Daily Archives: 1 March 2008

Roy, Bhajji and the…

Loved this hilarious article in The Age, about Roy Bhajii and the non-stop argy-bargy 🙂


Batting collapses in the series

This CB series has had a fair share of batting collapses. Pretty much every match has had one and here is the list:

  • Match 1: India are on 91 for 2 in the 20th over and by the 27th over, lose the entire middle order (4 wickets) for the addition of just another 11 runs. In the same match, Australia were on 33 for no loss. They then went on to lose Hopes, Gilchrist and Ponting in the space of just 9 balls and if rain hadn’t interrupted play, we could have had another collapse (the ball was swinging around like crazy and the batsmen didn’t look comfortable at all)
  • Match 2: Another rain interrupted match. India were cruising at 68 for no loss in the 15th over. India then went to lose 4 wickets for the addition of just 15 runs. Thankfully, an unbeaten partnership between Dhoni and Gambhir pulled India out of trouble.
  • Match 3: Sri Lanka bowled out for 125! They were at 57 for 2 at one stage, but the middle order collapsed from that to 93 for 7. They could never recover after that.
  • Match 4: This game didn’t have any dramatic batting collapses, but ended up being a low scoring affair with Australia bundled out for 159 and India getting there for the loss of 5 wickets (with a minor hiccup losing three of those wickets between the score of 89 and 102)
  • Match 6: Sri Lanka were on 129 for 4, chasing a total of 236. and although there wasn’t any major collapse, they ended up losing wickets at regular intervals to be all out for 173.
  • Match 7: Another low scoring affair. India managed to keep Australia to 203 runs, and at 134 for 5, were still in with a chance. A Dhoni was then run out and the rest of the wickets folded for the addition of just 19 runs
  • Match 10: The first high scoring game of the tournament. Although there were no dramatic batting collapses, India did lose 3 important wickets at the top of the order – Sehwag, Rohit Sharma and Yuvraj Singh for the addition of just 6 runs. That probably cost them the match.
  • Match 11: SL were cruising at 72 for 1 in 14 overs and looked like getting a good score. A loose shot from Sangakarra then started the parade to the pavilion. SL were then reduced to 93 for 7, losing 6 wickets for the addition of just 21 runs! They had a mini recovery of sorts to finish at 179, but the total on  a good wicket was just not enough.
  • Match 12: Sri Lanka scored  just 221 at the MCG, which didn’t seem enough. Hopes and Gilchrist started making a mockery of the Sri Lankan score, when they were at 107 for no loss in just the 15th over. In less than 10 overs, Australia went on to lose 6 wickets for the addition of just 16 runs! 

Just goes on to highlight the importance of not throwing your wicket if you are well set. Take Gilchrist’s wicket in the last innings for instance- he had reached 83 of just 49 balls and if he hadn’t tried to take the aerial route of the next ball, Australia could well have won the game (with a bonus point to boot).

It would be interesting to see what the finals holds and if the teams have learnt anything from these batting collapses.


Sledging – bind or be blind?

The two greatest rationale and philosophy of our times, capitalism and democracy, are based on the idea that individuals, through their actions based on self-interest, will drive forces towards the most beneficial state for inviduals and/or society as a whole. In extending this thinking to the cricketing field and the current controversy over sledging, is it not best that the cricketers themselves decide what is acceptable and not acceptable to them, through their actions on the field, instead of expecting an external body such as ICC to define it for them? This thinking takes the exterme opposite view of what Harsha Bhogle tries to recommend in his article in The Times of India.

My sincere opinion is that cricketers should be allowed to use sledging, without any constraints, irrespective of how offensive it is. Most people take offense because they might feel ill-equipped in the approved forms of retaliation. In the newly recommended open environment, one can use whatever means one has, to retaliate. In a bizzare way, nothing will eventually be offensive to anyone, since its free for all. I look at it as a positive development in line with the ongoing changes that cricket has embraced in Twenty20, IPL and Technology.

Also, with every control that has been vested in the hands of the ICC, there have been perceptions of inconsistency and impotence felt by stakeholders of the game across the globe. In the interests of the game and a practical step forward, I feel its best that the players are let loose on each other in the center, so that the public is relieved of the after shocks. This brings to an abrupt end, months of debate and platitudes over whether someone or some society is racist or not, whether a certain person was as severely punished as another etc. I am positive that with each sledging act in the field, players will yell the choicest of abuses at each other without any interruptions from any players or officials, and when the energies are exhausted in that act, each will take their stance to bat or bowl or field the next ball and the game will move on.

– Bharath