IPL 3- Taming The Natural Strikers

Gilchrist, Yusuf Pathan and Sehwag can be pinned? What about Jayasuria?
It is interesting that a format such as T20, which is made for those who play the game in only one way- destructively- has pushed bowlers to work out lines to pin them and force false shots.

In T20, scoring runs at a strike rate of 170%+ is destructive. And if you cannot knock out Gilchrist, Pathan or Sehwag in this format, it can be all over in a short time. You usually cannot tame them- while they are there, as they will be smacking it all over the park. They may in the process get themselves out... that is what the conventional thinking is..

But look at what is happening- bowling teams are finding ways to keep tabs on these blokes:

1. Adam Gilchrist
Usually unstoppable as he can smack you off the backfoot and frontfoot- as he drives as well as he pulls. But Kumble has had a better equation with him, in the last few years, keeping it full. He will still hurt you, but you have more options to control him this way. Kumble got him out in Australia (07-08) sliding it full and wide, got him in the last IPL Finals (ok, it lasted two balls) by preventing his backfoot game.

Yesterday, Delhi leg spinners bowled googlies from around the leg stump. Fuller again. Although Gilichrist got out, he was nonetheless showing signs of getting to terms with this length. Instead of charging down the pitch (and missing) he swept to square leg and slog-swept over mid wicket. Eventually, a very full googly outside leg stump got him.

2. Virender Sehwag
Mumbai Indians have shown a way to control him. Left arm- over the wicket onto leg stump and right-arm over the wicket- angled in. His favorite off-side play is all but taken out. Deccan Chargers were quick to adopt this plan and were successful as Sehwag was forced to fabricate inside out to Ojha, from outside leg stump- and scooped it over mid-off. With Gambhir injured and the Delhi middle order not quite firing, there is that little bit extra burden of Sehwag to consider constructive options, even in T20.

Will he play a more managed innings or just follow his natural instincts on an unnatural line of play given to him?

3. Yusuf Pathan
After his maverick 100 hundred against Mumbai Indians, he is back on the radar this year, after a poor IPL last time in South Africa, on bouncier pitches. Anil Kumble (Bangalore Royal Challengers), had special plans for him- bringing on Steyn and Kallis to keep it short and bouncy, since Pathan hits most of his big shots off the front foot. It worked for Bangalore (even after being dropped once at mid-wicket) and it also worked for Kolkatta (though they eventually lost, getting a taste of their own plans).

4. Sanath Jayasuria?
Yet to fire in this IPL, although did well in the first game against Rajasthan and was a bit unlucky against Delhi to be out after clearing mid-off, to a wonderful catch. There are questions lurking over his abilities as compared to two years ago, but teams can ignore him at their own peril. You can see that he is not given width and teams have managed to strike the right length to him. Steyn was brilliant to get him lbw- pinned without footwork- perhaps a sign of slowing reflexes?

But with 14 games in the league-phase there will be a few unlucky teams where his full fury might unleash, especially since Tendulkar is in good form, and singles are a good option for Jayasuria to play himself in (With Gambhir & Graeme Smith injured, Sehwag and Pathan may not have that luxury though).

Bowlers are getting more organized in T20, and showing that batters will need to be selective and be ready to blend in constructive phases (2/3 overs!) if needed. If batters come with a predetermined destructive 'natural game' mindset, they will find it a bit unnatural- as bowlers are the ones who initiate play.

Saumil
Mumbai
22 March 2010

Why did India lose to Australia, ODI 2009?

In chess terms- it is actually about a major prophylactic option, which could have put India in strong positions but they missed.

India were expected to beat an Australian side which was depleted, at home. Like many others, I too felt that the Aussie bowling would not last out 7 games with too much reliance of seamers and only one spinner- Hauritz- who was good but not lethal for sure.

Yuvraj Singh Dot Chess!

India vs Australia, 3rd ODI 2009, New Delhi
Indian lead 2-1

The Kotla Pitch in New Delhi, as usual, was slow and low with an uneven bounce. Ponting won the toss and batted first. He mentioned 225 as a par score and it turned out that it was a fair call, as India had to work hard to get there.

Aussies get Tendulkar by One Shot Bowling!

The last time Tendulkar played Australia in a big series, was in the CB Series, Australia 2008, where India won 2-0 in the finals. Tendulkar scored a hundred and a ninety in both the games.

Today, after Australia posted 292, they knew that a run-a-ball effort, which Tendulkar is perhaps the only player in world cricket to achieve without risk taking would dent their chances.

The Probability of chasing 300 runs in ODIs, in a T20 era

Australia vs India 1-0,
1st ODI 2009 (7 match series)

Australia managed to put up a very strong 292 after batting first in Vadodara on a slowish surface. India dropped chances from Ponting and then Hussey made the most of their second batting powerplay towards the end of the innings.

Chasing about 300 runs in an ODI has never been easy. The bowling side knows that they have margins favoring them, and can implement plans accordingly.

Aussies Curb Instincts...Out-Dot New Zealand!

ICC Champions Trophy 2009 Finals

New Zealand won the toss and batted first. Australians who have a great reputation of exploiting the dot-ball dilemma of the first innings (when a team bats first, they do not know the target- so the price a batting team pays for dot balls is not known- yet some strike rate is needed being an ODI and wickets are key since some decent total is also needed). So some mix of caution and scoring is needed). How much? That is a dilemma.

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