More »
Showing posts with label Australia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australia. Show all posts
Aussie media could pull out of the Dharamsala Test if Virat Kohli does not play.
The Aussie
media has come into its own in the ongoing Test series with India. Mostly
questioning Indian captain, Virat Kohli questioning of Australian captain,
Steven Smith, looking for answers for a review from the dressing room.
The deep
hurt felt at seeing their captain caught with his nickers down, has only made
that country’s media more determined to catch the Indian skipper with his
nickers down. While Kohli has exposed some skin, mostly his shoulders in a
sleeveless, he has refused to take his nickers off in front of the Aussie
media.
Not that
the Aussies haven’t tried their best. So consumed they have been of their
love-hate relationship with Kohli, that cricket updates and scorecards have
been substituted with Kohli updates and their unsettled scores with the Indian
skipper. One newspaper, in the know of on-field occurrences, stated the final unsettled
scores for the series as: Kohli 0.046, Aussie media 1, an underarm jab
referring to Kohli’s 46 runs in five innings in the series. Another such
newspaper went to the extent of stating that Kohli had picked his nose and then
shaken hands with the Aussie media manager. Kohli refuted this claim in a post-match
conference, denying that he would stoop so low as to shake hands with the
Aussie media manager. As for picking his nose, he said, it was a personal
matter and didn’t just like to pick on Aussie cricketers.
Another
newspaper likened Virat Kohli to Donald Trump. This led to the unconditional
support of the American President for the Indian captain although condemning the
Aussie paper as, “Fake news”. He also said he liked Kohli as he liked Hindu.
But now it
turns out that Kohli’s shoulder could keep him out of the series; and with that
take away a shoulder to pry on for the Aussie media. There are serious doubts
whether they will cover the Test at all.
Farewell Richie Benaud, and your Marvelous commentary team
And so, Richie is gone, and it shook me up a lot more than I thought it would, more than when I first learned he was fighting skin cancer. So much so that, despite having lost almost all interest in cricket over the last few years and barely watching half a game this world cup, I woke up at 3 am this morning sweating, recalling how much I loved Boxing Day in the 90s. And how far I drifted from the game as it evolved, both inside the commentary box (ah, so regrettably) and outside.
Two decades ago, it was such a joy to watch a test series being hosted in Australia. The grounds always looked so pristine under azure skies. The quality of cricket was almost always top notch. And then there was the commentary, which just took the experience to another level. Perhaps it was the banter and camaraderie that came so naturally with working together for so long, perhaps it was how strikingly different and original each member was. But whatever it was, the Channel 9 commentary team of that era brought the game to life.
There was Bill Lawry of course, who could barely contain his exuberance. There was the mischievous Tony Grieg, always needling either one of his co-commentators or sections of the audience. There was Ian Chappell with his no nonsense and common sense approach, always trying to spot something seemingly insignificant and pointing out its technical importance. None of these three ever hesitated to call out one another if they believed a tall claim was being made, and they minced no words. But when they disagreed with Richie, there was always that little bit of extra respect.
Richie almost never chastised anyone, the one time he did not hide his disgust, (the underarm incident) people were so stunned that the video has endured to this day as the quintessential reaction of the age to the controversy. He stood by his convictions though, and a few years ago while the rest of the (new and not so admired) crew were tearing into Nathan Lyon, it was Richie who backed him up and compared his own stats to Nathan's after the same number of tests. As with most of his prescient observations, that faith he showed in Lyon was built on a solid understanding of the game drawn from both playing and observing at the highest levels.
They all had roles to play, and they played them perfectly. Lawry was the excited patriotic fan (who can forget his "Canary yellow??? That's Australian gold and don't you ******* forget it" to of course, none other than Tony), Grieg the brash antagonizer, Chappell the straight talker and Richie... well Richie just brought it all together with a pithy one liner. They agreed, they disagreed, they held completely different points of view, but all the while they kept the viewer engaged and enriched those few hours of the day. What shone through though, was their love and knowledge of the game. Several commentators since have tried emulating their style, individually and as a group. Yet I don't know if any will ever garner the affection this team did.
Sport commentary comes in all shapes and forms. For some sports, such as Snooker or Billiards it is perhaps not needed (the commentators do actually go silent during a break), while for others like Formula One, it is integral to the sport (just imagine watching a race without the commentary, the only audible sound being the engines). For the more fast paced sports, like boxing or football, the television commentator's role is hard to distinguish from a radio commentator's role, merely describing events as they happen, yet people adore their passion, they just love hearing that simple narrative. Cricket has always been a different beast, given that people have always referred to it as being more intellectually inclined, and the long pauses between play... between each ball, each over, each session, each day... It is only natural that television viewers demanded more of the men and women who would describe the game. Very few could ever have demanded more of Richie, as he succinctly captured the essence of a moment, or his team. Cricket, and especially cricket commentary, may never again have that charm.
Two decades ago, it was such a joy to watch a test series being hosted in Australia. The grounds always looked so pristine under azure skies. The quality of cricket was almost always top notch. And then there was the commentary, which just took the experience to another level. Perhaps it was the banter and camaraderie that came so naturally with working together for so long, perhaps it was how strikingly different and original each member was. But whatever it was, the Channel 9 commentary team of that era brought the game to life.
There was Bill Lawry of course, who could barely contain his exuberance. There was the mischievous Tony Grieg, always needling either one of his co-commentators or sections of the audience. There was Ian Chappell with his no nonsense and common sense approach, always trying to spot something seemingly insignificant and pointing out its technical importance. None of these three ever hesitated to call out one another if they believed a tall claim was being made, and they minced no words. But when they disagreed with Richie, there was always that little bit of extra respect.
Richie almost never chastised anyone, the one time he did not hide his disgust, (the underarm incident) people were so stunned that the video has endured to this day as the quintessential reaction of the age to the controversy. He stood by his convictions though, and a few years ago while the rest of the (new and not so admired) crew were tearing into Nathan Lyon, it was Richie who backed him up and compared his own stats to Nathan's after the same number of tests. As with most of his prescient observations, that faith he showed in Lyon was built on a solid understanding of the game drawn from both playing and observing at the highest levels.
They all had roles to play, and they played them perfectly. Lawry was the excited patriotic fan (who can forget his "Canary yellow??? That's Australian gold and don't you ******* forget it" to of course, none other than Tony), Grieg the brash antagonizer, Chappell the straight talker and Richie... well Richie just brought it all together with a pithy one liner. They agreed, they disagreed, they held completely different points of view, but all the while they kept the viewer engaged and enriched those few hours of the day. What shone through though, was their love and knowledge of the game. Several commentators since have tried emulating their style, individually and as a group. Yet I don't know if any will ever garner the affection this team did.
Sport commentary comes in all shapes and forms. For some sports, such as Snooker or Billiards it is perhaps not needed (the commentators do actually go silent during a break), while for others like Formula One, it is integral to the sport (just imagine watching a race without the commentary, the only audible sound being the engines). For the more fast paced sports, like boxing or football, the television commentator's role is hard to distinguish from a radio commentator's role, merely describing events as they happen, yet people adore their passion, they just love hearing that simple narrative. Cricket has always been a different beast, given that people have always referred to it as being more intellectually inclined, and the long pauses between play... between each ball, each over, each session, each day... It is only natural that television viewers demanded more of the men and women who would describe the game. Very few could ever have demanded more of Richie, as he succinctly captured the essence of a moment, or his team. Cricket, and especially cricket commentary, may never again have that charm.
Fickle Me This, Fickle Me That, Who's Afraid Of The Media's Crap?
Pardon the corny headline, it is at least in keeping with the low standards set by cricket's general newsmedia. Ricky Ponting struggles for a year and a bit, the press demands his head, he scores a hundred in vain during the World Cup quarterfinal and retains his batting position but loses the captaincy. Michael Clarke scored 151 against South Africa, an innings described by many as one of the best of the year. Australia were bowled out for 47, Clarke and his men are slaughtered by the press for being unable to bat with the necessary temperament. Australia win a thriller against South Africa to level the 2 match series, the press said Haddin, Ponting and Hussey had done enough to survive another day.
Australia lose to New Zealand at home, Clarke's captaincy is questioned, everyone thinks Ponting should call it a day. Australia win at the MCG, a match that was competitive for a while, the media still demands Ponting's head, Clarke's captaincy is reflected on as being better than Dhoni's, not much of a compliment considering the Indian skipper's leadership during the match. Clarke scores 329, Ponting scores a hundred, as does Hussey and suddenly everyone's glad Ponting has decided to stick around, and Clarke gets rich accolades for his brilliant captaincy.
While the flip-flops are typical of media - no less than Gideon Haigh, whom many accord the title of the best contemporary writer in the sport because of his commanding vocabulary and presumptuous and often misinformed opinion, has had to eat humble pie after yet another of his tiring pieces on T20's included that wonderful question about whether David Warner would ever bat more than 60 balls in his career - that has devolved from stating the facts to jingoistic misinformed opinion pieces, its how they misuse the responsibility handed to them and the privilege of freedom accorded to them that disappoints. The media heavily influences readers who are unable to make their own minds on the state of affairs either because they don't have access to information or because they trust a paper that echoes views they want to hear. Which is what news media has become, rather sadly even in cricket.
There is always an agenda behind a piece, sometimes paid for, and almost always influenced by how many eyeballs can be brought to glance at the myriad of ads strategically placed near the provocative headlines. Cricinfo has often used inflammatory headlines simply to spark a controversy for what is a poorly written piece about nothing in particular. Along with sections of the British and Australian press, they have successfully pulled wool over the blinkered eyes of the majority of cricket's followers into believing the BCCI's sole purpose for existence is greed and the eventual destruction of cricket. Rarely are there any articles about the BCCI's many development projects, some of which are quite admirable. The BCCI of course don't help matters by banning some groups from attending matches and refusing to promote their own successful endeavours sufficiently.
Take the DRS for instance. The BCCI's stand isn't that they don't want the DRS, but rather that the technology behind it isn't foolproof, and until it is there is hardly any point in using it to influence decisions wherein it might only add to further controversy, as was quite evident during India's tour of England. Most people who have bothered looking at the facts agree that this is a sensible outlook. Yet there are people who leave comments such as "Why does India have a right to overrule Cricket Australia's use of the DRS" primarily because the piss-poor variety of journalists like Malcolm Conn mislead people with statements proclaiming the BCCI directly denies bowlers the ability to appeal. Not too surprisingly, -and whether they see it or not, its what they choose to write based on their audience's mood at the moment- Conn and the like have led the way with adulations over Clarke's captaincy, which not too long ago they questioned.
Clarke has benefited from having a good set of bowlers who've done well at home against a side that has for the most part had a perennial weakness against quick bowlers on seaming wickets. His captaincy against tailenders was as bad as Dhoni's in recent times, and when the game has drifted away from him he looks as lost as his predecessor, who was also falsely proclaimed as a great captain based on his stock of players. Clarke plays it up of course, his decision to declare while admirable is a touch nauseous, and reminds of his decision to dump Lara Bingle when it appeared *her* character might have cost him the captaincy [this criteria in picking a skipper is a topic for another day, Warne , Ponting etc etc...]. But the media is blind to all of this at the moment, the flavor of the moment is Michael - benevolent pup - Clarke, and so logical discourse takes a back seat.
Move over to the Indian media, which swings with more regularity than a pendulum. The usual scapegoat, VVS Laxman, finds that he is about to be axed in the country that he has his best record against. Laxman has often been treated unfairly by the Board, more often by the media, but he doesn't do his case too much good by remaining among the slackest of fielders and runners in the game. That isn't what he is being picked on for, its whether he should be staying in a team which should look towards rebuilding. Indian cricket's second golden boy, Rahul Dravid, cannot be touched of course, despite looking all at sea since Tendulkar's arrival at the crease in the first innings of the tour. This is because Dravid was the only batsman to do well in England. After 3-4 miserable years where he relied on scoring against weak attacks on flat tracks to retain his position in the team.
One might ask, if Laxman should be axed - as he probably deserves to be based on his recent overseas record - in keeping with blooding the next generation, why not Dravid. Indeed, why not Dravid 2 years ago when he relied on inside edges to score the bulk of his runs. Exactly what did Indian cricket gain from Rahul's recent exploits in England? We lost by the most embarrassing of margins anyway, didn't we? And why did he insist on playing on after the tour, nearing the ripe old age of 39? One paper says Dravid and Laxman will probably decide on their own to retire rather than leave it to the selectors - which is allegedly their right for their great contributions to Indian cricket - but going by their decisions over the last few years its pretty hard to see that happening, right?
Why were these players, including Sachin, touring Bangladesh, we all asked these questions at the time and its time to ask them again. If the seniors don't take a back seat and let the selectors gracefully blood the next generation, then after a tour like this one they are culpable on two counts - overstaying their welcome and foiling the future. These questions were somehow stowed away by the media after the English debacle, when they chose to pick on the scheduling since it was all the rage back then to ape the British fixation with the IPL's devious influence on the sport.
Ah, the future. And here we see the circus coming full circle. The greats are venerated and paid homage to just as overrated film stars in the country buy undue hype. So to the hype accorded to "the next best thing... well at least for the moment." Currently, on the back of glorious innings on flat tracks in the Ranji trophy, the boy who seems to exude so much talent that for a minute you might ignore the accompanying Mumbai-biased sycophancy, Rohit Sharma has apparently earned his spot in the team. Rohit has earned his spot in the ODI team almost as many times as Yuvraj has in tests, and has disappointed just as many but the trigger happy media searching for a hero are convinced this time will be different, like last time.
If he does well, the poor chap - just look at Kohli who did well in 2011 and now has irked just about everyone after two matches in which his seniors have played with far greater trepidation and irresponsibility - can hope for a year's worth of accolades before being consigned to obscurity like Mukund, Das, Ramesh, Vijay, hell even WV Raman and the plethora of next best things of yesteryear. If he does great, he becomes the next Laxman. And as he rides this journey, the crests and troughs amplified by the irresponsible sensationalist tabloid rubbish masquerading as journalism, he will at times loathe his fans and the media and scoff at their influence over each other and himself.
Australia lose to New Zealand at home, Clarke's captaincy is questioned, everyone thinks Ponting should call it a day. Australia win at the MCG, a match that was competitive for a while, the media still demands Ponting's head, Clarke's captaincy is reflected on as being better than Dhoni's, not much of a compliment considering the Indian skipper's leadership during the match. Clarke scores 329, Ponting scores a hundred, as does Hussey and suddenly everyone's glad Ponting has decided to stick around, and Clarke gets rich accolades for his brilliant captaincy.
While the flip-flops are typical of media - no less than Gideon Haigh, whom many accord the title of the best contemporary writer in the sport because of his commanding vocabulary and presumptuous and often misinformed opinion, has had to eat humble pie after yet another of his tiring pieces on T20's included that wonderful question about whether David Warner would ever bat more than 60 balls in his career - that has devolved from stating the facts to jingoistic misinformed opinion pieces, its how they misuse the responsibility handed to them and the privilege of freedom accorded to them that disappoints. The media heavily influences readers who are unable to make their own minds on the state of affairs either because they don't have access to information or because they trust a paper that echoes views they want to hear. Which is what news media has become, rather sadly even in cricket.
There is always an agenda behind a piece, sometimes paid for, and almost always influenced by how many eyeballs can be brought to glance at the myriad of ads strategically placed near the provocative headlines. Cricinfo has often used inflammatory headlines simply to spark a controversy for what is a poorly written piece about nothing in particular. Along with sections of the British and Australian press, they have successfully pulled wool over the blinkered eyes of the majority of cricket's followers into believing the BCCI's sole purpose for existence is greed and the eventual destruction of cricket. Rarely are there any articles about the BCCI's many development projects, some of which are quite admirable. The BCCI of course don't help matters by banning some groups from attending matches and refusing to promote their own successful endeavours sufficiently.
Take the DRS for instance. The BCCI's stand isn't that they don't want the DRS, but rather that the technology behind it isn't foolproof, and until it is there is hardly any point in using it to influence decisions wherein it might only add to further controversy, as was quite evident during India's tour of England. Most people who have bothered looking at the facts agree that this is a sensible outlook. Yet there are people who leave comments such as "Why does India have a right to overrule Cricket Australia's use of the DRS" primarily because the piss-poor variety of journalists like Malcolm Conn mislead people with statements proclaiming the BCCI directly denies bowlers the ability to appeal. Not too surprisingly, -and whether they see it or not, its what they choose to write based on their audience's mood at the moment- Conn and the like have led the way with adulations over Clarke's captaincy, which not too long ago they questioned.
Clarke has benefited from having a good set of bowlers who've done well at home against a side that has for the most part had a perennial weakness against quick bowlers on seaming wickets. His captaincy against tailenders was as bad as Dhoni's in recent times, and when the game has drifted away from him he looks as lost as his predecessor, who was also falsely proclaimed as a great captain based on his stock of players. Clarke plays it up of course, his decision to declare while admirable is a touch nauseous, and reminds of his decision to dump Lara Bingle when it appeared *her* character might have cost him the captaincy [this criteria in picking a skipper is a topic for another day, Warne , Ponting etc etc...]. But the media is blind to all of this at the moment, the flavor of the moment is Michael - benevolent pup - Clarke, and so logical discourse takes a back seat.
Move over to the Indian media, which swings with more regularity than a pendulum. The usual scapegoat, VVS Laxman, finds that he is about to be axed in the country that he has his best record against. Laxman has often been treated unfairly by the Board, more often by the media, but he doesn't do his case too much good by remaining among the slackest of fielders and runners in the game. That isn't what he is being picked on for, its whether he should be staying in a team which should look towards rebuilding. Indian cricket's second golden boy, Rahul Dravid, cannot be touched of course, despite looking all at sea since Tendulkar's arrival at the crease in the first innings of the tour. This is because Dravid was the only batsman to do well in England. After 3-4 miserable years where he relied on scoring against weak attacks on flat tracks to retain his position in the team.
One might ask, if Laxman should be axed - as he probably deserves to be based on his recent overseas record - in keeping with blooding the next generation, why not Dravid. Indeed, why not Dravid 2 years ago when he relied on inside edges to score the bulk of his runs. Exactly what did Indian cricket gain from Rahul's recent exploits in England? We lost by the most embarrassing of margins anyway, didn't we? And why did he insist on playing on after the tour, nearing the ripe old age of 39? One paper says Dravid and Laxman will probably decide on their own to retire rather than leave it to the selectors - which is allegedly their right for their great contributions to Indian cricket - but going by their decisions over the last few years its pretty hard to see that happening, right?
Why were these players, including Sachin, touring Bangladesh, we all asked these questions at the time and its time to ask them again. If the seniors don't take a back seat and let the selectors gracefully blood the next generation, then after a tour like this one they are culpable on two counts - overstaying their welcome and foiling the future. These questions were somehow stowed away by the media after the English debacle, when they chose to pick on the scheduling since it was all the rage back then to ape the British fixation with the IPL's devious influence on the sport.
Ah, the future. And here we see the circus coming full circle. The greats are venerated and paid homage to just as overrated film stars in the country buy undue hype. So to the hype accorded to "the next best thing... well at least for the moment." Currently, on the back of glorious innings on flat tracks in the Ranji trophy, the boy who seems to exude so much talent that for a minute you might ignore the accompanying Mumbai-biased sycophancy, Rohit Sharma has apparently earned his spot in the team. Rohit has earned his spot in the ODI team almost as many times as Yuvraj has in tests, and has disappointed just as many but the trigger happy media searching for a hero are convinced this time will be different, like last time.
If he does well, the poor chap - just look at Kohli who did well in 2011 and now has irked just about everyone after two matches in which his seniors have played with far greater trepidation and irresponsibility - can hope for a year's worth of accolades before being consigned to obscurity like Mukund, Das, Ramesh, Vijay, hell even WV Raman and the plethora of next best things of yesteryear. If he does great, he becomes the next Laxman. And as he rides this journey, the crests and troughs amplified by the irresponsible sensationalist tabloid rubbish masquerading as journalism, he will at times loathe his fans and the media and scoff at their influence over each other and himself.
The curious case of Beer
Date - 9th Dec 2010
Setting - Aussies selector meeting
Minutes:
Selector 1 - Mate, we are gathered here to mourn the untimely demise of Aus...
Selector 2 (interrupting) - Not yet. We still have 3 more to go. However, considering our form, you may need to wait just 1 more test (winks)..
Selector 1 - The player form or ours (winks back)
Guru G - Stop counting chickens before they hatch. We need to discover the diamond in our boys.
Selector 1 - I told you before, oh fingered one, lay off the big words. No cameras here.
Note - The selectors have no idea they are being Radiaed. (For international viewers - Assanged)
Selector 1 - Right, whom do we throw out?
Selector 2 - Bollie. I am worried he will tear out his hair after seeing the crap performance of his mates. We shall get back Mitch. He has already suffered permanent brain damage what with his radar, mum, chick and excess tattoos. Will not make a difference to him.
Selector 1 - Xavier too needs to go. He has had his chance and played his role perfectly.
Selector 2 - He did get KP. Though it would have been good if he had got him some 180 runs before.
Selector 1 - Whom do we now give a chance?
Selector 2 - Hauritz?
Selector 1 - White does not fancy bowling spin much anymore. And he ain't left arm slow.
Selector 2 - Hauritz?
Selector 1 - Kreztja? I cannot even pronounce his name. And he ain't left arm slow.
Selector 2 - Hauritz?
Selector 1 - Grimmett - He is dead. Even then, he ain't left arm slow.
Selector 2 - Hauritz?
Guru G - We need to think beyond left armers. I say let us bring on Trevor...
Selector 1 - Underarm is banned mate.
Guru G - Ohh sorry
Selector 2 - Hauritz? HAURITZ - Nathan "motherf***ing Hauritz??
Selector - It is decided then. There ain't any spinner of note remaining in Australia. We need to bring back Warne.
Guru G - Warney shall play only when he is allowed to wear pansy blue shit, bowl only 4 overs a day, get a chance to flirt with cheerleaders and CA chiefs and apply Moove to his creaking joints and muscles.
Selector 1 - We have a problem.
Selector 2 - H.....never mind.
Guru G - This is too much. I need a beer.
Selector 1 - Great thinking Guru G. Get me Beer.
Selector 2 - (shoots himself).
Warne offers Hauritz help
The great leg spinning captain of the suspended Rajasthan Royals, Shane Warne, has offered to help the beleagured Australian test spinner Nathan Hauritz. Warne is of the opinion that, if Hauritz is gonna be such a shite offspinner where he starts the ball waaay outside the offstump and rarely attack the stumps, he might as well become a legspinner. At least he can blame it on the fact that being a wrist spinner is an extremely hard task and the ball doesn't come out all right, all the time.
The acute eyes of Warne doesn't miss anything. He said in an interview on why he prefers Hauritz over Steve Smith. "Steve Smith is still a long way short of being Australia's No.1 Test spinner" and the fact that Smith is actually a pig. The shrewd warne figured out pigs can't bowl leg spin. (Although, all the women that Warne has bedded would disagree.)
He further added on the diffident mentality of the current Australian team. "The best way to learn to win is have a mindset where you have to attack. You have to be prepared to lose.. to win..". He might as well be talking about his upcoming poker tournament in Vegas or Monaco or London or Mars, who really knows!
When asked why he uses LOL so much while he tweets, Warne said, "Mate, I have made a tape of recent Australia matches where Punter's captaincy is in full flow. And the darned tape is stuck on repeat!"
Thankful for what?
In another typical fluff piece on Cricinfo, Siddharth Monga writes ( and I quote)
This wasn't obviously all that Australia brought to Mohali, but it summed up their attitude over the last five days. They might not be the same dominating side of the last decade, but they are going to make it difficult for sides to beat them. They just won't go away, and whenever there is a single stump visible for a Test win, they will go for it. That played its part in making this Test great. That is what Australia need to be thanked for.Which is pretty much a continuation of the narrative that the "Cricketers in the baggy green dont give you an inch".
To which I say, bollocks!
Here are the match facts
- India are notoriously slow starters, as evidenced by their performance in the first test of a series for as long as I can remember and highlighted by Ricky Ponting in the pre-match sound bytes.
- Australia won the toss and were 154/1 in 41 overs on Day 1. And despite the middle order wobble, they held the upper hand thanks to a late order fight back that saw them go from 275/6 to 428 all out.
- Remember too that in the first essay, India's bowling was down to 3 men, thanks to Ishant's injury. Factor in Harbhajan's niggles and the bowling attack was effectively Two and a Half Men!!
- Remember too that because of VVS Laxman's back spasms, India's batting was effectively 10 men. And it was not as if the Australians were blindsided by this revelation. Nor were they oblivious to the advantage this gave them.
- After securing a 23 run lead ( and the psychological gains that come from this), the Australians were off to a flyer in their second essay. The first wicket fell at 81 ( reached in 13 overs at over 6 runs/over).
- By the time the third wicket fell, they were sitting pretty at 151 with an overall lead of 174.This, on a day 4 wicket.
- Fall of wickets1-0 (Gambhir, 0.4 ov), 2-31 (Dravid, 7.4 ov), 3-48 (Sehwag, 11.5 ov), 4-48 (Raina, 13.2 ov), 5-76 (Khan, 23.5 ov), 6-119 (Tendulkar, 29.6 ov), 7-122 (Dhoni, 33.2 ov), 8-124 (Harbhajan Singh, 33.4 ov),
Starting from not consolidating the advantage of winning the toss to not being able to drive home the advantage to not being able to prise out the last two Indian wickets despite having 92 runs to play with, this Australian team did what no other Australian team from the golden era of the Border Gavaskar Trophy would have done, namely keep the opposition in the contest.
In this test, the Australians did not concede inches, they were handing over yards. On a platter. And for that reason alone, this nonsense about "They just won't go away" needs to end. Because they were never there to begin with.
The Ponting - Zaheer saga, Part 1
in the Ponting - Zaheer Saga, what you think is not what they think. Here is the what and how:
two days before the Mohali test, at a 5 star hotel somewhere in Mohali
The Aussies are all in a room, drawing strategies to bring the downfall of India and to take home the Border-Gavaskar Meme. Everyone seems to be serious. Suddenly, Ponting takes off his earphones mumbling something to the tune of "who put Radiohead in my iPod?"
Then, convinced that everyone had stopped thinking and talking about the Indians, he proclaimed: "this is your skipper speaking. North, look here! Your concentration levels are so low I would not be surprised if even if someone as bad as Zaheer Khan bowled you while you were shouldering arms. Ok, where was I. Yes, we play Ind... Dougy!!! stop that singing. No wait, as a punishment you have to sing it loud so that everyone can listen and make fun of you. On my count. 3....2...1...go..."
Bollinger, not at all ashamed, stuffs a $100 bill which he had been playing with into his pocket and starts singing:
I like IPL 'cos it is good
I love IPL because I should
if there was a song to sing
I sing it and IPL you bring
I think IPL when I am sad
''cause the IPL it makes me glad
now there's nothing left to say
so lets go get auctioned...
to this tune.
Ponting gets more upset and starts spitting on his palm. "See, this is what becomes of people who just care about money. Look at Pup, look at me. We have the power of restraint, a willingness to just represent our beloved nation." Pup smiles in servitude. Ponting continues, "Don't all of you think that we should not sell ourselves like Bollinger has?"
Everyone else, apart from Pup, responds in chorus:
IPL is good
IPL is good
IPL is good
... and Stuff
IPL is good
IPL is good
IPL is good
let's go think some IPL
to be continued...
find ankit here
Cricket's Greatest Betrayal
Dramatic, no? But allow me to make my case for how accurate that title is.
There were so many, simply unbelievably so many people who made this tour of England possible. And they all did it for one thing: they love cricket and they know how much cricket needs Pakistan. And you wouldn't be too far off the mark if you said Pakistan needs cricket just as much.
People are often quick to point out how many times Australia have refused to tour Pakistan. What they fail to also add is that, in years when Pakistan have hardly had any international cricket, they've played a lot against Australia, and plenty of those matches have been at neutral venues. Whether that was in the scorching, unforgiving heat in the UAE (both tests and ODIs), the oppressive humidity on slow pitches in Sri Lanka or in the most conducive of swing bowling conditions in England, Australia have not eschewed a responsibility to playing against Pakistan. And Pakistan needed those games, one might argue more than Australia did.
England gave Pakistan the opportunity to host matches on their turf against Australia, giving them the opportunity to entertain thousands of passionate fans in the British Isles while helping the PCB in the midst of their sternest financial crisis to date. The MCC went so far as to christen the two series as "The Spirit of Cricket", cognizant of the fact that Pakistan's tours of England in the past were marked by unsavory incidents and that the best way to help ensure this series went smoothly and benefited one and all, and particularly Pakistan, was to make the cricketers believe they had a greater responsibility to fair play. How utterly ironic and misplaced that theme was in the light of what has transpired.
The Pakistani people, starved of competitive international test cricket at home, facing hardship after hardship whether man-made or natural, willed their team on. They took heart, comfort and strength from the performances of gifted young men who were never expected to win too much, but excelled and excited everyone who loves the game. That delivery bowled by Amir to dismiss Mitchell Johnson was easily the best bowled this year. And despite the ragged and often comical fielding, the inadequate and inexperienced batting, the team won. And not once, but twice, written off before each match. For a nation of proud cricket crazy fans, there could have been fewer things that kept them going in such tough times.
All of these people were betrayed by those who gave in to temptation for a few dollars more. You might even say the ICC was betrayed since they also played a heavy role in facilitating this series, but as Straight Point argues, they are also culpable since their Anti-Corruption Unit seemed oblivious to what was going on when they should have been on high alert- young cricketers playing under a weak corrupt board, unsure of what might happen next to them, their careers, their families and their country were always going to be easy targets and the ACU had a responsibility to ensure they were given little opportunity to stray.
The players had a responsibility, they should have understood how dire the consequences of their actions were. The team, like the country, was in ruins and the future of the side was at stake. Already several veterans have been dismissed for their erratic and irrational behavior over the last couple of years. It seems like the team has been rebuilding since forever. And now everything that might have been achieved has been ruined. The game's future in the country is in doubt. People will lose faith.
The circus that is about to follow is so predictable that it would be hilarious if it were not so sad. There will be a commission created to find out what has gone wrong, there will be calls for blood and reform, there will be promises made that things will change and unscrupulous politicians will try to gain as much mileages as they can from these events. The media and ex-cricketers will demand someone who is distinguished and who has integrity take charge, but will they find such a candidate, one who is willing to work in an environment where at any moment a politician can demand and overrule any decision made? There will be some scapegoats made to ensure the best and most talented are allowed to continue, they will be painted as the scheming villains who fooled innocent and naive youngsters into bringing the game into disrepute for their (the scapegoats') sole benefit.
Perhaps ultimately it will be that these cricketers have betrayed themselves. Promising world class talents who should have rewritten record books will either end up not playing and achieving their potential or having to live with the taint of fixing and getting away with it. The game was betrayed this weekend, and betrayal brings anger. But if people are to emerge from this better than when they went into it, then anger needs to be pushed to the backseat and sensible decisions must be taken with just one aim, securing the future of the game. For we love cricket and we know how much cricket needs Pakistan. But things must not be allowed to continue as they have in the past. And if Pakistan can't change and cannot free itself from this corruption, then cricket must not change for it. We must keep trying to support Pakistani cricket and give them opportunities, but at the same time we must demand that they are willing to help themselves.
The Aussie Blog World Reacts to Elbowgate
Monkey1: I didnt see nothin'
(Monkey 1 preaches humanism and pretends to love all races, in general dispenses advice to others not to be divisive but ofcourse, does this by maintaining deathly silence on Aussie transgressions and proclaiming the offenders great fair cricketers when they score a century or achieve some statistical feat)
Monkey2: Didnt hear nothin'
(Monkey2, actually an aggregation of the typical ranting Aussie, who will safely throw "reverse racism" at anyone pointing out a genuine fault of their countrymen)
Monkey3: Wont say nuthin'
(Monkey3 has a great sense of humour, mostly not related to actual Cricket, and will milk such a scenario otherwise but again, deathly silence)
P.S: The reference is to Gandhi's monkeys. This should not be taken as a literal interpretation that I am calling Aussies monkeys :-). In case, monkey is offensive, I am willing to replace it with Bas**rd as I am told it is a great term of endearment among Aussies.
P.S 2: The references are to general prototypes. No living or dead person is alluded to ;-)
Bored Game: World T20 League Update
Finally there rain has stopped and the business end of the tournament has started after Bangladesh were upset by an unseeded Australia! Mahela Jayawardene is in sublime form with a low score of 81 after 3 matches and that motivates Jacques Kallis to keep scoring so that he can get the orange cap (Yes, he is still stuck in THAT mode) ! The Indians were undone by quality short pitch fast bowling AGAIN ( getting bored of this already). Kemar Roach and Jerome Taylor will be licking their lips to repeat what Fidel Edwards did @ Lords in 2009. The Aussie pace trio has been in top form and looks like they will win THIS as well unless someone stops them in the Semi-Finals at St.Lucia.
Things are hotting up in the Bored League as well with the usual suspects Ex-IBL Chief Mahek and Yours Truly in the Top 3. Mahek is at the top of the tree, followed by Technosiastic, who has no transfers left! We have Bored Members Purna, Achettup and Homer in 18th, 24th and 30th respectively Just one inspired pick from any of the top 5 will make sure they get into the top spot! Do make the BIG match players as your trumps as you never know when they will rise up to the occasion like Afridi did in the Semis and Finals of the previous WorldT20.
On a personal note, due to my crappy net connection and Cricinfo's error not to show the changes I made, 2 of my transfers were gobbled up when I was trying to fill my team up with English players and am paying for it BIG time now!
Aditya
Chairman and Commissioner
Bored Game : World T20 league
Just say NO!
In its quest to maintain India's No.1 Test ranking the BCCI has sent a proposal to Cricket Australia to convert the seven-match ODI series in October to two Tests and three ODIs. India had climbed to the top spot in 2009, after drubbing Sri Lanka 2-0 at home, and then retained the ranking by fighting back to level the two-Test series against South Africa in February.
--
Upon reading this, I had an "I Told You So" moment. And yet, there was a certain inevitability to this. Ever since the Test Match Nazis started carping from the sidelines that the BCCI is not interested in Test cricket, pointing to the 2009-10 season to emphasize their point, it was only a matter of time before the BCCI caved in.
First it was South Africa and the two test series. Now it is Australia.
Without dwelling too much into why a Two Test series is no series at all, I would like to take this opportunity to point out, once again, India's schedule starting December 2010 - 24 Tests between Dec 2010 and Mar 2012. 15 months 24 Tests and if that does not indicate that India is a serious Test playing nation, held hostage to the vagaries of the ICC FTP, then nothing else will.
Now, coming to the Australia series and why it is imperative for India to "kindly withdraw" its rather generous offer.
For starters, it is a two match series.
Secondly, what purpose does it serve India playing the third rank nation in the world in a 2 Test series? Its not going to make a huge difference to the points table unless we sweep, and there is always the danger that we might slip if we either draw or lose the series. Its not like playing Australia in a 2 Test series in India will have a huge bearing on our away tours to South Africa, England or Australia. In fact, the Champions League in South Africa will have a greater bearing on our Test performances there. So, other than keeping the Nazis at bay, how does an hastily announced Test series help us?
As far as Australia go, their itinerary over the next 6 months looks like this
5 ODIs versus England in England
2 Tests and 2 T20 versus Pakistan in England
7 ODIs versus India
3 ODIs and 1 T20 versus Sri Lanka
The Ashes
So, in the lead up to the Ashes, Australia have very little by way of competitive Test cricket. And if the 2 Test seres against Pakistan is discounted, Australia have no Test cricket under their belt since February 2010, when they played New Zealand away.
India offers them a trifecta
1. Playing the #1 Test nation in the world in their back yard and the hard fought cricket that guarantees.
2. The opportunity to move up the ICC rankings
3.The sham of a 2 test series and the deniability it brings
Win or lose in India, Australia stand to win. If they lose the series, "it was an away series", "it was against the #1 team in the world", "the pitches were doctored" and "A two test series proves nothing", "a hastily ordered series" and "The Ashes are the real deal". If they win , the confidence boost in the lead up to the Ashes coupled with a change in the rankings coupled with the bragging rights.
And in both cases, a good, intense workout in the lead up to the Ashes. Which is basically what the Australians need, more than anything else.
And there are additional benefits, as enunciated by Malcolm Conn
"Firstly, they will need to be played on pitches with reasonable pace and bounce because slow, low, turning pitches could prove counter-productive.
And the BCCI would need to wipe out the seven one-day matches Australia owes it even if the number was reduced to fit in two Tests."
Add to it the debt the BCCI will owe the CA for "acquiescing to their request" for a 2 test series.
So, for now, JUST SAY NO!
Shahid Afridi is an idiot!
Per Cricinfo
Afridi, leading Pakistan in the absence of Mohammad Yousuf, was caught by TV cameras apparently biting the ball on a couple of occasions. This was reported to the on-field umpires by the TV umpire and, after a chat with Afridi, the umpires changed the ball.Afridi was called into a hearing with the match referee Ranjan Madugalle immediately after the match. Madugalle said Afridi pleaded guilty to the charge, apologised and regretted his action.
And the reason Shahid Afridi is an idiot is not because he bit the ball. He is an idiot because he acquiesced to changing the ball after talking to the umpires. Had he not, there would have been no ban. And with no ban, there would have been nothing to keep the main stream and alternate medias aflame for two days after the incident.And the incident itself would be consigned to the dust bin.Or limited to the fading memories of the people who saw the incident, directly or otherwise.
Because there is precedent.And no, I am not talking Stuart Broad's naughty spikes or James Anderson's touch of love. Think back to Australia's tour of India in 2008
In terms of what transpired, there is very little to separate the two incidents. Except that in one case, the ball was changed after talking to the captain and in the other, it wasnt.
And in the meantime, the presiding deity of all things cricket had this to say
He should know.. It is the only plausible explanation for him bowling part timers when a test match, and the series, were at stake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
