonder, that Tendulkar had to try Chitnis, because he knew it that deeper into the tournament, you cannot play in India without a spinner. Did it surprise any viewer that no channel analyzed Mumbais run in the context of not playing with a spinner?
Every other team had a top quality spinner, and except for the initial matches where dew was a big factor, later on spinners were the key. So give credit to Mumbai Indians for dominating 7 of 10 matches, and of the three they lost- they sorted the top order of two. Folks, Tendulkar and Pollock have worked out immaculate plans- for bowling the apt length and angles to dot around, and then sneak in the sort-of-score-able-ball to get the wicket. (Chennai did it to Punjab in the semis, and this exploiting of the dot dilemma happens in the first innings. Sehwag tried it in the semis to Rajasthan but with results on the wrong side).
In fact, expect Shaun Marsh (Punjab)- Mumbai had the better of every other side (if you take home and away, they lost marginally, but won convincingly). Here is their record.
How teams fared against Mumbai Indians:
1. Punjab- won both. The only team to get the better of Mumabi Indians.
2. Rajasthan- they won one on the last ball but lost their first encounter completely sorted and messed up. All out under 120.
3. Kolkata- lost both, and in Mumbai- they were dismantled with terrific dot bowling from Bravo and Pollock- 67 all out
4. Chennai- they won marginally by 6 runs but were sorted when they came to Mumbai. Dhoni, it must be said did salvage a 150 score by waiting around. This was the first match Tendulkar played and Jayasuria was given a serve and volley license- but on the opponent's serve!
5. Deccan- they routed Mumbai through Gilchrist but got beaten badly as well, with Nehra beating Gilchrist. Fernando got him and then trapped Rohit Sharma lbw by pitching middle and straightening.
6. Delhi- they won their home encounter in the last over but were cleaned up for 133 in Mumbai, with Sehwag as the lone hope after Delhi lost the plot in the first two overs.
7. Bangalore- they won in Mumbai in the last over, but were folded up badly at home.
As you can see it was the early losses against the 'weak' teams- Deccan and Bangalore that cost Mumbai dearly. Mumbai Indians were the only team not have an established opening anchor for 7 matches on account of Tendulkar's injury (Jayasuria is better off as an explosive opener, as we saw later). And Tendulkar's absence cannot be compared to how some other teams missed top Australian/NZ openers- because it was known that they would not be involved for the entire tournament before they were chosen.
And as far as trying to analyze those last three matches which went down the wire- where fans say this one should have bowled or that one should have fielded- the fact of the matter is that no team should let it get that close, if possible. And to get a decisive advantage while bowling through the middle overs in India, in any format, one needs a regular spinner, which due to unfortunate events they did not have (and they should have had a backup in their team anyway).
However, Tendulkar and Pollock need to be applauded for their dominance and sorting out top orders clinically, using a variety of pace in Indian conditions.
More later,
Saumil
Mumbai
3 June 2008
Who sorted whom? IPL 2008- Part 1, Rajasthan Royals Bowling
Rajasthan Royals and Kings XI Punjab were on top of the league tables. Punjab just had the best skill sets- largely due to Shaun Marsh's magical entry into world cricket along with many other stars
However, it was Rajasthan Royals and Mumbai Indians who sorted teams out during bowling, to get decisive results in their favor. This is not surprising since Warne is a bowler renowned for his prowess as a bowler to work out batsmen and Tendulkar is one of the most astute bastmen-bowler, who works out batsmen based on his own vast experience of pitch limitations, and most of all batting intent of different batsmen.
In this part let us see some of Rajasthan's methods:
Rajasthan Royals- briiliant all round bowling department, with Tanveer and Warne as tactical options
Shane Warne did a wonderful job of unleashing natural skills of his young and inexperienced players and at the same time sorted players and created situations with briiliant -off the board- plans. Being a legendary leg spinner, he came with some compellling field positions with weird gaps (tactical hit-me-if-you-can and sharp positional gambits). He played it like blitz chess, active and changing all the time- often bowling a bowler for just an over or changing the field from orthodox with slips and then the next over with no slips. And his pace bowlers used the short ball effectively, because Indian batters can be predictable. Of course Tanvir was that crazy knight on the move- yorking and shooting balls at different paces from weird angles.
Shane usually achieved his results and it was no wonder, that with Graeme Smith a reliable anchor since game 2, things fell in place in the first half of the league. I will cover his two-run gambit field placing in my next Dot Chess, hopefully. Warne was in his peak ripping form in the semis in Mumbai, with his leggies bouncing and turning sharply- impossible to hit with conviction.
Shane Watson also came up with short balls in the slog overs, which was a different approach for the subcontinent- but it did work as many batters lower down pull poorly or just hang the bat to run it down to third man. So a short ball and fielder on the fance almost behind the keeper and first slip might work? Sure it did (expcept once when Takawale got them squarer).
Also important to remember, is that Shane Warne actually got one of the few wickets of the IPL- beating the batsman in defence- when got Dhoni caught in the slips. Can we see a graphic of how wickets went down when a batsman was not looking to score? Perhaps just a handful, if at all- but this was a beauty for sure.
However, it was Rajasthan Royals and Mumbai Indians who sorted teams out during bowling, to get decisive results in their favor. This is not surprising since Warne is a bowler renowned for his prowess as a bowler to work out batsmen and Tendulkar is one of the most astute bastmen-bowler, who works out batsmen based on his own vast experience of pitch limitations, and most of all batting intent of different batsmen.
In this part let us see some of Rajasthan's methods:
Rajasthan Royals- briiliant all round bowling department, with Tanveer and Warne as tactical options
Shane Warne did a wonderful job of unleashing natural skills of his young and inexperienced players and at the same time sorted players and created situations with briiliant -off the board- plans. Being a legendary leg spinner, he came with some compellling field positions with weird gaps (tactical hit-me-if-you-can and sharp positional gambits). He played it like blitz chess, active and changing all the time- often bowling a bowler for just an over or changing the field from orthodox with slips and then the next over with no slips. And his pace bowlers used the short ball effectively, because Indian batters can be predictable. Of course Tanvir was that crazy knight on the move- yorking and shooting balls at different paces from weird angles.
Shane usually achieved his results and it was no wonder, that with Graeme Smith a reliable anchor since game 2, things fell in place in the first half of the league. I will cover his two-run gambit field placing in my next Dot Chess, hopefully. Warne was in his peak ripping form in the semis in Mumbai, with his leggies bouncing and turning sharply- impossible to hit with conviction.
Shane Watson also came up with short balls in the slog overs, which was a different approach for the subcontinent- but it did work as many batters lower down pull poorly or just hang the bat to run it down to third man. So a short ball and fielder on the fance almost behind the keeper and first slip might work? Sure it did (expcept once when Takawale got them squarer).
Also important to remember, is that Shane Warne actually got one of the few wickets of the IPL- beating the batsman in defence- when got Dhoni caught in the slips. Can we see a graphic of how wickets went down when a batsman was not looking to score? Perhaps just a handful, if at all- but this was a beauty for sure.
Jun 2, 2008
IPL 2008- Knock Out Blunders. Semis & Finals must be 3/5 game series
The IPL T20 knock outs are over. Thankfully Rajashthan won as they deserved to after the league ended. But to conclude a tournament where a team plays a league with 7 others (14 matches; home/away) with just a knock out semis and a final match is quite ridiculous. It has been that way in cricket since the World Cup began and it is that way in other World Cups such as soccer. (The Australian Tri Series ODIs had it better with a best of three finals).
However, the NBA (American Basketball) got it right- they have an extensive league phase of about 70 games followed by a knock out phase -the playoffs- with each round as a best of 5 or 7 games series. This format allows most teams to build and consolidate in the league phase and then in the knock outs- they get tested for the crunch moments but without making it easy for any team to just sneak in on account of a lucky day or bad day of their opponents.
Delhi And Punjab had two bad days, and the semis ended up as a huge disappointment. And in the case of Punjab, Shaun Marsh failed perhaps once in the tournament- such a one match knockout is harsh for sure.
And the final- it was not really convincing. Rajasthan decided to bowl and it was not anything exciting as such and Chennai also failed to push the score into a convincing zone. When Rajasthan batted, Asnodkar had his share of luck (which is the way he plays). But when three wickets fell around 40, the match was in balance.
In a good match, from there on one of the teams should do something decisive to get the match on their side. But instead blunders were the order of the day.
1. Yusuf Pathan survived some short bowling and then did well to come down the track to pull well.
2. Then Murali pinned Pathan and he lofted it beyond Raina at mid on- dropped!
3. Pathan then makes up by launching Murali twice out of the park, over long-on. Did Murali miss out the round the wicket angle he used in the World Cup 2007?
4. When 18 balls were left, Jadeja blundered by trying to pull Morkel by giving himslef room, instead of giving strike to Pathan.
5. Then Pathan almost ran himself out going for two, but did well to get in line with the ball and the stumps... only to get run out the next ball! The 17th over saw way too many blunders for a team which should have won easly.
6. The last over, Balaji did well for three balls before trying something wobbly from round the wicket- resulting in a wide ball and Parthiv Patel failed to prevent a bye as well.
Like they say in chess, often the person who wins is the one who made the second last blunder.
But then Warne deserved this win, since the last cracking shot of the tournament- driving Ntini through extra cover by giving himself room- was brilliant for sure to make the last over within reach.
From next time please ensure every knockout phase is best of three or five matches. These T20s should be seen like a frame in snooker. You need a minimum of 3-5 T20s to ensure that the winner earns it. This year the winner was worthy and Mr Modi could do no wrong either. But next time you never know, who will blunder second last...
Saumil
Mumbai
2nd June 2008
However, the NBA (American Basketball) got it right- they have an extensive league phase of about 70 games followed by a knock out phase -the playoffs- with each round as a best of 5 or 7 games series. This format allows most teams to build and consolidate in the league phase and then in the knock outs- they get tested for the crunch moments but without making it easy for any team to just sneak in on account of a lucky day or bad day of their opponents.
Delhi And Punjab had two bad days, and the semis ended up as a huge disappointment. And in the case of Punjab, Shaun Marsh failed perhaps once in the tournament- such a one match knockout is harsh for sure.
And the final- it was not really convincing. Rajasthan decided to bowl and it was not anything exciting as such and Chennai also failed to push the score into a convincing zone. When Rajasthan batted, Asnodkar had his share of luck (which is the way he plays). But when three wickets fell around 40, the match was in balance.
In a good match, from there on one of the teams should do something decisive to get the match on their side. But instead blunders were the order of the day.
1. Yusuf Pathan survived some short bowling and then did well to come down the track to pull well.
2. Then Murali pinned Pathan and he lofted it beyond Raina at mid on- dropped!
3. Pathan then makes up by launching Murali twice out of the park, over long-on. Did Murali miss out the round the wicket angle he used in the World Cup 2007?
4. When 18 balls were left, Jadeja blundered by trying to pull Morkel by giving himslef room, instead of giving strike to Pathan.
5. Then Pathan almost ran himself out going for two, but did well to get in line with the ball and the stumps... only to get run out the next ball! The 17th over saw way too many blunders for a team which should have won easly.
6. The last over, Balaji did well for three balls before trying something wobbly from round the wicket- resulting in a wide ball and Parthiv Patel failed to prevent a bye as well.
Like they say in chess, often the person who wins is the one who made the second last blunder.
But then Warne deserved this win, since the last cracking shot of the tournament- driving Ntini through extra cover by giving himself room- was brilliant for sure to make the last over within reach.
From next time please ensure every knockout phase is best of three or five matches. These T20s should be seen like a frame in snooker. You need a minimum of 3-5 T20s to ensure that the winner earns it. This year the winner was worthy and Mr Modi could do no wrong either. But next time you never know, who will blunder second last...
Saumil
Mumbai
2nd June 2008
May 14, 2008
Excelling in society is different from sport...IPL T20
Privatisation of cricket is here to stay in a big way. The Indian Premier League has succeded in creating 8 teams of market value. Now cricketers will know what responsibility and accountabilty are, is what all are saying- since so far they reported to national and state governing bodies, who perhaps accept defeat or lack lustre performances as part of the game.
But the private owners also have to understand what it is to compete in sport vs other walks of life. I have disucssed this issue in my Cricket book in the preface. In most careers and industries we all have to excel- but we need not be the top 5 or even top 100 worldwide, to earn a great living. In sport Anju Bobby George who was amongst the top 5 long jumpers in the world was always seen by the media as returning with her hands empty. Sania Mirza, beats the competition back home by a mile and is amongst the top 30 odd women tennis players of the world. Most Indians see her as a glamor icon. Just remember that Anju, Sania and so do our cricketers are measured amongst standards worldwide. Not many of the very best engineers, lawyers, doctors, film stars and industrialists are likely to be in the best 100 of the world but get respect and fame (and fortune) as top class citizens.
Coming to the point- Dr. Mallya now owns Bangalore's IPL Cricket Team. He is known to be one of India's pioneering and competitive industry leaders with guts to own an airline as well- apart from a beer brand. He well and truly deserves the respect he gets for being a proactive industialist and having a vision to try new ideas.
However, are his airline or his beer in the top 8 of the world? The fact of the matter is that they need not be. In all walks of life you can get away being just about good or above par not just internationally but even locally. How many of them has Dr. Mallya fired because his brand is perhaps not amongst the most desired brands in say Germany (which would be like beating Australia in Australia in cricket).
Most of us in society have not competed perhaps a tenth as much say Anju or Sania, because we do not need to. Excelling in Society is different from sport- because you can get away with being just very good and that too not in an international sense.
Surely Bangalore Royal Challengers deserve and should have done better. But being 'last' or 8th in sport is again a fact which comes under the radar in sport. But not even trying to be amongst the top 10 or 100 in the world in other walks of life will perhaps not even be expected.
Welcome to the World of Real Competition Dr. Mallya. Not this year, but in coming years your Bangalore Team may win or be a top team. Will your beer be the best in the world too? It most likely will not matter.
Saumil
Mumbai, 14 May 208
btw- I do not drink alcohol, so I would not really know. But you need not be the best 10 bloggers even in your own neighborhood to blog...
But the private owners also have to understand what it is to compete in sport vs other walks of life. I have disucssed this issue in my Cricket book in the preface. In most careers and industries we all have to excel- but we need not be the top 5 or even top 100 worldwide, to earn a great living. In sport Anju Bobby George who was amongst the top 5 long jumpers in the world was always seen by the media as returning with her hands empty. Sania Mirza, beats the competition back home by a mile and is amongst the top 30 odd women tennis players of the world. Most Indians see her as a glamor icon. Just remember that Anju, Sania and so do our cricketers are measured amongst standards worldwide. Not many of the very best engineers, lawyers, doctors, film stars and industrialists are likely to be in the best 100 of the world but get respect and fame (and fortune) as top class citizens.
Coming to the point- Dr. Mallya now owns Bangalore's IPL Cricket Team. He is known to be one of India's pioneering and competitive industry leaders with guts to own an airline as well- apart from a beer brand. He well and truly deserves the respect he gets for being a proactive industialist and having a vision to try new ideas.
However, are his airline or his beer in the top 8 of the world? The fact of the matter is that they need not be. In all walks of life you can get away being just about good or above par not just internationally but even locally. How many of them has Dr. Mallya fired because his brand is perhaps not amongst the most desired brands in say Germany (which would be like beating Australia in Australia in cricket).
Most of us in society have not competed perhaps a tenth as much say Anju or Sania, because we do not need to. Excelling in Society is different from sport- because you can get away with being just very good and that too not in an international sense.
Surely Bangalore Royal Challengers deserve and should have done better. But being 'last' or 8th in sport is again a fact which comes under the radar in sport. But not even trying to be amongst the top 10 or 100 in the world in other walks of life will perhaps not even be expected.
Welcome to the World of Real Competition Dr. Mallya. Not this year, but in coming years your Bangalore Team may win or be a top team. Will your beer be the best in the world too? It most likely will not matter.
Saumil
Mumbai, 14 May 208
btw- I do not drink alcohol, so I would not really know. But you need not be the best 10 bloggers even in your own neighborhood to blog...
Delhi Daredevils miss out on Nimzo-prophylactic, Kolkata IPL, 13 May 2008
Delhi Daredevils did a brilliant job to restrict Kolkata Knight Riders to 133 in 20 overs. Just over 6 an over is not difficult in T20. In fact the only way to lose from here would be if Kolkata could run through the top order (especially since Delhi has a weaker middle order).
If the opposition has only one or few ways to win, howsoever improbable they might be, it is best to remove those options if feasible. And it does not take an expert to arrive at the fact that Shoaib Akhtar has an ability to run through with a bunch of wickets.
But a bowler can only take 3-4 wickets if he first gets one! Delhi should have shut the doors on Shoaib and seen off his 3 overs. But Sehwag gifted his wicket trying to square cut a ball with a bit of width but not that short. Gambhir fell slashing to Shoaib when the score was 17 in little over two overs. Till then he had played innovative shots along the ground. AB de Villiers tried to pull Shoaib when the score was 28 in 4 overs. And even when some risks were taken to reach 28 of 4 overs, you could hold your serve rather than go for a break! Manoj Tiwary was the only wicket Shoaib earned on a defensive shot!
Delhi missed a chess style Nimzo prophylatic! Kolkata had ony one option- to get 2-3 wickets up front to have an outside chance. They got exactly that.
Compare this to Tendulkar when he made 2 off 22 against Pollock-Ntini in an ODI against South Africa chasing 160 (India, 2005-06 and Gambhir took risks then!). Then too South Africa could have won only if they ran through 2-3 wickets up front as they had no real spin threat. That was shut by Tendulkar who made sure he hit nothing till 8 overs.
The IPL has surprised every purist- T20 may not be a sound format, but some aspects of bat v ball in 22 yards will remain the same just as in rapid chess- the moves are same after all.
Saumil
Mumbai, India
If the opposition has only one or few ways to win, howsoever improbable they might be, it is best to remove those options if feasible. And it does not take an expert to arrive at the fact that Shoaib Akhtar has an ability to run through with a bunch of wickets.
But a bowler can only take 3-4 wickets if he first gets one! Delhi should have shut the doors on Shoaib and seen off his 3 overs. But Sehwag gifted his wicket trying to square cut a ball with a bit of width but not that short. Gambhir fell slashing to Shoaib when the score was 17 in little over two overs. Till then he had played innovative shots along the ground. AB de Villiers tried to pull Shoaib when the score was 28 in 4 overs. And even when some risks were taken to reach 28 of 4 overs, you could hold your serve rather than go for a break! Manoj Tiwary was the only wicket Shoaib earned on a defensive shot!
Delhi missed a chess style Nimzo prophylatic! Kolkata had ony one option- to get 2-3 wickets up front to have an outside chance. They got exactly that.
Compare this to Tendulkar when he made 2 off 22 against Pollock-Ntini in an ODI against South Africa chasing 160 (India, 2005-06 and Gambhir took risks then!). Then too South Africa could have won only if they ran through 2-3 wickets up front as they had no real spin threat. That was shut by Tendulkar who made sure he hit nothing till 8 overs.
The IPL has surprised every purist- T20 may not be a sound format, but some aspects of bat v ball in 22 yards will remain the same just as in rapid chess- the moves are same after all.
Saumil
Mumbai, India
Apr 23, 2008
Can bowler friendly pitches even it out for bowlers in T20?
Kolkata Knight Riders v Deccan Chargers at Kolkata - Apr 20, 2008
Deccan Chargers were all out cheaply for 110 and failed to even complete their quota of 20 overs. The pitch was breaking apart and the ball was turning and seaming. It is obviously difficult for a team batting first on such a track, as most teams would like to set targets of at least 150-160 runs in any T20.
Kolkata struggled as well with wickets tumbling and not much impetus in the strike rate either. But since the total was low, the side batting second can phase the innings and keep wickets intact. Then it would just be a matter of getting a good over or two to scrape home...
Well that is exactly what happened. It just took one over for the match to turn on its head. Deccan Chargers had done well to keep the pressure despite the low score. Vaas (bowling with a shortened run up), Ojha the left arm off spinner was turning it square and so was Scott Styris with off-cutters! Kolkata needed about 64 odd runs from 54 balls, when Symonds the star all-rounder came in to bowl.
He began banging the ball and it flew over Gilchrist's head or darted around for byes/wides. He gave away nearly a dozen odd runs as extras. Perhaps seeing the purchase Styris got, he could have stuck to off-spin or slow off-cutters....
But the bigger question here is that, even on a lively bowler friendly track - does T20 as a format do justice to bolwers? Perhaps not as much, since the wide ball rules are too stringent- and it could be double edged for bowlers as well- if they seam or spin it too much....
Bowling is a sparse scoring format (wickets happen after many balls and not with an exact science) and T20 is perhaps just too tight on bowlers- as getting the better of a batsman - even a few times in an over - does not guarantee reward, and may in fact result in runs- as in inside edges, top edges and as in this match- hurt by extras as well.
T20 has a long way to go to get the balance between bat and ball even reasonably right.
Saumil
Mumbai,
Apr 23, 2008
Deccan Chargers were all out cheaply for 110 and failed to even complete their quota of 20 overs. The pitch was breaking apart and the ball was turning and seaming. It is obviously difficult for a team batting first on such a track, as most teams would like to set targets of at least 150-160 runs in any T20.
Kolkata struggled as well with wickets tumbling and not much impetus in the strike rate either. But since the total was low, the side batting second can phase the innings and keep wickets intact. Then it would just be a matter of getting a good over or two to scrape home...
Well that is exactly what happened. It just took one over for the match to turn on its head. Deccan Chargers had done well to keep the pressure despite the low score. Vaas (bowling with a shortened run up), Ojha the left arm off spinner was turning it square and so was Scott Styris with off-cutters! Kolkata needed about 64 odd runs from 54 balls, when Symonds the star all-rounder came in to bowl.
He began banging the ball and it flew over Gilchrist's head or darted around for byes/wides. He gave away nearly a dozen odd runs as extras. Perhaps seeing the purchase Styris got, he could have stuck to off-spin or slow off-cutters....
But the bigger question here is that, even on a lively bowler friendly track - does T20 as a format do justice to bolwers? Perhaps not as much, since the wide ball rules are too stringent- and it could be double edged for bowlers as well- if they seam or spin it too much....
Bowling is a sparse scoring format (wickets happen after many balls and not with an exact science) and T20 is perhaps just too tight on bowlers- as getting the better of a batsman - even a few times in an over - does not guarantee reward, and may in fact result in runs- as in inside edges, top edges and as in this match- hurt by extras as well.
T20 has a long way to go to get the balance between bat and ball even reasonably right.
Saumil
Mumbai,
Apr 23, 2008
Mar 3, 2008
CB Series First Final Sydney- You need luck as a batsman
Tendulkar has done it. An ODI hundred in Australia, and India winning the first ever final of a tri-series in Australia. Both Hayden and Tendulkar made the most of conditions- a slow track but with consistent bounce.
But as we all know batting requires luck, because even on a good track, one error is all that is needed to go back to the pavilion. Just take a look at three moments in the match which could be very crucial to the outcome-
1. Ponting tries to pull a short of length ball from Praveen Kumar- in his trademark swivel on the front foot - in front of square leg, with the bat coming down onto the ball. Usually safe, but he inside edges on to the stumps! Perhaps too early in the innings to play that shot- perhaps not judging the bounce as yet.
2. Hayden square cuts Pathan, and gets an inside-bottom edge which missed the stumps before he started to plunder about a few dozen runs in the coming overs. Again Pathan had bowled it closer to him, and it was early in his innings to play it square when the width was not quite there. But luck went his way!
3. Tendulkar plays a cover-drive (as his first forcing shot) to a slightly wider Ball from Bracken and inside edges and the ball goes between pads and the leg stump! He converts that luck into a memorable innings which puts India 1-0 up.
Although one cannot reduce a game of cricket to just 3 balls (since both bowlers and other batters do have opportunities all through the match), but these were 3 balls where the three big batsmen of the match made similar mistakes but had different outcomes!
There is a thin line betewen failure and success and one wonders if any filtered stats can take these into account.
More later during the Brisbane ODI- the 2nd Final of the CB Series. Till then it is back to Linaries where Anand leads in Spain follwed closely by Carlsen...
Saumil
Mumbai India
But as we all know batting requires luck, because even on a good track, one error is all that is needed to go back to the pavilion. Just take a look at three moments in the match which could be very crucial to the outcome-
1. Ponting tries to pull a short of length ball from Praveen Kumar- in his trademark swivel on the front foot - in front of square leg, with the bat coming down onto the ball. Usually safe, but he inside edges on to the stumps! Perhaps too early in the innings to play that shot- perhaps not judging the bounce as yet.
2. Hayden square cuts Pathan, and gets an inside-bottom edge which missed the stumps before he started to plunder about a few dozen runs in the coming overs. Again Pathan had bowled it closer to him, and it was early in his innings to play it square when the width was not quite there. But luck went his way!
3. Tendulkar plays a cover-drive (as his first forcing shot) to a slightly wider Ball from Bracken and inside edges and the ball goes between pads and the leg stump! He converts that luck into a memorable innings which puts India 1-0 up.
Although one cannot reduce a game of cricket to just 3 balls (since both bowlers and other batters do have opportunities all through the match), but these were 3 balls where the three big batsmen of the match made similar mistakes but had different outcomes!
There is a thin line betewen failure and success and one wonders if any filtered stats can take these into account.
More later during the Brisbane ODI- the 2nd Final of the CB Series. Till then it is back to Linaries where Anand leads in Spain follwed closely by Carlsen...
Saumil
Mumbai India
Feb 26, 2008
CB Series- Australia 2008, Gilchrist & Tendulkar- only Openers to impact series so far
Who were the openers who have made an impact on the CB tri-series in Australia so far? (as of first 10 games).
Australia (6 matches till rubber is live)
Adam Gilchrist: 0, 61, 0, 118, 15, 6 (16 in dead rubber)
Hayden: DNP, 42, 25, 4, 13, 23 (54 in dead rubber)
India (7 matches, not qualified yet)
Tendulkar: 10, 35, 44, 32, 5, 0, 2
Sehwag 6, 33, 11, 14, DNP, DNP, 17
Gambhir opened twice: 34, 15
Sri Lanka (6 matches, yet to qualify)
Jayasuria DNB, 7, 27, 12, 0, 0
Tharanga DNB, 10, DNP
Dilshan DNP, DNP, 62, 11, 4
Perera DNP, DNP, DNP, DNP, DNP, 1
Adam Gilchrist as you can see has gone past 30 twice and converted it to impact the match
Tendulkar has gone past 30 thrice; but had effect on the match twice (44 the Indian top score in Melbourne, and 32 of 30 in a rain affected match against Sri lanka).
Hayden has one score over 30, (another brilliant 54 was in his practice match v India- hence no impact on series).
Jayasuria although not yet into the 30s, he had an impact in the reduced 21 over chase, scoring 27 of 13
So the top openers who made any impact in this series are Gilchrist and Tendulkar.
The moral of the story is that in low scoring series 30s is a good benchmark, as most ODI batsmen avg in the 30s in their career. So making a 30s is tricky indeed. Opening is not the same as batting one-down (as Dravid will be able to explain to you), as even if one wicket falls early- because now you know which part of the scoreboard to follow- to push runs or block wickets, wait for bad balls etc. As an opener, you are trting to figure out which aspect to address (strike-rate/hold wickets, especially in ODIs), without knowing how the bowling/pitch unfolds.
As you can see all the junior or upcoming openers have not been able to do well at all. The highest junior score as an opener is 34 (by Gambhir, who arguably is in the form of his life). Australia recognize the conditions and do not change their order as they know even a 20odd is not that bad in these conditions. Sure we would like to see more runs from all the top batters, but it is tough for them as they have to try to give a strike rate advantage as well, and can get out. The one down batter can say- since an early wicket is fallen, I will put the strike rate aside for a 8-10 balls (Sangakara did in his century against India, for dozen odd overs).
The analysts have forgotten that runs, wickets or strike rates in cricket are not absolute measures but relative to pitch conditions. Obviously, they are aware of it, but do not keep it in mind during calculations- but rather go by landmarks- 50s 100s etc. Who is playing for the records?!?!
Just as Elephants and other species are measured by their own average sizes based on region etc., so must scores according to weather & pitches. (In many sports such as snooker, billiards or say Olympic swimming etc, you can expect to have absolute measures, since the playing conditions are controlled and consistent).
Do not worry about Tendulkar folks. He has by far been the best top order ODI batter this year- since SAfrica in Ireland, England, Aus in India, Pak in India, and now partially in Australia ODIs.
Saumil
Mumbai
Australia (6 matches till rubber is live)
Adam Gilchrist: 0, 61, 0, 118, 15, 6 (16 in dead rubber)
Hayden: DNP, 42, 25, 4, 13, 23 (54 in dead rubber)
India (7 matches, not qualified yet)
Tendulkar: 10, 35, 44, 32, 5, 0, 2
Sehwag 6, 33, 11, 14, DNP, DNP, 17
Gambhir opened twice: 34, 15
Sri Lanka (6 matches, yet to qualify)
Jayasuria DNB, 7, 27, 12, 0, 0
Tharanga DNB, 10, DNP
Dilshan DNP, DNP, 62, 11, 4
Perera DNP, DNP, DNP, DNP, DNP, 1
Adam Gilchrist as you can see has gone past 30 twice and converted it to impact the match
Tendulkar has gone past 30 thrice; but had effect on the match twice (44 the Indian top score in Melbourne, and 32 of 30 in a rain affected match against Sri lanka).
Hayden has one score over 30, (another brilliant 54 was in his practice match v India- hence no impact on series).
Jayasuria although not yet into the 30s, he had an impact in the reduced 21 over chase, scoring 27 of 13
So the top openers who made any impact in this series are Gilchrist and Tendulkar.
The moral of the story is that in low scoring series 30s is a good benchmark, as most ODI batsmen avg in the 30s in their career. So making a 30s is tricky indeed. Opening is not the same as batting one-down (as Dravid will be able to explain to you), as even if one wicket falls early- because now you know which part of the scoreboard to follow- to push runs or block wickets, wait for bad balls etc. As an opener, you are trting to figure out which aspect to address (strike-rate/hold wickets, especially in ODIs), without knowing how the bowling/pitch unfolds.
As you can see all the junior or upcoming openers have not been able to do well at all. The highest junior score as an opener is 34 (by Gambhir, who arguably is in the form of his life). Australia recognize the conditions and do not change their order as they know even a 20odd is not that bad in these conditions. Sure we would like to see more runs from all the top batters, but it is tough for them as they have to try to give a strike rate advantage as well, and can get out. The one down batter can say- since an early wicket is fallen, I will put the strike rate aside for a 8-10 balls (Sangakara did in his century against India, for dozen odd overs).
The analysts have forgotten that runs, wickets or strike rates in cricket are not absolute measures but relative to pitch conditions. Obviously, they are aware of it, but do not keep it in mind during calculations- but rather go by landmarks- 50s 100s etc. Who is playing for the records?!?!
Just as Elephants and other species are measured by their own average sizes based on region etc., so must scores according to weather & pitches. (In many sports such as snooker, billiards or say Olympic swimming etc, you can expect to have absolute measures, since the playing conditions are controlled and consistent).
Do not worry about Tendulkar folks. He has by far been the best top order ODI batter this year- since SAfrica in Ireland, England, Aus in India, Pak in India, and now partially in Australia ODIs.
Saumil
Mumbai
Feb 24, 2008
CB Series 2008- Analysis of Dhoni the Controller
India have lost the CB Series 10th ODI- to Australia, in Sydney. The media have got it all wrong again. Whereas batsmen- senior or junior can falter due to split second reaction time of shot making, the media and management have time to get it right.
1. The media missed out why our bowlers gave away in excess of 300 in the first place, when Sydney is a spin friendly track. Your chances are reduced to 1:10, right there when any team chases 300. Piyush Chawla could have played here instead of Shreeshant? The media did not even ask this question.
2. Dhoni's approach was a 'responsible' one? Sure, he played with caution when 4 wickets fell. But this innings can only be considered as 'good' if it was when batting first and then you try to settle for a reasonable score of 230 or so. But chasing 317, if some batsmen were to make 36 of 66 balls (yes the situation was messy, but the target is known and you have little choice), he is eating up 30 balls- considering run-a-ball is par.
Compare Dhoni's knock (36 of 66 balls) to Sehwag's (17 of 19 balls)- Dhoni has made 19 runs more from 47 more balls! Sure, he had to see off the top bowlers, but the fact is Sehwag was not facing the weak bowlers either. As it turns out, Dhoni's knock was poorer than Sehwag's, in context of the second innings chase.
3. If Dhoni has chosen to play a controlling role as a batsman (which was fine at times, in this low scoring series), perhaps he should promote himself up the order, like he did with Pathan. Or send Uthappa ahead, who is a regular batsman? Then he and Pathan can address the strike issues lower down. 36 of 66 balls when you have the best striking skills is not good enough, when you chase 300+.
4. India lost by 'just' 18 runs. Well they needed 70odd of 40 balls. The match was really gone long before. The real fact is that today only Gambhir and Utthappa played adequately (amongst batters) with desired strike rates.
5. This is the second time Dhoni's strike rate management has let India down in this series (as discussed, in some matches where the target was low, it was fine to make a 50 without a big shot). In the Canberra match, 5th ODI of this series, against Sri Lanka, Tendulkar, Gambhir, Rohit Sharma made good run-a-ball scores early in the innings (batting first in a reduced 29 over game). Dhoni came in when 9 overs/7 wickets were left, ahead of Yuvraj and Uthappa, to make 31 of 26 with 3 fours. In overs 26, 27, and 28 he was taking singles in 'finisher' style! In the first innings there is nothing to 'finish', it is 'more the merrier'. This was the case to go all out for your shots, with Rohit Sharma anchoring. Yuvraj, Uthappa and Pathan were wasted. Not what you expect from a captain of a T20 Champion team.
6. Just remember, we are not trying to blame anyone (after 5 years of wicket-keeper hunting, we finally got two!), but if we do analyze let us see what can be fixed in terms of planning and approach, as execution-wise every team can falter, as Australian batting has been so far. Dhoni's team selection, batting order and his own one-dimensional strike-rate approach need to be discussed- well before any senior-junior thing.
7. If MS Dhoni is going to bat like this in Tests (in a constructive manner)-that is just fine. But then we can consider Dinesh Karthik for Tests instead, because Karthik has the technique to bat like this in Tests. Dhoni can then stick to number 5-6 in ODIs and T20s- and face the lesser bowlers and well spread fields to garner singles, when strike-rate demands are moderate, and then he can unleash himself when he has the chance to do so (which perhaps Karthik may not be as good as Dhoni).
Dinesh Karthik- most of us have forgotten that he played a major role in beating England in England, as a Test opener. He might still be worth a shot as the wicketkeeper and bat at number 7 in Tests.
More later,
Saumil
Mumbai
1. The media missed out why our bowlers gave away in excess of 300 in the first place, when Sydney is a spin friendly track. Your chances are reduced to 1:10, right there when any team chases 300. Piyush Chawla could have played here instead of Shreeshant? The media did not even ask this question.
2. Dhoni's approach was a 'responsible' one? Sure, he played with caution when 4 wickets fell. But this innings can only be considered as 'good' if it was when batting first and then you try to settle for a reasonable score of 230 or so. But chasing 317, if some batsmen were to make 36 of 66 balls (yes the situation was messy, but the target is known and you have little choice), he is eating up 30 balls- considering run-a-ball is par.
Compare Dhoni's knock (36 of 66 balls) to Sehwag's (17 of 19 balls)- Dhoni has made 19 runs more from 47 more balls! Sure, he had to see off the top bowlers, but the fact is Sehwag was not facing the weak bowlers either. As it turns out, Dhoni's knock was poorer than Sehwag's, in context of the second innings chase.
3. If Dhoni has chosen to play a controlling role as a batsman (which was fine at times, in this low scoring series), perhaps he should promote himself up the order, like he did with Pathan. Or send Uthappa ahead, who is a regular batsman? Then he and Pathan can address the strike issues lower down. 36 of 66 balls when you have the best striking skills is not good enough, when you chase 300+.
4. India lost by 'just' 18 runs. Well they needed 70odd of 40 balls. The match was really gone long before. The real fact is that today only Gambhir and Utthappa played adequately (amongst batters) with desired strike rates.
5. This is the second time Dhoni's strike rate management has let India down in this series (as discussed, in some matches where the target was low, it was fine to make a 50 without a big shot). In the Canberra match, 5th ODI of this series, against Sri Lanka, Tendulkar, Gambhir, Rohit Sharma made good run-a-ball scores early in the innings (batting first in a reduced 29 over game). Dhoni came in when 9 overs/7 wickets were left, ahead of Yuvraj and Uthappa, to make 31 of 26 with 3 fours. In overs 26, 27, and 28 he was taking singles in 'finisher' style! In the first innings there is nothing to 'finish', it is 'more the merrier'. This was the case to go all out for your shots, with Rohit Sharma anchoring. Yuvraj, Uthappa and Pathan were wasted. Not what you expect from a captain of a T20 Champion team.
6. Just remember, we are not trying to blame anyone (after 5 years of wicket-keeper hunting, we finally got two!), but if we do analyze let us see what can be fixed in terms of planning and approach, as execution-wise every team can falter, as Australian batting has been so far. Dhoni's team selection, batting order and his own one-dimensional strike-rate approach need to be discussed- well before any senior-junior thing.
7. If MS Dhoni is going to bat like this in Tests (in a constructive manner)-that is just fine. But then we can consider Dinesh Karthik for Tests instead, because Karthik has the technique to bat like this in Tests. Dhoni can then stick to number 5-6 in ODIs and T20s- and face the lesser bowlers and well spread fields to garner singles, when strike-rate demands are moderate, and then he can unleash himself when he has the chance to do so (which perhaps Karthik may not be as good as Dhoni).
Dinesh Karthik- most of us have forgotten that he played a major role in beating England in England, as a Test opener. He might still be worth a shot as the wicketkeeper and bat at number 7 in Tests.
More later,
Saumil
Mumbai
Feb 23, 2008
Indian Premier League T20 Cricket- After the Auctions…
Now that the auctions are through and guys have been bought over, the focus is now on discussions of how it will impact the future of the game (of Cricket, that is).
1. Is all this money good for cricket?
Money is always a necessity for any activity- so there should be nothing to complain about this fact. But can some journalist please conduct a discussion of how it will help, the various aspects of the sport? Please spell out how much money will go to school-college-and state level (as an avg $ per aspiring player). Will it improve the benchstrength of our National side or will it improve the benches of Wankhade stadium? Or academically, can a teenager rent out a DVD to study past great cricketers from a library or will there be a website with such material, so that there is 'progress' in the IT age for Indians in every corner. I can personally vouch that I have improved my appreciation of chess in the last 3 years, which I could not in 20 years. The internet has PGNs of every past game- no such luck with many other sports.
Geet Sethi- our legendary billiard champion- summed it up today that these developments are a combination of hope and despair. Money is finally coming in a big way. But will it be used for sport or mere entertainment.
2. Will it affect playing for the country in Tests and ODIs?
The general comparison given here is about how soccer clubs function without any conflict with FIFA's World Cup. Just as players give their 100% to their club sides and then are willing to shed their blood for their country in World Cups/Continental Tournaments- so will it be the case with Cricket. But Test Cricket happens every year and for about 6-8 months or more and seasons of each country happen in different times of the year. So what will be left after that will be time for a shrunk down format such as T20. At least the club version of soccer is same as their World Cup version. You can perhaps consider my suggestion of playing T20 as pairs with overs/wicket state carrying over but 2 results in each game...see Dot Chess.
Or take for instance, ad-guru Prahlad Kakkar when asked about whether this was like Archie comics v Charles Dickens (T20 v Test Cricket). He had a simple answer that Archie comics sell more! No problem with that- just do not take characters from Charles Dickens or the classics- and put them into Archie comics! Rahul Dravid and Jacques Kallis in one team- looks like a great Charles Dickens like pairing... but guess what- we will see them trying to be the Jughead of the day (their appetitie will be to try to get out in 3 overs!).
3. The family and friends stuff!
They say T20 will be great to attract families- who can have a great evening after all. Would it not be great for a father and son watch a game together? But a game of what? If they can only find 4 hours together once every so many weeks, that is in itself a scary thing. Why not go and see or do things which naturally take 3-4 hours... a movie, or some other sport...
And what will kids learn- to focus on a Bollywood beauty or the Cheerleaders? (is that not why Archie comics were not permitted in school...).
And which kid would like to grow up to be bowler? Get the bowling machines out instead- at least Preity Zinta can then bowl a few to Sachin or Symonds. Then fathers could bring their wives along as well as the kids!
4. We have to move on- this is the new age of exciting cricket..
Exciting batting, not exciting cricket. I can only thank my stars that I have interests in many other sports as well- which may outlive my lifetime...
Time for a break...
It sure is some nice time for a yacht trip amidst the PhangNga Hongs in Phuket!
WiFi will allow me some time to catch up with wonder boy GM Carlsen and his revival of some off-the-beaten-path chess openings. His Alekhine reply to Topalov sure was great to witness at Linaries 2008.
Have a great summer!
Saumil
Mumbai
1. Is all this money good for cricket?
Money is always a necessity for any activity- so there should be nothing to complain about this fact. But can some journalist please conduct a discussion of how it will help, the various aspects of the sport? Please spell out how much money will go to school-college-and state level (as an avg $ per aspiring player). Will it improve the benchstrength of our National side or will it improve the benches of Wankhade stadium? Or academically, can a teenager rent out a DVD to study past great cricketers from a library or will there be a website with such material, so that there is 'progress' in the IT age for Indians in every corner. I can personally vouch that I have improved my appreciation of chess in the last 3 years, which I could not in 20 years. The internet has PGNs of every past game- no such luck with many other sports.
Geet Sethi- our legendary billiard champion- summed it up today that these developments are a combination of hope and despair. Money is finally coming in a big way. But will it be used for sport or mere entertainment.
2. Will it affect playing for the country in Tests and ODIs?
The general comparison given here is about how soccer clubs function without any conflict with FIFA's World Cup. Just as players give their 100% to their club sides and then are willing to shed their blood for their country in World Cups/Continental Tournaments- so will it be the case with Cricket. But Test Cricket happens every year and for about 6-8 months or more and seasons of each country happen in different times of the year. So what will be left after that will be time for a shrunk down format such as T20. At least the club version of soccer is same as their World Cup version. You can perhaps consider my suggestion of playing T20 as pairs with overs/wicket state carrying over but 2 results in each game...see Dot Chess.
Or take for instance, ad-guru Prahlad Kakkar when asked about whether this was like Archie comics v Charles Dickens (T20 v Test Cricket). He had a simple answer that Archie comics sell more! No problem with that- just do not take characters from Charles Dickens or the classics- and put them into Archie comics! Rahul Dravid and Jacques Kallis in one team- looks like a great Charles Dickens like pairing... but guess what- we will see them trying to be the Jughead of the day (their appetitie will be to try to get out in 3 overs!).
3. The family and friends stuff!
They say T20 will be great to attract families- who can have a great evening after all. Would it not be great for a father and son watch a game together? But a game of what? If they can only find 4 hours together once every so many weeks, that is in itself a scary thing. Why not go and see or do things which naturally take 3-4 hours... a movie, or some other sport...
And what will kids learn- to focus on a Bollywood beauty or the Cheerleaders? (is that not why Archie comics were not permitted in school...).
And which kid would like to grow up to be bowler? Get the bowling machines out instead- at least Preity Zinta can then bowl a few to Sachin or Symonds. Then fathers could bring their wives along as well as the kids!
4. We have to move on- this is the new age of exciting cricket..
Exciting batting, not exciting cricket. I can only thank my stars that I have interests in many other sports as well- which may outlive my lifetime...
Time for a break...
It sure is some nice time for a yacht trip amidst the PhangNga Hongs in Phuket!
WiFi will allow me some time to catch up with wonder boy GM Carlsen and his revival of some off-the-beaten-path chess openings. His Alekhine reply to Topalov sure was great to witness at Linaries 2008.
Have a great summer!
Saumil
Mumbai
Feb 4, 2008
To click or not to click
Good introductory books, as in Chess (Capablanca, Nimzowitsch), Math-Logic (Russell, Godel) or Physics (Stephen Hawking), work well with online resources such as the Wikipedia.
The printed book actually helps you keep a tab on the hyperlinking on the web resource, since classics are always well organized in their chapter sequence and will include the key or mandatory points which a reader must know before knowing something else which is more advanced. The web resource is then better used as a tool to clarify and enlist details which you need to know more about, rather than get lost in surfing around in circles.
So a mode of reading which does not have clicking options (print) or has restricted clicking (audio, video), is perhaps necessary to control our usage of a point and click medium- such as the web.
Some ideas for ebooks or an ipod touch … as an entry device to the web.
Saumil
Mumbai
4th Feb 2008
The printed book actually helps you keep a tab on the hyperlinking on the web resource, since classics are always well organized in their chapter sequence and will include the key or mandatory points which a reader must know before knowing something else which is more advanced. The web resource is then better used as a tool to clarify and enlist details which you need to know more about, rather than get lost in surfing around in circles.
So a mode of reading which does not have clicking options (print) or has restricted clicking (audio, video), is perhaps necessary to control our usage of a point and click medium- such as the web.
Some ideas for ebooks or an ipod touch … as an entry device to the web.
Saumil
Mumbai
4th Feb 2008
Jan 24, 2008
Preview Adelaide, 4th Cricket Test Australia v India
Firstly, I stand corrected about the team selection at the Perth Test- where most expected that India did not have enough benchstrength in the pace attach. Irfan Pathan proved everyone wrong, and rightly deserved the man of the match for his swing bowling and valuable batting. However, as mentioned the bouncy track did not do much harm to the Indian batting- as defensively you do have scope to survive, as the ball flies over the stumps...
All in all Kumble is getting the entire bowling department to work along his approach to bowling- have enough good balls to pin the batsmen and then when you can sense that they will try something, allow them to do so- or just about. When you can lead the batsmen to a known situation- even if it is not something directly in your favor- you can as a bowler get a reference point to sneak in something that is just a bit off their intention. Type 3-Type 2 mixing- in the jargon of Dot Chess.
Also the pattern continues- Aussie batsmen are not going to get easy stuff to pull or hook- perhaps cut at times.
So tomorrow, India may play with 5 bowlers? Perhaps- since Irfan Pathan looks good enough with the bat as the remaining batters. But then Ganguly, Sehwag and Tendulkar may chip in nullifying the need for a fifth bowler? But then again- I think two regular spinners always looks good for India. Let's leave the nice headache to Kumble :-)
And how are the Aussies going to bowl at Sehwag and Tendulkar- who seem to get many runs behind square on the off side, by playing the upper-cut. Or will they in turn resort to the pull and hook, instead?
Expect more chess vs natural game from Kumble. He has already baffled everyone by his field-placings in the last innings at Perth, when Australia were down by 5 wickets. Putting most fielders on the fence is not what you normally see when you are trying to bowl out Gilichrist and the tail, and you have lots of runs to spare. But then this was not 'normal'- as India had enough time to get the wickets... another instance where imbalance is converted to an execution effect. This time it was Nimzo-Kumble, with the prophylaxis!
There has been some exciting chess at Corus as well, with wunderkid Carlsen playing with some flair right off the opening lines. I am sure the Late Bobby Fischer would have appreciated this young kid.
Wake up at 6am for the last one at Adelaide.
Best wishes,
Saumil
Mumbai
All in all Kumble is getting the entire bowling department to work along his approach to bowling- have enough good balls to pin the batsmen and then when you can sense that they will try something, allow them to do so- or just about. When you can lead the batsmen to a known situation- even if it is not something directly in your favor- you can as a bowler get a reference point to sneak in something that is just a bit off their intention. Type 3-Type 2 mixing- in the jargon of Dot Chess.
Also the pattern continues- Aussie batsmen are not going to get easy stuff to pull or hook- perhaps cut at times.
So tomorrow, India may play with 5 bowlers? Perhaps- since Irfan Pathan looks good enough with the bat as the remaining batters. But then Ganguly, Sehwag and Tendulkar may chip in nullifying the need for a fifth bowler? But then again- I think two regular spinners always looks good for India. Let's leave the nice headache to Kumble :-)
And how are the Aussies going to bowl at Sehwag and Tendulkar- who seem to get many runs behind square on the off side, by playing the upper-cut. Or will they in turn resort to the pull and hook, instead?
Expect more chess vs natural game from Kumble. He has already baffled everyone by his field-placings in the last innings at Perth, when Australia were down by 5 wickets. Putting most fielders on the fence is not what you normally see when you are trying to bowl out Gilichrist and the tail, and you have lots of runs to spare. But then this was not 'normal'- as India had enough time to get the wickets... another instance where imbalance is converted to an execution effect. This time it was Nimzo-Kumble, with the prophylaxis!
There has been some exciting chess at Corus as well, with wunderkid Carlsen playing with some flair right off the opening lines. I am sure the Late Bobby Fischer would have appreciated this young kid.
Wake up at 6am for the last one at Adelaide.
Best wishes,
Saumil
Mumbai
Jan 19, 2008
Destiny pays tribute to Bobby Fischer, 1943-2008
Robert James Fischer, one of the greatest Chess Legends of all time has passed away. Just would like to post a blog in his honour. Besides, being a tactical genius in regular chess, he also formalized Random Chess.
I have written some comparisions about symmetry of skills in various different sports, in my book Dot Chess-The Cricket in Between. Cricket is asymmetric, since one side bowls and the other bats- and bowling and batting are radically different skills. Chess as such is symmetric (comparing pieces to players), and the way the pieces are maneuvered are same for White or Black, though White starts and gets a partial lead in tempo. Chess players, in fact have to introduce imbalance in the positions, so that favorable activity which can lead to advanatges or an initiative can be given a chance.
In Fischer Random Chess, chess pieces are shuffled in the back rank of White and then pieces are mirrored for Black- to maintain symmetry but to achieve a board which has a different strating line-up in each game. Bobby Fischer pioneered this format- to overcome the memorizing of openings and excessive theory that developed on account of the starting line up of pieces being fixed in conventional or 'old' chess (The King, Queen, rooks, knights and bishops have the same 'home' square in conventional chess in every game- not so in Fischer Random or Shuffle chess).
Unfortunately, the genius had an imbalanced and asymmetric journey in both phases of his life- in his glory days of chess and then later when he lead a strange life- always amidst controversies beyond chess. It is said that he only had one interest- to play chess and excel at it. For sure, within the realms of the 64-squares of the chess board - he was a fascinating genius and regarded as one the greatest ever by chess analysts and players. Was it then his fate that he did not reach the age of 65?
Perhaps Destiny has paid her tribute to the genius by devoting a chess square to each year of his life.
Peace be with him.
Saumil
Mumbai
I have written some comparisions about symmetry of skills in various different sports, in my book Dot Chess-The Cricket in Between. Cricket is asymmetric, since one side bowls and the other bats- and bowling and batting are radically different skills. Chess as such is symmetric (comparing pieces to players), and the way the pieces are maneuvered are same for White or Black, though White starts and gets a partial lead in tempo. Chess players, in fact have to introduce imbalance in the positions, so that favorable activity which can lead to advanatges or an initiative can be given a chance.
In Fischer Random Chess, chess pieces are shuffled in the back rank of White and then pieces are mirrored for Black- to maintain symmetry but to achieve a board which has a different strating line-up in each game. Bobby Fischer pioneered this format- to overcome the memorizing of openings and excessive theory that developed on account of the starting line up of pieces being fixed in conventional or 'old' chess (The King, Queen, rooks, knights and bishops have the same 'home' square in conventional chess in every game- not so in Fischer Random or Shuffle chess).
Unfortunately, the genius had an imbalanced and asymmetric journey in both phases of his life- in his glory days of chess and then later when he lead a strange life- always amidst controversies beyond chess. It is said that he only had one interest- to play chess and excel at it. For sure, within the realms of the 64-squares of the chess board - he was a fascinating genius and regarded as one the greatest ever by chess analysts and players. Was it then his fate that he did not reach the age of 65?
Perhaps Destiny has paid her tribute to the genius by devoting a chess square to each year of his life.
Peace be with him.
Saumil
Mumbai
Jan 15, 2008
Pacy Perth Preview- Australia v India 3rd Cricket Test
After the Sydney saga which went beyond cricket, we can finally look forward to Perth tomorrow- and hopefully the interest will be about cricket.
Everyone is talking about the pace and bounce of Perth. Most current Indian team members have not played a Test here (except Tendulkar), so it sure will be a test with Aussies expected to bowl with 4 seamers.
There are some interesting prospects though:
1. Just as Indians are not familiar with this sort of surface, Aussies aren't familiar facing 2 spinners (hopefully Harbhajan will play, as the rest of the pacers do not look threatening, especially since Zaheer Khan is out of the series).
2. Perhaps Harbhajan can be a stock bowler and Kumble can be seen as a third quick bowler- which as a legspinner he is. It will be interesting to see the length Kumble bowls and the pace. Likewise for Harbhajan, he may bowl fuller and vary his trajectory to exploit the bounce? So far in this series Kumble has made the bowlers bowl quite a disciplned length- not allowing too many horizontal bat shots.
3. Ganguly may be more than handy as well. Also, hopefully Tendulkar, Sehwag can bowl the slower stuff with an idea of altering the tempo of the game- as there is some mention about the wind. Apparently, Bedi has taken 10 wickets in a match here, although Warne has not gotten big hauls (which is perhaps on account of the efficiency of the Aussie pacers).
3. Indians did handle bounce well in the Test series last year in South Africa- as defensively the ball just flies over the stumps (in ODIs where run rate is key, such tracks are not fun for Indians, as seen in South Africa again last year).
So who will open the batting tomorrow for India? After 30 years this question lingers on...
Happy Sankrant (Kite Flying Festival)
Saumil
Mumbai, 15th Jan 2008
Everyone is talking about the pace and bounce of Perth. Most current Indian team members have not played a Test here (except Tendulkar), so it sure will be a test with Aussies expected to bowl with 4 seamers.
There are some interesting prospects though:
1. Just as Indians are not familiar with this sort of surface, Aussies aren't familiar facing 2 spinners (hopefully Harbhajan will play, as the rest of the pacers do not look threatening, especially since Zaheer Khan is out of the series).
2. Perhaps Harbhajan can be a stock bowler and Kumble can be seen as a third quick bowler- which as a legspinner he is. It will be interesting to see the length Kumble bowls and the pace. Likewise for Harbhajan, he may bowl fuller and vary his trajectory to exploit the bounce? So far in this series Kumble has made the bowlers bowl quite a disciplned length- not allowing too many horizontal bat shots.
3. Ganguly may be more than handy as well. Also, hopefully Tendulkar, Sehwag can bowl the slower stuff with an idea of altering the tempo of the game- as there is some mention about the wind. Apparently, Bedi has taken 10 wickets in a match here, although Warne has not gotten big hauls (which is perhaps on account of the efficiency of the Aussie pacers).
3. Indians did handle bounce well in the Test series last year in South Africa- as defensively the ball just flies over the stumps (in ODIs where run rate is key, such tracks are not fun for Indians, as seen in South Africa again last year).
So who will open the batting tomorrow for India? After 30 years this question lingers on...
Happy Sankrant (Kite Flying Festival)
Saumil
Mumbai, 15th Jan 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
