The headline for the day seems to be that India have "overpowered" Bangladesh.
Given that India conceded 283 in their 50 overs, shouldn't the headline actually read "Batting rescues India yet again" or "Bowling under performs again for India" ?
Cos i can see a game where the 280+ run chase will falter. 2/56 could easily become 4/80, and thats the end of the run chase. Its not a question of if, but when this will happen. My guess is that it will happen in a crucial game - like say the final.
India don't deserve to win tournaments with such poor bowling. It doesn't matter how flat the wicket is. They ought not to concede 283 against a minnow side like Bangladesh.
The upcoming Test tour of Sri Lanka by the Indian Cricket team will feature the first instance of players being able to challenge an on-field umpire's decision in a Test Match. There are several intriguing issues which arise from the details of the proposed arrangement which is described in this Cricinfo story. This BBC report confirms that each team will be limited to three unsuccessful challenges per innings.
This proposal has several interesting features. The limited use of Hawkeye to trace the path of the ball from the hand until it hits the batsman is interesting, for it signals official acceptance by the ICC that Hawkeye as a predictive technology is not good enough to judge LBW's. Will this stop TV Broadcasters from using Hawkeye in Commentary?
The most interesting part of this proposal however, is the limit of three unsuccessful challenges. There is a basic asymmetry to this, because the batsman makes a challenge on behalf of the batting side, while the fielding captain makes it on behalf of the fielding side. This puts the batsman in a spot - for if he makes a challenge which is unsuccessful, he then becomes obliged to explain why he felt his challenge was justified in the first place. The rule is especially difficult for the batsmen - would Wasim Jaffer feel comfortable in making a challenge early in his innings if he feels a decision is marginal, especially with Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly, VVS and others to follow?
The ICC is at pains to point out that all challenges will be issued by players on the field. No influence from the dressing room is to be involved in the challenges. It will be interesting to see if a batsman who is walking off, and nearing the boundary rope, turns around and makes a challenge based on frantic messages from the dressing room.
The new system is likely to help weed out the most obvious and blatantly wrong decisions. This in itself is a good thing. One wonders though, whether a system such as the current one might have been necessary in order to achieve this. This system involves the players in the process. Would it not have been more advisible to require the third umpire to advise the on-field umpires about any problematic decision on their part, without being asked by the on-field umpires, based on what the third umpire is able to discern from TV replays?
The ICC has chosen to involve the players in the process. This is a potentially slippery slope. In trying to retain the primacy of on-field decision making, the third umpire, who is in essence still an umpire on the elite panel, is still reduced to being a spectator to a bad decision, unless it is referred to him by the onfield umpires - either through the prompting of the players or the umpires.
The other problem with this system is that all the TV technology that the ICC proposes to use is still made available by the TV broadcaster, and not by the ICC. So it still depends on the broadcasters cameras. There has long been a view that Umpires must have access to their own camera feed, customized to the needs of umpires. This is still not the case in the proposed system.
All in all, i think the referral proposal is a worthy experiment. The ICC will need to clarify where it stands vis a vis involving players in the process - allowing players to challenge umpires, as against asking the third umpire to challenge the on-field umpires. Any successful system has to maintain the authority of the umpire, while minimizing error.
I just wonder whether the third umpire is a better agent in achieving this, rather than putting players on the spot.
Statistically speaking, it was a thumping win. The second thumping win by India over Pakistan in their last three encounters. The final of the kitply cup was also one sided, though not to the same degree. Even the most one-eyed India fan will agree that the result in that final was a foregone conclusion about 85 overs into the game.
It does not help a tournament like the Asia Cup, saddled as it is with minnow games, that Virendra Sehwag comes along and treats the tournament hosts - a major Test playing team, like a minnow side. The bare headed bandit from Najafgarh has been in dazzling form since his comeback in Australia in the new year and now seems to have found his feet in the ODI game as well. Sehwag has been a surprisingly modest performer in the ODI game, leading many observers to compare him to Michael Slater - a dashing opener who looks tailor made for ODI cricket. In Test Cricket, the Sehwag phenomenon has been underrated. Statistically, Sehwag is an astonishing Test opener, given the consistency and pace at which he scores his runs. In the all time list of batsmen with scores over 150, Sangakkara, Ponting and Tendulkar amongst current batsmen are ahead of him. The other batsmen with more 150+ scores than Sehwag are Bradman, Lara, Hammond, Gavaskar and Steve Waugh. Thats a measure of his Test batsmanship. He's also the only batsman other than Lara and Bradman to have passed 300 twice in a Test Match.
Here is what im driving at. If Virendra Sehwag even vaguely approaches his potential as an ODI opener (based on what he has achieved in Test Cricket he's a phenomenal batsman, lets leave aside his special interest in the Pakistan bowling attack), we have the makings of another Viv Richards. This may sound like an over statement - but look at his record. He started superbly in ODI cricket and for a while had a record like the one Adam Gilchrist built - a strike rate in the mid nineties and a batting average in the late thirties. This batting average has since slipped to 30 or so.
There is of course a downside to todays game. The usual criticism of it being a flat wicket. I have no problem with flat wickets as such, as against say a seaming track or an uneven track. Any type of wicket which is basically safe for an international cricket match is fine as far as im concerned. The problem with flat wickets in my view, lies in the fact that there is little or no evidence that flat wickets produce great contests. A 300 run-chase on three occasions between India and Pakistan has produced three one-sided games. None of these games went the distance. For much of the the time, one side (the fielding side in five out of six innings) was getting hammered. In the 6th inning (Pakistan's run chase in the Kitply Cup league game) they collapsed in the process of revving up the run rate).
So not only does a flat wicket not produce a great contest between the two teams, it doesn't produce a particular exciting contest between bat and ball either. The term flat-track bully is one which i think is used poorly. The point about flat tracks, is that it is impossible for the batting side to not be bully-like on it - either in success or in failure.
But if there is a batsman that id like to see on flat tracks, it is Virendra Sehwag. For he, more than any other batsman in the world today has convinced us that he would play the same way anywhere. Flat tracks merely garnish the Sehwag presentation more seamlessly than other tracks.
The switch-hit issue is an intriguing one like most other issues which involve the Laws of Cricket. Kevin Pietersen has illuminated a grey area in existing Law. I feel however that i must clarify my reading of the Laws as they stand now in order to support my earlier arguments. All commentary about this subject suggests that there is little agreement as to where the current Law actually stands in the matter. Given that the issue is being discussed along the lines of "lets not legislate risk and skill", it is worth looking at where the law stands. In my post yesterday, i have already presented a scenario where a lesser batsman, an anti-Pietersen, could take advantage of the Law if a new leg-side off-side determination were to be applied. I have also pointed out the problem with allowing Pietersen's stroke
The crux of the issue is the whole issue of off-side and on-side, and the identification of the same. This identification is central to Cricket especially with respect to the LBW law and the law pertaining to restrictions in field placement. Both these laws depend on the demarcation of the "off side" in order for them to be implemented. The "off side of the wicket" is defined explicitly in Law 36(3). It is as follows:
The off side of the striker's wicket shall be determined by the striker's stance at the moment the ball comes into play for that delivery.
The Law pertaining to fielding restrictions on the "on-side" (Law 41(5)) is as follows:
At the instant of the bowler's delivery there shall not be more than two fielders, other than the wicket-keeper, behind the popping crease on the on side. A fielder will be considered to be behind the popping crease unless the whole of his person, whether grounded or in the air, is in front of this line.
In the event of infringement of this Law by the fielding side, the umpire at the striker's end shall call and signal No ball.
It is important to note here that in both cases the Law is applicable after the ball "comes into play", and not when the bowler is at the top of his run up. Therefore, the batsman's stance at the point when the ball is released is what is applicable here. It is also important to note that the specifics of the of what constitutes a right handed batsman, or a left handed batsman in terms of a "stance" is not explicitly described here.
The only thing which is clearly different between the left handed batsman and the right handed batsman is the choice of top hand in each case. The right handed batsman has his left hand as the top hand, while the left handed batsman has his right hand as top hand. See the following video to understand this better (the key event takes place within the first two seconds:
Pietersen switch-hitting Murali for six. At 0:01, Pietersen in still a right handed batsman, while at 0:02, he has already switched hands, turned around (the order is important, because it would make no sense for Pietersen to switch hands if he wasn't going to turn around), his right leg becoming his front-foot rather than his back-foot and executed the stroke. Pietersen's execution of the stroke is astonishingly skillful.
The advantage of switching hands ought to be obvious from this video. Pietersen is in fact becoming a left-handed batsman on the fly. Now, is it necessary to switch hands to hit the ball well? As these videos will show, it isn't:
1. Sachin Tendulkar plays the orthodox reverse-sweep for 4
2. Paul Nixon plays the orthodox reverse-sweep for 6, also of Murali. This is a great video - David Gower interviewing Paul Nixon about the reverse-sweep. Nixon explains the technique of playing the reverse sweep (see 4:00 onwards)
I would write a whole post just on this interview. Note David Gower's instinctive Gordon Greenidge's pivot on his second attempt at the lofted reverse sweep. But i digress....
So, it is possible to play the reverse sweep hard - for four or six, without reversing hands, and batsman have done it. So in terms of results, Pietersen's method is not pathbreaking after all. It is merely a liberty, which raises a number of problems with respect to the law.
Based on the Law, the following options become apparent:
1. Ban the switch-hit, because it enables a free hit right now against balls pitched in the rough outside leg stump while negating the purpose for which protection against LBW is currently granted in the case of balls pitching outside a batsmans leg stump. (A similar argument is to be made for wides down the "leg" side)
2. Define the left-handed batsman and the right-handed batsman in terms of the top hand and bottom hand on the bat handle.
The second option is problematic, because of the scenario i described in yesterday's post.
If no changes are made to the laws, and the current law is applied, then consider the a moment the horrific situation that the Umpire will find himself in. The Umpire will in-effect have to determine whether Kevin Pietersen had turned around in his stand before or after Murali released the ball (something which happened over a span of less and one solitary second). With super-slow-motion and crazy commentators we all know where that might lead.
The best option clearly, is to ban the switch-hit. Just as a bowler must declare to the batsman before bowling the delivery whether he is going to bowl from over-the-wicket or round-the-wicket, the batsman must declare before the ball is bowled whether he's going to face up left handed or right handed. The MCC's excuse - that bowlers do not declare what variation they will deliver is an erroneous comparison - that would be like the batsman declaring what stroke he is going to play, not whether he's going to bat left handed or right handed.
As for Pietersen, may be he should take lessons from Paul Nixon about playing an actual reverse sweep, instead of taking a short cut and simply becoming a lefty.
Cricinfo reports today that the MCC has approved Kevin Pietersen's so-called "switch-hit" reverse slog for six which drew so much attention this week, because it raised several interesting problems within the existing Laws of the game. This is not the first time Pietersen has used this stroke. Indeed, he has been playing the stroke for over a year now, and i wrote about the problems this raises on this blog on May 20, 2007. That post has drawn a number of hits over the past couple of days, yet the most interesting thing is that nothing that the MCC has said addresses any of the problems raised in that post (Laws wise) which arise as a result of Pietersen's switch hit.
The cricinfo story does acknowledge problems with the LBW Law, which one would think is a fairly fundamental, consequential alteration (the Law was modified only once in the 20th century as far as i know). What is troubling though, is that if one went purely by the quotes offered in the Cricinfo story, then the MCC was swayed by Pietersen's skilfull execution of the innovative stoke, than by legal considerations, which is precisely the sort of thing that the law making body should have discounted in their considerations. Pietersen's innovation is different from the modification of the bowling law, because in the case of the bowling law, new technology brought new information to light and thus rendered the old position untenable. The response to the new information in terms of the new Law is problematic, but at least it was based on serious information.
This is the gist of the MCC's response -The committee concluded that the "superb execution" of the stroke should not disguise its difficulty. "It incurs a great deal of risk for the batsman. It also offers bowlers a good chance of taking a wicket and therefore MCC believes that the shot is fair to both batsman and bowlers."
This risk argument is not relevant the question at hand. This is because as the Law currently stands, it is precisely because the risk of the LBW is mitigated with balls pitching outside leg-stump that Pietersen and co. can attempt the stroke with impunity - with almost no risk of dismissal.
The tone of the MCC's argument begs the question - what if it was some batsman other than Pietersen playing the stroke? Would they have responded in a similar way? Given all the hoopla in England about ball-tampering with Wasim and Waqar and reverse-swing and the horror with which that innovation was viewed, this is a question worth asking. But it is also a question which is unlikely to ever be answered satisfactorily, so lets set it aside.
It might be more useful to ask - why not allow bowlers to tamper with the ball (they are already allowed to apply spit and/or sweat on the ball, and are also allowed to shine the ball - both actions involve manipulating the condition of the ball), if the switch-hit (which cause huge problems from the point of view of existing Law) is to be allowed simply because it is a fine innovation?
The switch-hit ruling is a slippery slope. Here's why. Lets consider a situation, where the law has been changed - that switching hands (i.e turning from a top right hand to a top left hand), opens up the possibility of the LBW for the left arm spinner (for example) bowling over the wicket, into the rough at the right handed batsman. Now consider a situation where you have a right handed batsmen facing a really good medium-fast bowler, bowling over the wicket. A 7-2 field is in operation and the bowler is aiming to keep it tight outside offstump, and try the occasional off cutter to see if an LBW is possible. What is to stop a batsman in such an event, from switching hands on the bat handle, everytime he shoulder's arms? This way, he would never be out LBW even if he was padding up to an off-cutter coming back into the stumps after pitching outside off stump, because the "switch" would be in operation.
So the switch-hits brings with it two very bad options - one, where the batsman is able to counter bowling into the rough outside his leg-stump and effectively sweep without the risk of the LBW, or it could create an opportunity for a batsman (an anti-Pietersen, if the MCC would like) to completely negate the contest between bat and ball as it stands today. Either ways, allowing the switch-hit skews the contest further in favor of the batsman.
All this arises from the misguided (in my view) notion that fours and sixes are what entertain people. Every significant rule change in the modern era has been in favor of the batsman - the rule limiting bouncers, the front foot no-ball rule, the rule with regard to over-rates, ball-tampering rules. Some of these are admittedly good rules, others are problematic. The only rule change in the modern era which can be said to have been to the bowlers benefit is the new bowling law, and this law has in my view been a disaster. The response, given new information has involved defining what is legal, instead of further refining a description of the what is illegal as far as the bowling action is concerned. The old law explicitly described the illegal delivery. The new bowling law, while it has accomodated Shoaib Akthar, Mutthiah Muralitharan and a host of other bowlers, has made Cricket more rancorous and more uncertain.
This switch-hit rule promises to do the same.
Given that India conceded 283 in their 50 overs, shouldn't the headline actually read "Batting rescues India yet again" or "Bowling under performs again for India" ?
About
