How Kohli and Kumble should be blamed for India's defeat
Anil Kumble turned up for the job interview in bandages
After Under-19 team, Rahul Dravid to coach retired cricketers
May the four be with you
Even before Suresh Raina had faced a ball in the third Twenty20 against Australia, this tweet was sent:
Raina's first ball against leggies key
— Gaurav Sethi (@BoredCricket) January 31, 2016
In the recent ODI series against South Africa, Raina had
fallen to extravagant shots way too early in his innings against leg spinner,
Imran Tahir. Raina was dismissed by Tahir on the third and second deliveries he
faced for 3 and 0, on both occasions trying to hit out.Rain went on to play some fine angles behind the wicket. While one century and two fifties fell short, Raina’s 49 took India across the line.
Often because of his Test career, Raina appears to be a rookie. He made his ODI debut over 15 years back. He’s played over 220 games. His batting average may only be 35 but he strikes at nearly 94. Dhoni has often spoken of how Raina is one of the few players who can hit the big shot from the get go. Lately, Dhoni even defended Raina’s dismissals against Imran Tahir.
Dhoni has and continues to believe in Raina. In the Srinivasan era, this belief in Raina meant a confirmed ODI spot. Off late, not so hunky dory. After the defeat in Bangladesh, quite a few regulars, including Raina, were rested and Ajinkya Rahane was made captain for the Zimbabwe tour. After the series loss against South Africa, Raina was not picked for the one-day series against Australia.
Raina’s lack of one-day form though has not been confused with his value as a T20 player. By now you would’ve heard VVS Laxman wax ineloquent on Suresh Raina being the highest run scorer in the IPL.
That’s the least of it. His T20 international average and strike rate are nearly as high as his IPL numbers and he has a high percentage of not outs, so you can expect him to close matches. Raina adds value as a fielder (you don’t need VVS to tell you that) and will turn his arm round in Indian conditions. And by now you would know, Dhoni doesn’t want one dimensional cricketers but players who have an added skill, “like Raina like Yuvraj, who can bowl that one or two overs if need be”.
Yuvraj Singh’s international strike rate is 12 more than his domestic one – 144 to 132 – his international average is 5 more than his domestic one, 32 to 27. And you don’t need VVS or Dhoni to tell you what he’s won India. While Yuvraj has often fallen short of expectations for his IPL franchises, it has little bearing on the hopes he raises when playing for India.
So does India pick Yuvraj on a prayer? Or to tease his dad? Or to tease themselves? In the course of his first hit in the middle, it shifted from baffling to becoming, when dots added up, only to be cleaned out, with a flick for four and a smack for six.
Oh, Yuvi.
He bowled in all three games and dismissed Glenn Maxwell twice even before either bowler or batsman could settle in. Unlike the other left arm spinner, Ravindra Jadeja, who can crank it up to Kumblelike speeds, Yuvraj is slow, and the ball seems to reach the other end, almost belatedly.
So far it has all been about Jadeja’s bowling, the batting hasn’t been tested for a while - his highest score is 25, average less than 10, strike rate less than 90. Slated to bat after Hardik Pandya at eight, Jadeja’s batting wasn’t required in the series. In the IPL though, Jadeja can be a bully with the bat, recall his early days at Rajasthan Royals or that match when he laid siege on the Mumbai Indians? He scored 25 off 11 balls to undermine Sachin Tendulkar’s only T20 century.
It’s debatable whether Jadeja can still close games like Faulkner used to; what, these days even Faulkner can’t. Just as Yuvraj and Raina are batting allrounders to stretch it, Jadeja is very much a bowler first. The World Twenty20 on Indian tracks is a godsend for Jadeja. He could be one of the players of the tournament with a Swisslike precision with his bowling, fielding off his own bowling (refer Watson caught and bowled in second T20), diving catches in the outfield (refer Lynn catch in third T20) and of course, do reference all those missile throws from the deepest boundary outposts.
From ‘rockstar’ to ‘sir’, Jadeja continues to evolve, and unlike most modern cricketers, he really does let his cricket and VVS speak for himself. Possibly, by the end of this World T20, Jadeja would earn himself another nickname.
Perhaps the most worrisome left handed batsman of the lot is Shikhar Dhawan. As an opener in 11 matches, he’s yet to score a half century. To his credit, the sample size of 11 matches is small and he did make his highest score, 42, in this series; he followed it with a whacking 29 off just 9 balls to set up the chase in real earnest. At his best, Dhawan is capable of homicidal batting, that too when the others seem to be failing collectively. As he’s often shown in the other formats, he can go through magical phases where he scores in clusters just like Virat Kohli and Rohit Sharma are doing now. If either or both Kohli and Sharma go through a run drought, he could be the man to bail India out on top. The team management has backed him through some lean patches, and it’s obvious, Dhawan is India’s first choice opener along with Sharma.
When India won the World Twenty20 in 2007 they had three left handed batsmen: Gautam Gambhir, Yuvraj Singh, Irfan Pathan. This time they have four.
To paraphrase Star Wars, “May the four be with you”.
Why VVS couldn't invite MSD
Sachin Tendulkar's worst nightmare
After his retirement
Why VVS Laxman decided to retire
Watch the first episode of THE WHITE BORED - why has India lost it
Produced by Yash Chawla, NDTV. Rambling by Bored Member NC.
Shot on location at The Bored Room, Yawn T Roads.
Fickle Me This, Fickle Me That, Who's Afraid Of The Media's Crap?
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.
To all those who want Laxman's head...
Has VVS Laxman retired from one day cricket?
VVS Laxman in yet another crisis.
VVS Laxman's Padma Shri Experience
VVS Laxman At Post Match Party
VVS Laxman in a fancy dress.
The Laxman Effect
who do you think I am, VVS Laxman???"
Bangalore Boredwaani: Shut Up And Listen
Laxman, an average cricketer.
I like averages. Batting averages, bowling averages, the whole lotta them averages, and while they don’t always single out your average Joe, it’s ok by me.
Over time I’ve noticed how Laxman’s average has climbed, from his 44 point something, up and up, and when I look at it now, it’s 47.40. That’s gotta ring to it; if he ends his career with that, Azhar can approach him, and open a gym called 47.40. Anyone know what Azhar’s gym was called?
When I look at his 47.40 average, I think of Laxman as a player with a 50+ average. How would that be, does he deserve a 50+ avg, what am I saying, who deserves an average, it’s calculated. Going by the crates of runs he’s scored in the last few years, he’s almost negated some of those early years, that were all about sexy 30s, and a cut to gully or point’s hands.
When I look at his 47.40 average, I think of Zaheer Abbas’ 44.79 average. Zaheer’s average surprised me, going by runs he scored against India, I expected his average to be 99.94
And now it hits me, while a 50+ average sounds swell for VVS, it doesn’t quite cut it for me – in my book of averages, he’s more a 71.47 player. Here’s to more not-outs. Here’s to our man, Laxman.
When 50>200
To be exact, when 73*>204*
More »













