All posts by n8rngtd.top

West Indies have created opportunities in both of their last two matches, but perhaps the memory of winning against a big team is too hazy for them to remember how to get over the line

Dileep Premachandran at the MA Chidambaram Stadium20-Mar-2011In May 2006, after India had edged a close game in Jamaica at the start of the one-day series, Greg Chappell, then the coach, suggested that West Indies had forgotten how to win. It prompted a furious response, and some West Indies players indicated that it had been the inspiration for a rousing comeback that sealed the series 4-1.Those were hardly glory days for West Indies – the subsequent Test series was lost in Kingston – but continuing poor results have meant that even the players have begun to acknowledge that the winning habit is a hazy memory.The task at Chepauk was not a straightforward run chase, especially with no Chris Gayle at the top of the order. But having done the hard work, with Devon Smith particularly impressive in crafting 81, the match was there to be won. When you are 154 for 2, needing less than a run a ball from the last 20 overs, it takes some pretty inept batting to throw it away.Darren Sammy is now as used to answering the collapse question as he is to losing tosses. “We created another opportunity, but couldn’t capitalise,” he said wearily. “It’s a good thing it didn’t happen in the knockout stage. If it had, we would be going home. It is worrying for us, but I back the calibre of players that we have.”Smith is exempt from criticism, bowled by a beautiful slower delivery from Zaheer Khan, but as India scented an opportunity, West Indies drilled holes instead of plugging leaks. Kieron Pollard, batting with a dislocated finger, went for the glory shot before he’d settled, and Sammy was run out in a comedy of errors involving him, Suresh Raina and Munaf Patel.Those left showed no inclination to take the game to the wire, and Ramnaresh Sarwan’s desperate swipe at Zaheer in the batting Powerplay summed up the collective lack of belief. There have been murmurs about the exclusion of Shivnarine Chanderpaul in the last two games, but it’s optimistic to see a man averaging 23.33 in the tournament, with a strike-rate of 58.82, as the panacea to batting ills.Ravi Rampaul’s five-wicket haul was one of the few positives from the game for West Indies•AFPSpare a thought for Ravi Rampaul. A benchwarmer until fever ruled Kemar Roach out, he produced a magnificent spell of bowling on a pitch that offered little more than some early bounce. Back in June 2009, when West Indies last beat a top-ranking nation [India, in Jamaica], Rampaul had taken 4 for 37. On Sunday, he topped that with 5 for 51.The reverse-swing special to get rid of a well-set Virat Kohli was eye-catching, as was the yorker with which he nailed Yusuf Pathan. It was yet another reminder to the line-and-length school of coaching that bending your back and bowling genuinely quick comes with its own rewards.Afterwards, Sammy admitted that Rampaul’s performance was one of the few things to take away from the defeat. “He has been on the bench, but he’s come in and grabbed his opportunity with both hands. That’s what you want from your team setup.”What you don’t want is to give dangerous batsmen too many reprieves. “We got success early on, and could have had Yuvraj [Singh] too,” Sammy said. “I was the culprit who dropped him both times.”Yuvraj had made just 9 and 13 when those chances went down, and his 122-run partnership with Kohli transformed the game. With Pakistan having played one of their best games of the tournament against Australia, such generosity is likely to be severely punished in Mirpur on Wednesday, when West Indies face them in the first quarter-final.Sammy is well aware of the threat. “Their captain [Shahid Afridi] has been performing, and some of the others have too. Hopefully, they’ll have their bad match against us, and we’ll bring our A game.”It’s been a long time since anyone saw it. But as they head to Bangladesh, the players could do worse than ask Richie Richardson, the manager, to tell them about 1996. Then too, West Indies qualified fourth out of their group and were given next to no chance against a rampant South Africa.A Brian Lara epic followed, and Sammy will hope that a fit-again Chris Gayle or a Darren Bravo can emulate him as a once-great side tries to rediscover the winning feeling.

Until 2006-07 batsmen managed scores of 300 once every four Ranji seasons. Since then all hell has broken loose

Sidharth Monga13-Nov-2011On Boxing Day five years ago, former India and Orissa batsman SS Das scored a triple-century. It took him 500 balls and close to 12 hours. It featured gradual acceleration. He scored 126 on the first day, and got to the triple on the second, leaving enough time to spare for his side to have a brief go at the Jammu & Kashmir batsmen. It was a tiring effort, as triple-centuries should be. Das didn’t bat in the second innings, an inconsequential affair once Orissa decided to not enforce the follow-on. His state association awarded him Rs 30,000.Not that Das is the reason for what has followed, but his innings – the first triple-century in the Ranji Trophy in more than six years – is to Ranji triples what the birth of Jesus Christ is to time: Before Das and After Das is a neat division. Before Das only 18 triples had been scored in more than 70 seasons; Ravindra Jadeja’s 314 last week was the ninth After Das, in less than five seasons, a development that alarms some and encourages others.Eleven of the 18 triples before Das’ were scored batting second; all nine after it have come batting first. The template earlier was to bowl the opposition out cheaply, secure first-innings points and then allow yourself long enough to bat to score those triple-centuries. Of the seven before-Das triples when batting first, two were scored in five-day games, which gave the batsmen plenty of time; only one of the nine corresponding triples after Das’ has come in a five-day match. Further, three of the pre-Das triples came in the late-eighties, when batting and bowling fetched teams a different set of points, which meant you didn’t necessary need to bowl sides out to win points. On the real flat tracks, teams hardly bothered at times.These statistics may not explain much but they are indicative of the change in attitude that has come about with the advent of one-day and later Twenty20 cricket. Batsmen are scoring runs quicker than ever, and can thus hit triples within such time as to allow their sides a decent go at first-innings points, if not an outright win, although Jadeja’s effort didn’t quite fir that pattern: the Cuttack track was so flat that Saurashtra couldn’t bowl Orissa out in 199 overs.Wasim Jaffer is the only batsman to have scored a triple-century each before and after Das’. He agrees there has been a change. Unlike his first, the second triple-century was scored batting first and took about 50 balls and 40 minutes fewer. “In the first one, I stayed on the field throughout the game,” Jaffer remembers. “I fielded two and a quarter days, and the rest of the time I batted. I was only 18 or 19, so physically it was not that challenging. Now probably if I had to do it again, I’ll have to push myself. It will test my stamina and fitness.” So now he scores quicker.Scoring fast cannot be done in a vacuum. There is a deeper disturbing trend three triple-centurions point to. “When I started there were quality spinners all around,” Jaffer says. “Murali Kartik at his best. We [Mumbai] had Nilesh Kulkarni, Sairaj Bahutule, Ramesh Powar came in. Sunil Subramaniam, Rahul Sanghvi, Sarandeep Singh. Harbhajan [Singh] was young then. Almost every team had a decent spinner, and they never gave away easy runs. To score 300 you have to bat against a lot of spin. I personally feel the quality of spin bowling in India is going down.”Sanjay Manjrekar, who scored his 377 against Venkatapathy Raju, Arshad Ayub and Kanwaljit Singh, has a similar tale to tell. “When I made my debut, against Haryana, there was Rajinder Goel, who had 750 wickets,” he says. “There was Sarkar Talwar, who had 350-400 wickets. Then I played Raghuram Bhat at that level. I played Gopal Sharma. They didn’t bowl a bad ball. That’s what stands out with these people. Gopal Sharma is the best offspinner I have faced, and Maninder Singh the best left-arm spinner. There was one match I played against Rajesh Chauhan. He bowled about 50 overs but didn’t give me one short ball. Not one short ball in that big hundred I got.”Aakash Chopra, who scored his triple for Rajasthan, is surprised because he noticed a different set of trends just before the triples started coming. “For two-three years fast bowlers did well because of SG Test balls,” he says. “Also, after T20 happened, I felt teams weren’t scoring that many runs, or at least the teams weren’t lasting that many overs.”He is convinced now that that change was temporary, and that spinners have become even more important. “The pitches haven’t changed much at all. On these pitches, beyond a point fast bowlers can’t do much. It’s up to the spinners to come out and take wickets. To entice you, to beat you in the flight. Especially when a batsman is in an aggressive mood and is going after the bowling – you get more chances of mishits.” The change of balls cannot be blamed because the pronounced seam on the SG ball remains a spinner’s friend, as Harbhajan Singh has often said.Then again it’s not a phenomenon restricted to the Ranji Trophy. More and faster triple-centuries are being scored in Test cricket too. It is a natural trickle-down from the highest levels, where the batsmen have lost all fear and bowlers have failed to catch up. As Manjrekar points out, “Sehwag and Gayle are scoring triples, not Dravid.” Sehwag and Gayle don’t score triples waiting for the bad balls – which the the spinners of old didn’t provide.”During our time 300 was all about patience,” Manjrekar says. “Now it is about scoring runs. During our time it was all about playing time. You needed the patience to grind. I could have played quicker, and scored whatever I did quicker, but that wasn’t the trend then.”Chopra, who himself scored an old-fashioned triple that went into the third day, is left marvelling. “Surprisingly, they are able to sustain that kind of strike rate for longer durations,” he says. “For a short while you can go and smash at 70-80-90 strike rate, but to do it over a day, a day and a half, I am sure that is difficult.”Peter Roebuck, the columnist and former Somerset captain, described a Test triple as being the work of a lifetime expressed in a single innings. It’s just that nowadays such voluminous work can be expressed in 322 balls, as Rohit Sharma did at the Brabourne Stadium in 2009-10. He once lasted just 294 balls in a whole Ranji season. In about a day now, he had faced more balls and scored nearly twice as many runs. Now the work of a lifetime doesn’t necessarily involve seeing off tough spells and pacing an innings by sessions and new balls.Wasim Jaffer: the only batsman to have scored a triple-century each before and after Das’•ESPNcricinfo LtdChopra wants more balance on this front. Despite all the respect he says he has for the sustenance of high strike rates over such long periods, he wants to see the bowlers strike back. The first round of this year’s Ranji Trophy has produced only one result out of 13 matches. That one result was made possible by Rohit’s quick 175.Mumbai’s captain, Jaffer, looks at the positives of quick scoring. “The younger generation is looking to score quickly, which is good for the game,” he says. “There are fewer dull draws. The game is going in the right direction, as long as you score runs quickly and give your bowlers time to take 20 wickets.”Jadeja’s triple, though, was eventually worthless for his team because it didn’t fetch them any points. It has earned him respect, though. “It’s great to see that they want to get the 300s in the era of T20,” Manjrekar says. “You can say quality of attack and all that, but you have got to admire the batsmen who have grown up in this T20 atmosphere but are still scoring big. My respect for Jadeja has grown. You can’t scoff at a 300. It is a special innings.”But “special” is a word that might need revisiting some time in the future. Three hundred used to be a special total in ODIs once upon a time. Now it’s merely par for the course. The Ranji triple-century hasn’t yet reached that level of abuse, and might never do. As with ODIs, though, should we brace ourselves for a quadruple, something the Ranji Trophy last saw in 1948-49?

Plays of the Day from the match between Cape Cobras and Trinidad & Tobago in Chennai

Nitin Sundar at the MA Chidambaram Stadium04-Oct-2011The overhead smash
With conventional strokes not fetching too many runs on the Chennai pitch, the batsmen had to attempt outrageous innovations to get the ball off the square. In the 11th over of the game, Kevon Cooper produced an offcutter that was clocked at 109 kph. It landed short of a length outside off and virtually stopped on an advancing Owais Shah before bouncing extra. Shah calmly altered his swing, brought the bat down from over the right shoulder and clubbed the ball into the off side. The shot was stopped in the covers, but Shah got marks for effort.The reluctant runner
For a moment in the 13th over, the cricket turned into a comedy show. Sunil Narine bowled a full ball on Shah’s pads, and he on-drove it wide of the bowler. Shah called Dane Vilas for a single but changed his mind when he saw Narine, one of the slower fielders in the generally sluggish T&T line-up, sprint after the ball with a series of short and furious steps that suggested a lot of intent. Having tagged the ball, though, Narine was reluctant to put in the slide, and Shah belatedly decided to go for the single. By then Narine had picked up the ball and flung at the bowler’s end. If he had hit, Shah would have been on his way.The yorker
It wasn’t delivered by a bowler. In the 18th over, Shah got under a length ball and lofted it flat towards long-on. Cooper moved in for the catch, but suddenly realised he wasn’t going to reach the ball and stopped short. The ball landed barely a foot in front of him – the fielder’s version of the yorker – and Cooper did extremely well to stop it from either causing bodily harm, or escaping to the boundary.The pace factor
In his menacing opening burst, Dale Steyn steamed in from the pavilion end and sent down a series of super-fast outswingers at the clueless T&T openers. The fact that there was no bounce in the pitch meant they skidded past late pokes and thudded into the wicketkeeper’s gloves. Having beaten the outside edge on a regular basis, Steyn blasted out William Perkins with a beauty that straightened at lively pace to rap the pads. Slow pitch? Not when Steyn was doing his thing.The wasted freebies
In his second over, Rory Kleinveldt over-stepped three times in five balls, including once while bowling a free-hit. Despite two of them being hittable full tosses, T&T could manage a grand total of only one run off the free-hits. To make matters worse, Lendl Simmons was out slogging the only ball in a sequence of six off which he could have been dismissed. Was he expecting that one – the third legal delivery of the over – to be a no-ball as well?The Angelo-Mathews moment
In the 16th over of the chase, Sherwin Ganga connected well with a lofted on-drive that was set to carry over the long-on boundary. Andrew Puttick, the fielder in the deep, however, nearly pulled off a stunner with a gravity-defying leap straight out of the movies. Puttick back-pedalled to the edge of the field with his eyes on the ball and leapt upwards while arching his back. When he was fully horizontal, he thrust a hand out behind him, but the ball escaped his grasp and fell over the line for six.

Sri Lanka don’t have a great record in tri-series finals in Australia, but the form of their top order could make a vital difference this time

S Rajesh03-Mar-2012In the end, the two teams that deserved to the most made it to the CB Series finals. For a long time during the last league match between Australia and Sri Lanka, India would have harboured chances of sneaking through, but it would have been just that – sneaking through, at the expense of a team that had been more consistent through the tournament.In the first half of the competition, Sri Lanka lost tight matches to Australia and India, and tied one against India, but in the second half they turned it around with convincing victories against both teams. The shock defeat against India in Hobart was a bolt from the blue, but they were good enough to bounce back from that result despite being a couple of bowlers short against Australia at the MCG.The overall stats for the three teams indicate how the tournament has gone for them. Sri Lanka have easily been the best batting side, thanks to the consistency of their top order. Dinesh Chandimal has been a revelation, slotting in at second* on the tournment’s run charts after the league stage with 383 runs at an average of almost 64, while Tillakaratne Dilshan, Mahela Jayawardene, Kumar Sangakkara and Angelo Mathews have all played their part. Overall, their top five have a combined average of 42.25 in the CB Series so far, which is their third-highest ever in a series of five or more matches outside Asia. The corresponding averages for the top five are 30.26 for India and 29.27 for Australia.Overall, Sri Lanka have five batsmen averaging more than 35 in the tournament, compared to three each for Australia and India. For a team that has generally relied on Sangakkara and Jayawardene for most of their runs, this is a huge plus. In fact, India’s numbers went up significantly because of that stunning chase in their last match of the tournament in Hobart. Exclude that, and India’s runs per wicket falls to 24.13, at a run rate of 4.83 per over.As a bowling unit, Australia were the best, while India were the poorest in that aspect as well. The Australians took 65 wickets at 25.58 each, and they were also the only side to concede less than five runs per over. Sri Lanka took 64 wickets, but their average touched 30. Both teams have bowlers who have taken more than ten wickets – Lasith Malinga leads the tally with 14, while Daniel Christian has 13 and Clint McKay 10. For India, though, the highest wicket-taker was Vinay Kumar with nine; in all the Indians took only 54 wickets in their eight games, at an average touching 39 and a run rate of 5.50.

India had a better start to the tournament compared to Sri Lanka, but as the competition progressed Sri Lanka upped their game and were the more consistent side. The records of these two sides against Australia indicate how much better Sri Lanka played against the hosts. They won three of four matches against Australia, who averaged less than 25 runs per wicket against Sri Lanka with the bat, and conceded 31 per wicket with the ball. Australia also managed to score at just 4.74 runs per over, and conceded almost 5.20.Against India, Australia were dominant. They scored almost 38 runs per wicket at 5.63 runs per over, and allowed the hapless Indian batsmen only 21 runs per wicket. Given a choice, it’s clear whom the Australians would have preferred to face in the finals.

Now that they are in the finals, Sri Lanka will have to banish memories from the two previous seasons when they reached this stage of the tri-series in Australia. The most recent instance was in 2005-06, when South Africa were the third side. Sri Lanka won the first of three finals that time, beating Australia by 22 runs in Adelaide. In the second final in Sydney, they had Australia reeling at 10 for 3. From there, though, Ricky Ponting and Andrew Symonds launched an astonishing counterattack, adding 237 for the fourth wicket at better than a run a ball. Sri Lanka were shell-shocked and capitulated meekly, and in the next match ran into a genius called Adam Gilchrist, who made a target of 267 look anything but challenging.Sri Lanka don’t have a great win-loss record against Australia at the two venues that will host the finals: it’s 0-3 in Brisbane and 1-6 at the Adelaide Oval. Along with Perth, they’re the worst venues for Sri Lanka in Australia. On the other hand, at the MCG and in Sydney, they have a much better 10-15 win-loss record against Australia. However, they can take much comfort from their recent record against Australia in Australia: since February 29, 2008, they’ve won six and lost only two of eight matches. No other team has won more ODIs against Australia in Australia during this period. That should give them confidence before the best-of-three finals.*13:42 GMT, March 3: The article had stated that Dinesh Chandimal was the tournament’s leading run-scorer so far. This has been corrected.

Both Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Ricky Ponting have superb records in Tests against each other in the West Indies, and also in Barbados, the venue for the first Test

S Rajesh06-Apr-2012In times gone by, a Test series between West Indies and Australia would have evinced plenty of interest. Now, thanks to the state of West Indies cricket, most experts and fans expect Australia to win the series comfortably, even though they had a tough time in the ODIs and the T20Is, only managing to share those series. The reason for the pessimism is clear: West Indies have been a poor Test side for a while now, and even their home record has taken a beating recently. Since they last played a home series against Australia, in 2008, West Indies have won only two out of 15 home Tests, and lost series against Bangladesh, India and South Africa. Apart from beating England in 2009, their one bright spark was winning a Test against Pakistan in a drawn series last year.Given these recent stats, and the unavailability of a few key players for West Indies, Australia will feel pretty confident of taking the series, especially after giving India a drubbing in their last Test series.The recent head-to-head record between these two teams is also overwhelmingly in favour of Australia – they have a 15-1 win-loss record against West Indies since 2000, and 5-1 in the West Indies during this period. This recent run has meant West Indies no longer have a winning record against Australia at home – it’s now slipped to 17-14 in favour of Australia.

The batting and bowling averages since 2000 indicate how far ahead Australia have been in their head-to-head contests. They’ve averaged 43.58 runs per wicket with the bat in Tests against West Indies, and conceded less than 27 runs per wicket. In the West Indies, their bowling average has gone up to more than 31, but the batting average has also climbed to 46.28. Ricky Ponting has led the charge of the Australian batsmen during this period, scoring six hundreds in 17 Tests and averaging almost 65. He has done even better in the West Indies, averaging 84.60, with four centuries in six Tests.Among the West Indian batsmen, Shivnarine Chanderpaul has been the one batsman among the current lot who has shone consistently against Australia, and there will be plenty of responsibility on him this time around as well. In 12 Tests against Australia since 2000, Chanderpaul averages 47.95; in six home Tests against them during this period, his record matches that of Ponting’s: four centuries in six Tests, and an average of 77.67. Moreover, he also has a superb record in Barbados, the venue for the first Test: in 15 matches there, he averages 63.55, including three centuries. Meanwhile, Ponting hasn’t done badly here either, with two centuries in three Tests, and an average touching 60.West Indies’ fast bowling is probably their strongest suit, with Fidel Edwards, Ravi Rampaul and Kemar Roach all in the mix. Roach created a pretty good impression in Australia in 2009, but in terms of stats, Edwards has the best numbers against Australia, especially in home conditions. In three Tests against them at home, he has taken 15 wickets at 25.13. That included a match haul of eight wickets in Kingston in the first Test in 2008 – the bowlers gave West Indies a fair chance of winning that Test, but faced with a fourth-innings target of 287, West Indies could only muster 191.

There are many stats which indicate West Indies’ decline over the last few years, but perhaps the most remarkable one is their win-loss record in Barbados. There used to be a time when the Kensington Oval in Bridgetown was a virtual fortress for West Indies: between 1976 and May 2002, they won 17 out of 23 Tests, and lost only two. Since June 2002, though, that record has turned on its head: in their last nine Tests here, West Indies have lost six and won just one. During this period, Australia have won both their Tests here, after losing four of their previous five, including that unforgettable Brian Lara starrer in 1999. (Click here for Australia’s Test results in Barbados.)When West Indies had that dominant run in Barbados, the pitch was quick and bouncy, and that suited West Indies’ battery of fast bowlers perfectly. Perhaps the pitch isn’t quite as spicy, but it’s still better suited for fast bowling than for spin: in the last six Tests here, since the beginning of 2005, fast bowlers average 33.13, having taken 129 wickets. Spinners have only taken 53, at an average of 42.47. Australia’s batsmen have shown some vulnerability against slow bowling on the tour so far, but going by recent history at this ground, their batsmen should be fairly comfortable on this surface. With Australia relying mostly on quick bowling, they’ll be pretty pleased too if the surface and the conditions favour their bowlers.

In a clash of two powerful bowling teams at a spin-friendly venue, the outcome of the toss could have a bearing on the result

Madhusudhan Ramakrishnan03-Oct-2012In a tournament where no team has managed to stay unbeaten, the first semi-final will be contested between two of the most consistent teams in the history of the World Twenty20. Pakistan, who qualified for the semi-finals on the basis of a better net run rate than India, have defied the unpredictable nature of the format by making the last four in each of the four tournaments. Only Michael Hussey’s remarkable 60 ended their hopes of making a third consecutive final in the 2010 World Twenty20. Sri Lanka, who went through the Super Eights undefeated, are the only team to come close to matching Pakistan’s consistency. After a poor run in the first World Twenty20 in 2007, they made the final in 2009 and lost out to England in the semi-final in 2010. On a pitch that is increasingly aiding spin bowlers, the clash between the two sides could be decided by the performance of the slow bowlers.Not only have Pakistan been the most successful team in Twenty20 internationals, they have also had the better of Sri Lanka in the head-to-head clashes. In three matches between the two teams in the World Twenty20, Pakistan have won two including the 2009 final at Lord’s. The dominance has also extended to matches played in neutral venues (4-2) and in Sri Lanka (2-1). Pakistan have been comfortably ahead of Sri Lanka in terms of both the average difference (difference between batting and bowling averages) and run-rate difference (difference between batting run-rate and bowling economy rate). The team batting first has dominated the clashes in Sri Lanka. While the teams have won one game apiece in Hambantota, Pakistan won the only meeting at the Premadasa stadium by 52 runs.

Pakistan have been the best bowling side by far in the tournament. They came through a difficult group in the Super Eights that included India, Australia and South Africa. Against South Africa and Australia, they produced excellent bowling performances, restricting the opposition teams to 133 and 117 respectively. Saeed Ajmal, the highest wicket-taker in Twenty20 internationals, has been in outstanding form picking up eight wickets at an economy rate of just 6.50. Ajantha Mendis has picked up more wickets (9) but six of his wickets came in Sri Lanka’s opening game against Zimbabwe. Against the top teams, Mendis has struggled, picking up only three wickets at an average of 33.33 and economy rate of 8.33. Raza Hasan, who has the lowest boundary-run percentage (37.5%), has been a revelation for Pakistan in the tournament so far. In 11 overs, he has given away just 48 runs (economy rate of 4.36) and picked up three wickets. Pakistan’s captain Mohammad Hafeez too has been among the wickets (four wickets) and conceded less than a run a ball. Shahid Afridi has decent numbers overall but has a high economy rate (7.68) and average (61.50) against top teams.

In the first six-over period of the innings (Powerplay overs), Sri Lanka are well ahead of Pakistan on the batting front. With both Tillakaratne Dilshan and Mahela Jayawardene in good form, Sri Lanka have maintained an excellent scoring rate (8.60) without losing too many wickets. Pakistan, on the other hand, have been inconsistent at the start in most matches. In their three matches in the Super Eights, Pakistan scored 110 runs in the 18 overs (run-rate 6.11) losing seven wickets. Sri Lanka, who topped their group, were superb in the Powerplay overs in the Super Eights scoring 167 runs in 18 overs (run-rate 9.27) losing just two wickets. Both teams have fairly similar stats in the first six overs on the bowling front though, with Pakistan boasting a slightly better economy rate (6.43).Sri Lanka’s batting order has generally been top heavy and as a result, the average and scoring rate in the middle of the innings have been low. In the same period (overs 7-14), Pakistan have the better average (33.22) and scoring rate (7.47). In the middle overs, Sri Lanka have been slightly more expensive but have picked up more wickets (10). In the last six-over period, there is very little to choose between the two teams on the bowling front. However, Sri Lanka have a much better batting average (25.87) and scoring rate (10.70) in the final six overs.

Jayawardene notched up his sixth fifty-plus score in the World Twenty20 during Sri Lanka’s nine-wicket win against West Indies. Dilshan, one of only five batsmen to score a century in Twenty20 internationals, has also been in fine form in the tournament scoring 144 runs in five innings. In contrast, Pakistan’s openers have failed to get going with Imran Nazir in particular falling to rash shots in the Super Eights stage. Nasir Jamshed, who has two fifty-plus scores in the tournament, has boosted Pakistan’s numbers in the middle order. Pakistan’s middle-order batsmen also have a higher boundary percentage (52.77) as compared to their Sri Lankan counterparts. The Sri Lankan lower middle-order (positions 5-7) batsmen have hardly had much to do so far in the tournament losing only five wickets in the six matches. For Pakistan, Umar Akmal has been the stand-out batsman in the lower middle-order. Akmal, who remained unbeaten in Pakistan’s successful chase against South Africa, has scored 96 runs (average 48.00) while being dismissed only twice.

The Premadasa stadium, once a venue that regularly favoured the side batting first, has provided no particular advantage in this tournament. In 12 matches, six have been won by the team chasing and five by the team batting first. The story with the toss is a completely different one though; the team winning the toss has won one and lost ten matches. The overall average and run-rate are higher in the first innings (24.21 and 7.60 respectively) as compared to the corresponding stats in the second innings (20.96 and 7.26). Pace bowlers have dominated the wickets tally in the first innings picking up 49 wickets at 7.78. Spinners, however, have had a much better economy rate (6.84) in the first innings. In the second innings, spinners have outperformed the pace bowlers on the wickets front too picking up 34 wickets at 6.57 while the fast bowlers have managed 26 wickets at a much higher economy rate of 7.80.

Having gambled with a slow, low surface, India will be pleased with their position but an extra seamer and bowling last could mean England have the edge

George Dobell in Nagpur13-Dec-2012This was a bizarre day’s cricket. It featured an ill-balanced attack against a sometimes ill disciplined batting line-up on as slow a pitch as England, at least, have played on this century.That it generated a certain drama was more due to the position of the series than the thrill of the cricket. Indeed, as Test cricket fights for relevance, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that pitches like this represent one of the greatest threats to its future.Some will rile at that. They will claim – quite rightly – that India have the right to produce any surface they like for a home series. But this is not a pitch that will suit India any more than it will suit England. It is sluggish and uneven and helps neither the batsmen nor the bowler with the greatest skill. It is not a pitch that rewards good cricket. It is not a pitch that rewards spectators; be they at the ground or watching at home. It is not a good pitch.Progress, with bat or ball, can be made. But it can be made, for batsmen or bowlers, only with dogged persistence. There is some merit in that; Test cricket is meant to reward persistence and consistency, after all. But it is also meant to reward flair and skill and produce entertaining cricket and it cannot be ignored that around 40,000 of this stadium’s 45,000 seats were empty. Who is going to pay to watch a run-rate below two and bowlers hoping to bore out batsmen?India took a gamble with this pitch. Having been outplayed in the last two Tests despite designing the surfaces and winning the toss, they may have reasoned that, in normal conditions, they will struggle to compete with England. After six losses in the seven previous Tests between them, it is an understandable conclusion. Their solution is a surface that should negate pace or high bounce – two of England’s strengths – and should also guarantee a definitive result.That their gamble has, in part, come off owes plenty to some weak batting from England. While timing the ball was tricky throughout the day and run-scoring desperately difficult, all the wickets – with the exception of Alastair Cook, who was undone by an umpiring mistake – were due to batsman error. Certainly Jonathan Trott can have few excuses for leaving a straight one that hit his off stump, while Ian Bell’s tame catch to cover will have done nothing to appease the growing band of cynics who question his long run in the team. He will know he surrendered his wicket too easily.

Of the five debutants England have utilised this year – Compton, Patel, Bairstow and Taylor are the others – Joe Root’s has been the most impressive beginning

Such wickets tend to fall on these pitches, though. It is not that batsmen receive unplayable deliveries as much as the fact they face so few scoring opportunities. With the lack of pace reducing the opportunities to pull, cut, nudge or deflect, batsmen were obliged to wait for the longest of hall-volleys before going on the attack. Even long-hops – and Piyush Chawla delivers plenty – are problematic on such a low, uneven surface and, in their desire to force the pace, forcing shots offer catching opportunities.But part of India’s gamble has backfired. Not only did they lose the toss and give first use of the pitch to England’s batsmen – it may be more appropriate to say they gave last use to England’s bowlers – and it will have been worrying for them to see that Ishant Sharma, their lone seamer, was easily the most dangerous of the bowlers. Had he enjoyed some fast bowling support rather than a band of spinners for whom the surface offered little, England might have been dismissed already.India can take comfort in the absence of the injured Steven Finn. He may have been a horrible proposition on this surface, though if England’s seamers bowl with control, they too will surely prove hard to master.That the day ended with honours just about even – it would be a brave fellow who tried to predict a par score on this wicket – was a reflection of some disciplined batting from Pietersen, an impressive debut from Joe Root and some typical defiance from Matt Prior and Trott.If there are any question marks about Pietersen’s greatness at this stage of his career – and there really shouldn’t be – they focus on his inability to grind out runs in conditions where it is not realistic to counterattack and there are few release options. So that he failed to score from 154 of the 188 balls he faced speaks volumes for his discipline, his sound defensive technique and the begrudging pitch. He scored from only four of the 51 deliveries he faced from Pragyan Ojha.Root was admirably unflustered. Though not especially tall, no-one in the England team with the exception of Pietersen gets as far forward as Root and few play as straight. His reach and intent provided run-scoring opportunities and at no stage did he allow any frustration to coax him into a rash stroke; even against the tight Ravindra Jadeja, off whom he scored just two singles in 32 deliveries.Root’s stand with Prior – worth 60 at this stage – rescued England from a precarious position and of the five debutants England have utilised this year – Nick Compton, Samit Patel, Jonny Bairstow and James Taylor are the others – his has been the most impressive beginning. It says much about a team in transition and still searching for replacements for Andrew Strauss and Paul Collingwood that all five are batsmen but Root has already given himself an excellent chance of winning a longer run in the side.Credit is also due to the England management who selected him. Root would, in normal circumstances, have had to wait behind Bairstow and, perhaps, Eoin Morgan for an opportunity. But, with Graham Thorpe providing encouraging reports about Root’s ability to counter spin both last winter – during the Lions and England Performance Programme (EPP) tours – and during his century for the EPP squad a couple of weeks ago, he has leap-frogged his rivals. Bairstow looked unconvincing in Mumbai and Morgan has yet to prove that his struggles against spin in the UAE were an aberration. Root was selected partially as a “horse for the course” and took his opportunity well. It was noticeable that both Bairstow and Patel, though obviously disappointed, congratulated Root warmly as his Test cap was presented by Collingwood.A glance at the first innings scores in the three previous Tests at the ground would suggest England are still in some trouble. In the first Test here, in 2008, India scored 441 and won heavily; in the second, in 2010, South Africa scored 558 for 6 and won by an innings and in the most recent, in 2010, New Zealand were bowled out for 193 and lost by an innings. But these are not normal conditions. England certainly still have work ahead of them to establish a strong first innings platform but they are not in quite such a precarious position as the scorecard might suggest.

England’s poor record in India and a persistent weakness against spin bowling mean the hosts will start as favourites

Madhusudhan Ramakrishnan13-Nov-2012When India began their tour of England last year, they were the No.1 ranked team and expected to provide a stern test to the hosts. Instead, the series turned out to be hopelessly one-sided, with England emerging comfortable winners in all four Tests. India’s form plunged further in Australia, where they were again beaten 4-0. In the eight Tests in England and Australia, India lost four by an innings and managed to score over 300 only once. The only successes for India in the period (since July 2011) were home series wins against lower-ranked West Indies and New Zealand. Surprisingly, England also struggled to maintain their position at the top of the rankings, losing 3-0 to Pakistan in the UAE and 2-0 at home to South Africa. Following the retirements of Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman, India’s batsmen will have their task cut out against a top-quality England attack. On the other hand, England’s batsmen, who were all at sea against Pakistan’s spinners last year, will be challenged in spin-friendly conditions. Given that England have won only one Test in India in their last four visits, the hosts start as favourites going into the first Test in Ahmedabad.England hold a 38-19 advantage in the head-to-head clashes with India. However, a significant percentage of their matches (46%) have ended in draws. The matches in England have been dominated completely by the hosts, who have won 27 and lost just five Tests. India also hold the edge at home, winning 14 matches to England’s 11. Since 1990, India have a 6-1 win-loss record in home Tests with their best performance coming in the 1993 series when they won 3-0. In the same period, India have won two Tests in England (2002 and 2007) and have a win-loss ratio of 0.28. The result percentage in India since 1990 (63.63) is well above the corresponding overall number in India (49.01). In contrast, the result percentage in England in matches since 1990 (52.94) is lower than the overall figure in England (61.53).

Despite their ordinary record in India in the last two decades, England will be quietly confident following their performance in the last two series (one win and two losses). In 2006, they fought back from a match down to square the series in Mumbai. On their last tour (in 2008), England had the better of the Chennai Test till Virender Sehwag’s blitz enabled India chase down a challenging target of 387. The average difference for England (difference between batting and bowling averages) in the 2006 series was 2.52 but much lower (-9.86) in 2008. The England batsmen scored more centuries (3) than their Indian counterparts in the drawn 2006 series but were slightly behind on the century tally (3-4) in 2008. In the 1993 series, when England were blanked 3-0, their average difference was -31.23 with India picking up 58 wickets to the visitors’ 28. Considering that the wickets difference has drastically fallen in the last two series (six and two respectively), the upcoming series promises to be a far closer contest.

In their last four series, England have won three Tests and lost six including two at home against South Africa. Between the start of 2009 and the series in the UAE, England built up a formidable 20-5 win-loss record. There was, however, a massive difference between their performances in and outside the subcontinent. In matches played in the subcontinent since 2009, England managed only a solitary win against a major Test team (Sri Lanka) and lost four matches. Outside the subcontinent, England have a 20-7 record including a 3-1 Test series win in Australia. England’s average difference (difference between batting and bowling averages) is 10.71 in matches outside the subcontinent but falls to 3.15 in matches played in the subcontinent. India, on the other hand, have a tremendous win-loss record in the subcontinent (13-2) but an ordinary one (3-9) outside the subcontinent. The team record is clearly reflected in the average difference; in the subcontinent, the average difference for India is 12.11 while the corresponding number outside the subcontinent is -11.17. On average, England have been a more penetrative bowling unit as the wickets-per-match figure suggests. England, who have a win-loss ratio of 2.09, have a marginally better ratio of 100s to 50s as compared to India (0.47 to 0.44).

Alastair Cook, England’s highest run-getter since 2009, has an average of 43.34 against fast bowlers in Tests outside the subcontinent. The number increases to 67.33 in matches played in the subcontinent. Spinners have found it difficult to dislodge Cook in matches outside Asia (balls per dismissal 168.83) but have done significantly better in matches played in the subcontinent. Jonathan Trott has fairly even numbers against pace bowlers in and outside the subcontinent but has fallen far more often to spinners in matches played in the subcontinent (average 33.55). Kevin Pietersen, who is back in the England squad after a stormy period, has a lower average but high scoring rate (3.78) owing to his aggressive approach. Pietersen’s quickfire century at the P Sara Oval last year set up England’s eight-wicket win and he will once again be England’s trump card in a series that is likely to be decided by how the visitors fare against the Indian spinners. Ian Bell, who has been supremely consistent in matches outside the subcontinent, has failed to replicate the form against pace and spin in the subcontinent (27.00 and 39.00 respectively).India’s batting woes have been primarily because of the ordinary run at the top of the order. In Tests since the start of 2011, the Virender Sehwag-Gautam Gambhir partnership has averaged just 30.25, with both batsmen failing to register a single century. If the openers don’t fire, the inexperienced middle order will mount pressure on Sachin Tendulkar and the in-form Virat Kohli to deliver. On the other hand, England’s middle and lower order batting looks in considerably better shape with Stuart Broad and Graeme Swann coming in after Matt Prior, who averages 43.17 in Tests since 2009.

James Anderson, who passed the 250-wicket mark in the series in Sri Lanka, has an excellent record against Tendulkar, whom he has dismissed seven times in matches played since 2005. Sehwag has scored at over eight runs per over off Anderson but has been dismissed four times in 40 deliveries. Graeme Swann, who has generally been successful against left-handers, has dismissed Gambhir five times at an average of 20.60. Stuart Broad, the highest wicket-taker in the England-India series in 2011, has enjoyed much success against MS Dhoni, dismissing the Indian captain three times while conceding just 28 runs.Zaheer Khan, who hobbled off after picking up two wickets in the first Test at Lord’s last year, has hardly proved to be incisive ever since. In the two-Test series against New Zealand, Zaheer picked up just three wickets at an average of close to 60. He, however, has a strong record against Bell and Cook, dismissing them five and four times respectively. Bell, in particular, has struggled against Zaheer, scoring just 18 runs at an average of 3.60. Ishant Sharma, who is not a certainty for the first Test, has had the better of his contests with Cook, dismissing the England captain six times at an average of 16.66.

Ahmedabad, the venue for the first Test, has hosted three Tests since 2006. While two of them have been high-scoring draws, the game against South Africa ended in a victory for the visitors after India were bowled out for 76 in their first innings. Mumbai has hosted only two Tests in the same period, with England winning the game in 2006 and the second (against West Indies) ending in a draw with the scores level. Nagpur, which is set to host the final Test, is the only venue among the four that has a 100% result record. While Ahmedabad has the lowest first-innings average (32.96), it has the highest second-innings average (71.37) among the four venues. While the third and fourth-innings averages in Mumbai are 16.25 and 18.00 respectively, the corresponding numbers in Nagpur are 26.13 and 20.90. Spinners have picked up more wickets than pace bowlers at all three venues except Ahmedabad. At Mumbai, both pace bowlers and spinners have performed well (average 32.16 and 29.77). In contrast, the corresponding numbers in Kolkata are 59.90 and 46.59.

Andy Zaltzman25-Feb-2013One of the more curious aspects of England’s unimpressive recent cricket is the amount of criticism directed at the one batsman who has risen above the swamp of mediocrity in which the rest of the top order have been paddling their increasingly leaky rubber dinghy. Kevin Pietersen’s tightrope-walk between audacity and idiocy has polarised opinion like a man painting a bear head-to-toe in Tippex, and has, without question, deflected more searching analysis from those who merit it more. Was his miscued first-innings thwack at Suleiman Benn an irresponsible grab at personal glory or a poorly-executed but tactically-justifiable attempt to dominate a dangerous opponent? Or both? Did Pietersen act like a spoilt child hurling himself into a vat of jelly babies, or like the head of a bird welfare charity putting all the takings from a charity food fight on a 10-1 shot in the 2.40 at Chepstow in an effort to secure a better future for some little orphan ducks? Only Pietersen and almighty Zeus may ever know.It is, however, an unarguable fact that the Pietermaritzburg Pulveriser regularly fails to batter his opponents into quivering pulverised wrecks, as he is clearly capable of doing. And this is despite having what may well be Test cricket’s best conversion rate for turning 50s into 90s – 19 times out of 27, a marginally better ratio even than the voraciously undismissable Bradman. However, KP’s problems begin as soon as he arrives within 10 of his century. And here comes Dr Statistics to prove it. He’s holding a clipboard, he’s brandishing his stethoscope, and he wants you to pay attention.In Test history, 80 players have scored 90 or more at least 15 times. Taking their average scores in those innings of 90-plus, Pietersen has the 79th-best record of those 80 players, better only than renowned serial century-flunker Michael Slater. Here is Exhibit A.So while Pietersen generally succeeds in capitalising on good starts, having done so, he fails to capitalise on that initial capitalisation. His 15 centuries have averaged only 137 – only Michael Atherton of the 59 players with as many hundreds as Pietersen averages lower for his centuries (135) – see Exhibit B. There were, of course, mitigating circumstances for the Lancashire limpet. By the time he had staggered across the three-figure threshold, he was usually at a point of total mental and physical exhaustion after a two or three long days of heroic defiance.By comparison, of Pietersen’s contemporaries, Ponting’s centuries average 175, Sehwag’s 199 (helped by the fact that his last 11 centuries have been over 150), Kallis’ 214 (helped by a suspiciously large number of not-outs), Sangakkara’s 276, and Chanderpaul’s 278 (also a not-out-assisted figure, aided by the rank incompetence of his tail-enders). And if Pietersen wants advice on how to punish opponents when on top, he should knock on the hotel room door of his England coach Andy Flower, tell him to lift his head out of his hands and stop repeatedly muttering “What have I got myself into?” to himself, and demand to know how he contrived to make his 12 centuries for Zimbabwe average a frankly ludicrous 340.It should be noted that Pietersen’s figures are damaged by the fact that he has never been remained undefeated scoring a century, and has sometimes sacrificed his wicket when batting with the tail in an effort to secure runs for the team rather than red ink for himself. His is not the record of a selfish player. On the occasions when he has perhaps been dismissed trying to stamp his own distinctive supremacy on a match, it is perhaps because he knows that if he does not do so, with Flintoff out of form, there is not another England batsman who either will or can.However, after England’s Ashes humiliation in 2006-07, Pietersen himself talked passionately about the need for himself and his team-mates to score big hundreds. They have almost totally failed to do so – of their 28 centuries since then, only four have been over 150, and 12 have been under 110. The frustration and fascination of Pietersen as a batsman is his rare mixture of brilliance and vulnerability. His “that’s the way I play” claim essentially suggests that if he removes the latter, he will lose some of the former. But his ascent to true cricketing greatness will wait until he is able to turn his outbursts of stunning virtuosity into match-determining dominance.

The failure to capitalise on centuries is not Pietersen’s failing alone. England as a team have for some time shown little interest in scoring big centuries. Players seem to lose one or more of concentration, motivation or their general mental faculties once the advertising logo on the back of their bats has been waved at the requisite number of cameras (one of the more irritating and distasteful aspects of the modern commercialisation of cricket – a moment of proud personal triumph debased into a glib publicity opportunity, rather like a husband and bride eating Heinz Baked Beans in their wedding photographs, or a priest reciting the slogans of top whisky companies at an alcoholic’s funeral).Strauss and Cook both have even worse century-inning averages than Pietersen, and Vaughan and Trescothick were only a little better. Since Graham Gooch’s 333 against India in 1990, the highest score by an England player is Pietersen’s 226 against West Indies in 2007 – the 51st highest score in all Test cricket since Gooch trudged back to the Lord’s pavilion burning with a mixture of pride in his achievement and abject disgust and self-loathing at being bowled by Manoj Prabhakar on a flat track.Quite why England are so unable to score big is a mystery. No doubt some will their finger of blame at: the advent of colour television lowering our national boredom threshold; or a post-colonial unwillingness to assert English dominance; or the end of rationing; or Kolpak players and Tony Greig; or Gordon Brown and the bankers. It is probably a combination of all of these and more.Gooch’s innings, incidentally, remains the only English score of 250 or more in my lifetime. Which puts England three 250s behind Zimbabwe. In fact, other countries’ players have notched up 42 such scores between them. Also in fact, since the momentous event of my birth, of the eight major Test nations, England have the lowest combined century-innings average, the second worst conversion rate of centuries in 150s (ahead of New Zealand) and the worst conversion rate of centuries into double centuries. England have averaged one double century every 25 Tests – the other nations between them score one on average every 11½ matches. Perhaps my entry into the world was not the turning point for English batsmanship that everyone had hoped it would be.(Thanks again to Cricinfo’s Statsguru facility for its invaluable assistance in this blog. I am now firmly of the opinion that Statsguru is not only the greatest sporting statistical aid in the world, but also the single greatest invention in the entire history of the universe. Without it, the research for this article would have taken several years and at least one marriage.)

From Suman Kumar, India

Cricinfo25-Feb-2013
Children play cricket on a deserted highway in India•AFPBack in 1987, when Narasimha Prasad a.k.a BSA (he rode a BSA cycle) took a leg-stump guard, we were quite sure that the kid, three years our junior in school, would play yet another ‘swashbuckling’ innings. Not too many cricketing prodigies came from Chittoor, a small town in Andhra Pradesh. And, BSA was our only hope. That really short kid was playing for the town team and he was only 11. Reddy, the college team captain, even made a prophetic statement “Great batsmen come in short sizes.” Reddy was five feet two, on a good day, if he was wearing high-heels that is.BSA started that innings with a royal cover drive. Before long, we were 56 for 1. And then it happened. Stephen, the fast bowler, dug one short and BSA tried hooking him. There wasn’t too much bounce and the ball hit BSA on his chest. He just turned away, walked towards fine leg, rubbing his chest. I was at the non-striker’s end and to my utter disbelief Stephen was appealing ferociously. I heard the umpire go “Eh?” and for what seemed like an eternity Stephen was screaming his lungs off. I laughed out loud. What happened next blew my mind: the umpire’s finger went up in slow motion. There was a stunned silence. BSA, as usual started, crying; he had the habit of crying when he was given out. I couldn’t believe what I had just witnessed. “Height. He is short. So he is out lbw,” said the umpire. Agreed, BSA was short. He was barely four feet tall but…I have a lurking suspicion Steve Bucknor was holidaying in Chittoor that day.The more international cricket I see, the more I am convinced that there is a secret team that prowls the hinterland of India, with the sole objective of documenting all the innovations, tricks, tactics, strategy… you know? You don’t believe me? Indulge me here, will you? Before you write it off that is.Umpiring humour
You know, we love Billy Bowden. His antics are endearing and fun. Where did he learn to innovate? How did he manage to mix humour effectively with his profession?The death overs were on and I was batting. I was well set and was determined to smash the bowlers all over the park. Kumaraswamy or KS, as we referred to him much to his delight, overpitched and I promptly flicked him. There was a slight inside edge, I guess, and the ball flew straight to Suresh, the leg umpire who was, as usual, lost in thought. Let us pause here. Let’s freeze that ball mid-air. Remember Suresh standing with his feet crisscrossed. Yeah.Suresh is a mad man. No, wait, really. He knew nothing but cricket. He played some Under –19 cricket for Andhra Pradesh and he also was the vice-captain of the Chittoor town team. He was a compact batsman and bowled some legspin. He was the only guy who read cricket books. I think he bought and read it with the help of a dictionary in six months flat. He also had the habit of discussing cricketing strategy and tactics… with himself. So if you go to Chittoor and see a (now middle-aged) guy walking, talking to himself, and occasionally playing a cover drive or a flick, it has got to be Suresh. Yes.So let’s unfreeze the ball now. I hit the ball, the ball flew to Suresh, I started running but the non-striker stopped midway, slipped and fell on his back… laughing. I think the term ROTFLMAO was coined that humid, summer day in Chittoor. Suresh, the leg umpire, caught the ball I had hit and started celebrating. It gets better now. When he noticed that the fielding team, batsmen, and the umpire were glaring at him, Suresh shrugged and cooed “Howzzat umpire?”The only question that haunts me even today is this: where the hell was Billy Bowden hiding in the Arts college grounds that day?