Will The Other Match-Winners Please Stand Up?

Enough has been said about Sachin (my personal favorite) and his contributions to the team over the years and more importantly in the last few years! 

So, is this blog going to be about adding more adjectives to describe Sachin? No, I don’t think that is required as much has been said about him and not everybody would disagree to that. On the contrary, and considering everything of that holds well, this is an effort to make that much-needed wake-up call to the rest of the playing XI who have been passive observers till now. Now, the source of inspiration for this blog is an article by Dean Jones where he said that India doesn’t have the ammunition to win the world cup, and I tend to agree with whatever he said! So, how is what I am writing different than what he said? Well, actually it’s not! It’s probably the same thing, but coming from an Indian Fan! What difference is that going to make? Well, it’s for my readers to decide! ;)

Anyways, coming to the topic, some would argue that there are some of those match-winners of the likes of Sehwags, Gambhirs, Yuvrajs, Kohlis and Zaheers, and they have performed till date in this tournament! Well, when I see these performances till now, I see them as the ones that have been built up single-handedly and not much was done to capitalize on the starts that these performances gave to the team. This off-course is evident by the fact that we failed to put up huge totals on the board when we were in a position to (India-South Africa). India eventually lost the command over the game that they had in their hands right from ball #1. A bowler of the likes of Steyn, who got thrashed from Sehwag and Sachin, eventually got awarded the MoM, just because of the inept lower-order. This was more of a blow to the confidence of the team than just a loss of a league match.

Given the history of Indian Cricket, individual stand-out performances have always been an integral part of this saga. Individual milestones have been set, broken and set again and so on and so forth. But, is there anything more to these individual performances and can they take you where you desire to be? I believe no, and yes, the records of the past 28 years back my claim too! There have been Gangulys, Dravids, Azhars, Jadejas, Kumbles, Srinaths, Sidhus, etc. in the past as testimonials to this claim and what they have achieved over the years holds good again. Having said that, India managed to scrape through and win some tournaments, but that again is history (and I strongly believe history will repeat itself). The only convincing wins that I can remember of are the India-England series and India-New Zealand series where Team India managed a white-wash. However, of these, the only prominent one was the one against England, as the one against New Zealand didn’t have much bearing on the confidence of the Indian players as New Zealand had already managed taste the bottom half of the Leader Boards by losing to Bangladesh in another white-wash.

Citing Dean Jones’ statement that you need an entire unit to win a match and therefore a tournament, it becomes pretty obvious that you need more than 11 match-winners in the squad. Yes, I believe there should be at least 11 match-winners in the team to be a true winner. Cricket is all about a team-sport and everyone in the team has a role to play. I cannot resist myself from mentioning Sachin and describing his role in the team as that of Achilles in the army of Greeks (PERIOD). I don’t remember the last time Dhoni played a match-winning innings. He, no doubt, is a great leader. But unlike Darren Sammy, you are a great performer and your past performances are a testimony to that and therefore appeal us to ask more from you. We need that flamboyant Dhoni of yesteryears. Yuvraj, until today, wasn’t in the best of forms and I couldn’t recall a single convincing and confident shot of his. All these matches, apart from his not-so-important 50s, his bowling would always save the day for him. Yusuf Pathan is off-course a one-in-a-twenty-match wonder and Yusuf, please put up an important performance sooner than later before we run out of patience. Raina is waiting to grab that place. Bhajji, I believe is a great character on the field and I would always have him in the team to have that never-say-die spirit of his. Munaf, on the other hand, was never a match-winner and Nehra, probably won India just a couple of matches till date. We, however, do not expect Munaf and Nehra to win matches, but we do not expect you guys to throw matches at hand, either.

What Team India has failed to do is to capitalize on the starts provided. Starts provided by the top-order batsmen have been wasted by the middle and lower-order batsmen (India-South Africa), starts provided by the batsmen have been wasted by the bowlers (India-England, India-Bangladesh), starts provided by the bowlers have been again wasted by the batsmen (India-Ireland). It seems gone are the days when the team managed to make 80-90 odd runs in the slog overs. When you have 90 odd runs in the first 10 overs, you expect the team total to be around 400 whereas you cannot even manage a 300. It is high time that the members understand the need of the hour and apply themselves to suit the needs of the team. This aspect of the recent performances has disgusted me so much that I feel like reiterating it – Guys, Capitalize, please! Be a fighting unit and force to reckon with.

Every tom-dick-harry regards Sachin as his inspiration. But, do you respect your role-model’s contributions by throwing a match at hand? And then people blame Sachin for ………….. (Fill that in yourselves :P). Forget about winning the World Cup for him; just win a match in which he has put his heart and soul in.

Moreover, talking about the ammunition, a lot has been said about the team-squad selection. To summarize, for me, inclusion of Chawla and Munaf was a huge disappointment, places I was looking forward to be filled up with Pragyan Ojha and Ishant Sharma. Given the resources at Dhoni’s disposal, playing Chawla in most of the matches, where he performed disastrously, and expecting Ashwin and Raina to perform in their very first world-cup games, is asking for too much. Still, Ashwin and Raina (with his bowling and fielding) performed. It is time favorites are done away with and people who can actually contribute to team’s cause are given their due credit.

Signing off!

A disgusted die-hard Sachin fan! ;)

P.S. : I still want you guys to relate this post to that of Deano’s! ;)

Interference of Technology in Cricket!

I saw it coming, yes, I did!

The extent to which technology can play a part in the game of Cricket was always going to be questioned some day. So, is today the day? Yes, I believe. Why? Just because it was India who were at the receiving end of this episode? No! It is true that we never brag about anything in general unless it happens to us or rather affects us and cricket is no exception. Governed by probably the most influential sports body in the world, the BCCI, and given the backing of the insanely huge number of fans, any issue arising out of this country is bound to be heard. So, is this the only way you can get an idea cross ICC's mind? Probably no, but this is definitely the most convincing way that anyone could think of, for the powerful backing it has got. We all know, and accept the fact that BCCI commands respect more than ICC does. The IPL is just the simplest example that I can cite at this moment to substantiate my point and not many would disagree to this.

So, when was technology first associated with the game? 1992 it was, for referring Run-Outs to the Third Umpire, and this should not come as a surprise to many as to who was the first one to have been adjudicated Out in this fashion. Yes, our very own, Tendlya, it was!

Later, technology was then further involved in adjudicating LBWs. Although the technology used during this time was different than what we have now in place and therefore had different criteria to make decisions. However, here, it was the Umpires who made the calls to refer decisions to the TV Umpire and therefore involved no player participation. This didn't last for long for this was subdued by the fact that it took long time to make decisions and therefore was done away with. This also questioned the authority of the on-field Umpires, the point that I would discuss after a little while below.

            

            Just an year or a couple ago (pardon me for the dates), ICC came up with UDRS (Umpire Decision Review System), wherein the players could actually question on-field Umpires' decisions if they wished to. This was probably an effort to match Cricket's standards to that of Lawn Tennis', where the players could do the same. To summarize the events till date regarding UDRS, it was announced long back that UDRS was going to be used in the ICC ODI World Cup 2011. However, it was left to the boards to decide whether to involve use of UDRS in any of the bilateral or tri-series that they played, in an effort to get used to the system. As any one would expect, BCCI was never in favor of using UDRS in any of the series that India played. I could not actually understand the reason for this as to what were BCCI's apprehensions against UDRS. Having said that, it was just an incident waiting to happen. Had BCCI used UDRS in any of the earlier series, the issue that we witnessed in the match against England could have probably cropped up then and could have been corrected by now. This could have also led  UDRS to have scrapped away altogether.

So, what is the issue in involving technology? Well, I always thought of Cricket as a sport and not a matter of life and death. Once hailed as a Gentleman's game, the situation today is not at all about being gentle. Speaking of being a gentleman, the very first thing one would do as a gentleman is respect authority. No points for guessing the authorities in the game of Cricket - the On-field Umpires. Of course, these authorities could have misjudged decisions on many occasions, but then they were there for a reason - to adjudicate, chosen out of a lot of hundreds of other people, on the basis of their decision-making capabilities. On a lighter (not actually) note, on similar lines, do we have another Judge watching over the adjudications made by a Judge in a Court? Does the presiding judge refer any decisions? This may sound a vague analogy to many, but why do you need a third umpire in the first place when you have two of the best persons in the world for that role to do the job for you? The moment you involve a third person in making decisions, you question the abilities of the people in charge. So does this undermine the role of the on-field umpires? Yes, it does! Nobody in the world would like to ask a person as capable of him, to make the decisions for him. If you call this ego, so it be! A classic example to this is when recently the umpires started checking for No-Balls when the bowlers struck, to make sure they didn't give away wrong decisions. The standards of the game couldn't have stooped more and it was really disgusting to see the role of the umpires being diminished to mere counting of balls bowled in an over. Come on, why make two middle-aged men bear the heat all day when you can have simple counting machines do that for you?

Now, assuming the above said statements do not hold true, we bring in technology into the game for making decisions. If you have a fool proof system in place, you probably would have no qualms using the same. This holds true for adjudicating Run-Outs, where you have adequate information to give decisions. Let alone cases of close calls of touch-and-go or some situations where the benefit of doubt is given to the batsman, there is nothing that obstructs the use of this technology, i.e. there is no limitation on the technology in itself. But consider the limitations that were applicable to the technology that was being used in adjudicating the LBW decisions. Given criteria and some presumed conditions, this technology always looked for a favorable situation wherein a decision can be made without any hesitation. Of course, these conditions were formulated and set after a detailed study, but then can there be a better judge than a human eye? When some 30k odd people, the bowler and the batsman himself thought he was out, why do you still need technology to make that decision for you? I mean, why do you have a system in place, whose accuracy would be questioned every now and then. Why not have a fool-proof system first and then use it? This is definitely true in case of the Run-Out decisions and this is where the technology used for meting out LBW decisions fails.

Concluding this, firstly, respect the authorities on the ground, restore their power and secondly, use technology only if it is fool-proof. Until then, let the on-field umpires make the decisions for you and keep on finding innovative ideas and inventing technologies that could actually be put to great use.

My two cents!