The Super Smash Conundrum

In the continual flood of domestic T20 hooey raining upon us all year wide; athletes formerly known as cricketers strut about in coloured pyjamas engaging in high powered baseball cricket.  It's been on for a few years now, and with time it became clear that the IPL and the Big Bash reign supreme among the various PLs' in Pakistan, Bangladesh, The Caribbean and England.

But more importantly, and rather sadly, it became clear which of these tournaments didn't rise to the top, New Zealand's very own fast food variety, the Super Smash.

While one might not be a resounding advocate of T20, we have to accept it exists, it's here to stay, and even may even go as far as deserving its place as an energetic crowd-pull over a couple of lazy beers.

Our flavour is no different to the rest of the leagues, in theory at least; a series of domestic level teams tearing apart a torrent of bowling mediocrity, partaken on postage stamps as each forgettable match follows another until we have an equally forgettable 'champion'.

The difference is, our version is dead; but perhaps with a bit of foresight and imagination it doesn't have to be this way.

Two ways we can instantly fix it:

1. Bring In The People
Granted, it's not easy to plan around an international calendar for all three formats of the game, but there needs to be a deliberate effort made to get a T20 window blocked out. Guess what already found success in New Zealand? Rugby Sevens and Auckland Nines. 

Putting the fun in fun-sized, the heavily concentrated and time-boxed events worked wonders simply because they were easy to plan for and commit to; they packed a quick punch and it was over with without saturating it's potential.

Could this work for cricket? In T20 absolutely.

A one month tournament is insanely long, we simply do not have the spectator base to hold up that level of interest.  Trim it to a week.  

We only have six teams and have the ability to crack through two games a day - no different to a day out during a regular ODI match. If everyone plays each other once, that's 15 games + 1 final, easily done.  Turn each venue into a real carnival; milk it with fan zones, player meets, and the sureshot option of handing out free stuff.  Why not dish out free data spots offered by a happy sponsor?

Unlike vanilla cricket this is the chance to get creative, at the moment there simply isn't enough imagination.

2. Bring In The Players
Now that there's bums on seats, we need action.  The lack of cricketing star power has plagued our domestic competition for decades, there simply never is enough emotional investment.

Now with all due respect to the Carl Cachopas' and Scott Kuggeligns' of our world, the future of our sport needs to be playing alongside our top graders to develop themsleves and importantly truly get our attention. The team sheets are simply not magnetic enough to register on most radars.   We gamely try to give the competition TV & radio coverage, but this is all akin to Roger Federer's presence in Auckland in 2000. A diamond in the making is simply a lump of rock.

What do we really want to see?

We want to see Brendon McCullum ruthlessly charging Trent Boult, the way he audaciously attacked Dale Steyn and Mitchell Johnson.  Boult retaliates, rapping one into his ribs, McCullum then tries to counter but it nips back in a touch and he loses his pegs. Our country's best bowler versus our most lunatic batsman, now that I'll make time for.

How about Ish Sodhi fire through Ross Taylor like a hot curry with that wicked wrong'un, fresh after a couple of Taylor patented slog sweeps have disappeared into the banks.   Will a Tim Southee yorker land or get hit clean out of the ground by Martin Guptill?  Does the old fox Daniel Vettori still have a trick or two, or will the forgotten Jesse Ryder bash him out of the attack?

The Super Smash, should, have your answers. At the moment it's not asking questions.

If you start to introduce stakes to the game, then you might attract more riches - the Pollards' and Pietersens' of the world.  Get enough West Indians here and you might even get Chris Gayle touching NZ soil in the one format he really cares about.  Now there's a crowd puller.

Why not throw in a mandatory couple of under-19 players?  Cash in on a bit of free talent exposure.



These little encounters are the stuff of cricket, especially this brand of cricket.  It is designed to be grandiose and gladiatorial; what use is that without gladiators?

Cricket Max made the same mistake two decades ago, remember Carl Bulfin anyone? 

Matt Renshaw - The Return of the Gritty Opener

Something bizarre happened last week, a test match batsman left the ball.

Left the ball? What is this, the 70s? Where are the boundaries, the DLF maximums? What is this nonsense about batting time! Leaving deliveries that should be left, putting the flashy garbage in the cupboard. Didn't Matt Renshaw get the memo? This is not cricket!

I jest, of course it is.

Let us compare him to that nutter David Warner, a player intent only on his damn-the-torpedoes crash and bang approach. No disregard to context and circumstance. Hey, it's earned him an average of 48, what's wrong with that? Honestly, probably nothing. In this day and age with our ridiculous batting tracks and lowered bowling standard, heave-ho test cricket actually works.

But if we take him back 20 years ago, and he would have averaged about 28, mincing about quietly at domestic level. Warner would have been clueless facing the likes of Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Was & Waq, the entire Australian attack. Especially if the ball talks and the pitch misbehaves. The apparent "Modern" cricketers of his ilk would have been nothing but fodder in the yesteryear, including fellow T20 experts Martin Guptill and Rohit Sharma, cut from the same cloth.

© thehindubusinessline.com

That's not to say attacking cricket doesn't work. Viv Richards and Adam Gilchrist were geniuses of their time for being able to maintain a colourful strike rate while clad in whites, turning entire matches on it's head in a mere session. But the difference is that they had to combat genuine pace, quality swing, horrendous spin and alien conditions all the time.

Virender Sehwag tonking Murali and Mendis around was pure joy when no other Indian that day could even get the ball off the square. It's no fun if everyone else is whacking centuries too.

That's all changed. This breed is allowed to bat with utter disregard of what the ball might do, simply because most of the time the ball will do absolutely nothing. Watch the way modern batsman thump their front foot down, pre-determine the ball's trajectory, and swing their caveman-esque batting clubs away.

They could do it blindfolded, with the right timing. Without this ability to judge so easily, Dhoni's last over mad glory swings would result in flying stumps instead. It's baseball cricket, and it leaked into the five-day format.

We all love Ross Taylor, but hammering 290 in Perth is just insulting to the 18-year-old Tendulkar, who's century is worth 500 in comparison. It was a plain stupid match containing four centuries and two doubles, two high-quality seam attacks reduced to dust.

Is it their fault? Not at all. They are a product of the times, engineered out of the senseless thirst for fewer wickets and more whack. You play what's in front of you, and that's certainly not the fault of batsman cashing in.

But there is a larger problem, now we have a kid named Renshaw who actually wants to play for stumps, protect his wicket, leave anything not worth touching and force the bowler to do all the work. Sunil Gavaskar once said, the first hour always belongs to the bowler, and the rest belongs to him. The old-fashioned ideas of settling down, getting your eye in have slowly become obsolete. Mark Richardson did it and was appreciated, Akash Chopra did it and was discarded permanently in favour of another flat track robot Yuvraj Singh, a hopeless test match player.

The insanity in the commentary box summed up the bizarre situation, fellow stone-waller Mark Taylor and his blissfully clueless Channel 9 crew slammed Renshaw for "not getting on with it", while the aforementioned Warner and their captain threw their wickets away in typically idiotic fashion. Remember this is a team that was bowled out for less than 200 twice in the series, and there was a full day's play left to get the winning runs.  Renshaw saw off 183 deliveries for one dismissal, we were regarding someone finally with the stomach for a fight, and he's hung out to dry? Ludicrous.

His partnership with Usman Khawaja for practically zero runs on day one was a massive reason Australia was even allowed to build a score. His second innings ensured that the run chase was secured at least on one end. His die-hard mindset, regardless of a few play and misses, had Abbott and Rabada frustrated, two men who were otherwise raking in wickets for fun.

By taking away the commonplace batting-mistake mode of dismissal, Renshaw, and similarly, the freshly introduced Haseeb Hameed & Jeet Raval, are forcing the opposition to produce a jaffa to remove them, asking them to earn their wicket. Immediately the initiative was back on the batsman, 90% of the balls delivered weren't going to trouble them. The bowling quality was forcibly raised and in turn the value of quality shots. It was refreshing to see the brief return of smart cricket.

But sadly, here's what might happen. Renshaw will stick around for now given that Australia finally won a test match, but times will get tough again and his gritty 30s and 40s will be overlooked simply through the numbers game. There's always a flat pitch around the corner for Warner to keep his stocks healthy, at the end of the day selectors will look at raw averages and discard this young bloke.

A shame, because Day 1 of the Adelaide Test delivered that wonderful slow burning drama that a full IPL season could never deliver.

India vs New Zealand - Was it Fair?

And so, our humble Kiwi's failed to take off in India, hopes ruined completely by the two Ravis - Ashwin and Jadeja.  The Black Caps found themselves playing on moon surfaces, with the odd exception of a very New Zealand style pitch engineered to turn the underrated Bhuvi Kumar into a swinging menace. 

3-0 later it all begs the question, is it honestly fair that India is allowed to doctor their wickets to suit them?

The answer is, yes, why the hell not.

There is nothing wrong with home advantage, in fact it enhances the game. Winning overseas should be a big deal, the opposition should be walking into a cauldron of alien conditions and jeering home crowds. Victory on foreign soil should be special.

"Definitely a hint of turn out there today".  © edu-observatory.org

This is what made India's drawn 2003 series in Australia so fascinating, then later Australia's 2004 victory in India described as if conquering "the final frontier", near impossible tasks made any shot at victory so compelling. 

India has to exorcise their seaming wicket demons, a subject previously clueless about (poor Tendulkar aside). Anil Kumble had to mine all day tirelessly to extract wickets, Jason Gillespie had to turn in an inspired fast bowling performance on pitches catered for spin. 

Yes we have padded home averages, suddenly Ashwin is a better bowler than Warne and Murali combined we're told. Kohli and Pujara, so hopeless in England, are racking up tons and double tons. Sir Jadeja is the worlds deadliest all-rounder, "The Complete Player" the post-match coverage proudly blares.  

Uh huh.  © Cricinfo.com 

Take these guys to face Jimmy Anderson in his backyard, and things get pretty ugly, but as before, why not? Averages level out, and that is the cost of building a home town team as India were in the 90s.  If you don't adapt, you perish, and fair enough. 

Then how did India climb to number one on the rankings? While a brilliant South African side sits on 5th? Does #1 in the ICC rankings truly mean number one?  Not if the cards aren't dealt fairly all over the world, and therein lies the issue, only India get to play doctor it seems. 

Remember what happened when they toured New Zealand in 2001-02? A spectacular series where tests couldn't reach three days, and ODI innings couldn't hit 50 overs.  Sourav Ganguly and his men let their opinions rip, and next time they came to town around we duly delivered them roads.

What was wrong with New Zealand favouring their own strengths? It was a fascinating series where we appreciated quality swing bowling, and the rare dogged batting that countered it. Shane Bond was near unplayable. Zaheer Khan, Ashish Nehra and Javagal Srinath finally had bowling conditions to work with. Rahul Dravid described his 76 in Wellington as one of the best innings of his career. 76, not 276. An inspired Virender Sehwag didn't seem to care at all and clubbed centuries in a series where sometimes 20 was gold.

It was certainly weird cricket, it was nothing like the 'norm' that popular opinion later dictated. But that didn't make it any less fascinating. Had India won that series, they would rightfully have stood tall, just as New Zealand would have if they managed to win this series. There was nothing wrong with a thumping then, and there is nothing wrong with it now.

Instead, we stand in a situation where New Zealand's green seamers are long gone, nobody is scared of touring the West Indies, even Perth has become a flat joke. Other than (perhaps) English conditions, it's become about who can stand and slog the longest. 

It's wasteful to throw away an intriguing element of the game, variety should be embraced not wrested away because one cricketing board says so. A tragic shame, and an unnecessary dilution to our game.

A couple of final musings:

• What happened to excessive appealing, does the law even exist anymore? The last guy who tried to do anything about it was Mike Denness way back in 2001, and got his officiating career destroyed for his troubles.
• How does Sir Jadeja get away with *deliberately* tampering the pitch with a fine equal to 2 minutes of endorsement work? Oh, they handed NZ five runs, I guess...
• In those few occasions New Zealand were fighting along admirably, what do you call the laughable accusation of the 'deliberate drinks breaks' tactics?

Those dastardly cheats.

Throw away the spirit of the game when things go against the script? 

Onwards to more maulings then, Bangledesh next, in a series promised to be fascinatingly ugly.

The Stokes-Starc Drama

We have just witnessed one of the real oddities of the game of cricket. 

In case you missed it:

• Kiwi-Englishman Ben Stokes hit the ball straight back to the bowler, the reputably aggressive Mitchell Starc
• Starc hurled it back at breakneck speed attempting to smash the wickets and remove Stokes baseball style
• Stokes stuck his hand out to block the throw and was subsequently dismissed for 'obstructing the field'

© foxsports.com.au

And now the cricketing world has blown up, a plethora of debate erupted from one ball of madness.

Question: Is it moral?

This topic is entirely subjective and farms out cricketing hypocrites like anything. The subject of 'gentlemen's game' and 'doing the right thing' is a red herring, even the cleanest outfit in the world has dirty laundry. The team in question is of course our humble Black Caps, remember the incident where McCullum ran out Muralitharan even though the universe knew he wasn't after a single? Now here he is on his high horse crying foul.

The Irish-Englishman captain in question has also taken the tall and mighty ground claiming he would have "withdrawn the appeal". Rubbish. I don't agree with Australians often, but George Bailey was bang on in calling this "a big thing to say". The poms are some of the worst when it comes to sporting behavior and moral standards on the field, the likes of Swann and Anderson are disgraceful.

They, and just about every other cricketing nation, has absolutely no grounds to call the card of "Blasphemy!  We would never do that!".

Question: Who do we blame?

There wouldn't be a debate if there wasn't somebody to point fingers at.

Suspect #1: Mitchell Starc. A bowler trying to destroy the stumps while fielding a return ball is commonplace. It could be a genuine attempt to run out the player, a cheap tactic to intimidate the batsman, or a dirty attempt to actually hit the batsmen. Usually only the Australians venture into the bottom end of the scale, as seen even by Starc himself taking aim at Kieron Pollard. *However* in this case I believe Starc was taking a legitimate shot at the stumps when the batsman was outside his crease. He was not trying to hit Stokes, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. 

Verdict: Not Guilty. 

Suspect #2: Ben Stokes. It is illegal to obstruct the ball from a fielders attempt at the stumps, he knew it and anyone with a reasonable eye on the game also knows it. However a look at the replays very clearly shows that this was all about self-preservation. He was genuinely concerned he was about to wear a leather red cricket ball coming at 200kph on his face, and stuck his hand out based on pure instinct and reflex. He was *not* trying to cheat and prevent his own run out. 

Verdict: Not Guilty. 

Suspect #3: The Rules. 

There is surprisingly a piece in the laws of cricket that captures the crux of this problem, self-preservation. 

Law 37 describes the following three circumstances where this applies, but the law is not limited to these circumstances. If, after completing the act of playing the ball, the batsmen willfully strikes the ball with a hand not holding the bat, unless this is in order to avoid injury, or any other part of his person or with his bat

This is a clear cut case of Stokes valuing his head (literally).

Verdict: Not Guilty.

This leaves one remaining culprit...

Suspect #4: The Umpires.
It went upstairs to be looked at, so the on-field umpires did the right thing here and called on the appropriate authority. They took the heat off themselves and avoided a rash and hurried decision. The third umpire then had the benefit of slow motion replays, interpreted the laws in a subjective and opinionated manner, and then sent Stokes on his way. In his eyes there would have been reasonable doubt either way, and in my opinion neither Starc nor Stokes were guilty... hence how can I fault the third umpire for taking a stance he had to make?
Verdict: Not Guilty. 

... Then who is guilty?

The answer is, nobody. And that is what makes any sport interesting.

The uncertainties and the debate are the life of the game. There isn't any right or wrong answer and it can be argued to death in every way. If it was possible to apply a mechanical decision on everything how boring would that be?

Truth is, the best we can all do is take a stance, have an enjoyably loud argument about it, and then get on with the rest of this fascinating series. 

The Ishant Sharma Conundrum

Oddly enough Ishant Sharma has been making headlines since 2007 (eight years ago!), most famously for getting in the faces of opposition.

What justifies running your mouth in the gentlemen's game?
The answer is actually brutally simple, the Australian's do it. If there ever was a template to winning a game of cricket, "do what the Aussies do" sits right up there and it seems like the new age India has taken this on board perhaps a little too seriously. We have Kohli throwing f-bombs, Gambhir shoulder charging men twice his size, Dhawan doing mock limps in the outfield to belittle an injured batsman.

And we have Ishant. 

©AFP

Let's get one thing straight... this guy is a *terrible* bowler. 

Unlike the other aforementioned examples of cocky young Indians, this is one of the worst players operating in the game today. A reliable gauge for a good bowler is the bowling average, anywhere around 30 can be considered good while below 25 is top drawer. Ishant averages 36.5, poor by anyone's standard.

For some odd reason however, he truly believes he is in the Brett Lee and Dale Steyn school of fast bowling, and so he finds himself constantly getting fined for launching into verbal tirades which are usually completely uncalled for.  The critical difference is that yelling at a batsman when you're bowling figures are 1-100 is far less effective compared to say 1-23 (if Steyn's average is an example to go by).

So why does India persist with him?

Politics? But let's ignore favoritism for a moment because that's nothing but hearsay.

An answer is potential.  In a desperate search for quality Indian fast bowlers this young lad sprung out of nowhere and flung down deliveries both accurate and quick, using his tall frame to generate hostile bounce which had even Ricky Ponting hopping around.  It was almost old school West Indian like, it was raw and it was exciting. All the tools were there to become the next spearhead.

Unfortunately he faded away faster than a black pillow-case left in the sun, all that bustle and noise devolving into harmless Agarkar level fodder.  There are odd glimpses, such as the current hostile spells which helped India win this series in Sri Lanka (who are about to have a rough few years), but the glimpses are fleeting as illustrated by his stats.

An equivalent of the long lost Mohammad Sami.

India hasn't had an answer since Kapil Dev, with only Javagal Srinath and the underrated Zaheer Khan offering years of good service but never quite scaling the heights they were capable of.  Ishant is *capable* of plenty, but how much longer can you pick someone based on occasional rose tinted memories?

I'd sympathize more, if he'd just shut up and bowl.

The tough guy act fools nobody, sorry you're not intimidating until you have earned your stripes. 

Your spells were impressive this time, good. How about half a dozen more?

World Cup 2015 - The Perfect Semifinals

Is this the first ever cricket world cup where the actual top four will battle the semi finals?

It couldn't have been scripted any better. Two understated sides who have never gone beyond the semi-finals, two loud and arrogant sides who are utterly desperate to prove they are number one. One of each completely contrasting opponent will make up the grand final.

You cannot split them, you cannot separate them. Each of the four deserve to win the title, and each of them equally badly want it.

Who will blink first?


Why New Zealand Must Win
To shed the under-achievers tag and the notion of "punching above their weight" once and for all. This time New Zealand *is* a heavyweight and world cricket badly needs more attention away from the India and Ashes triumvirate. A nation of four million are rallying behind the undefeated home side, we have waited 13 years for this and a loss here would simply be tragic.

Why South Africa Must Win
To rid themselves of the chokers stigma and finally prove the promise. They have been strong since they re-emerged in the 90s and yet don't have a single grand final next to their name. We have already seen legends in green named Pollock, Donald, Rhodes, Kallis go without a title... must Amla, de Villiers and Steyn suffer the same unfortunate fate?

Why India Must Win
To squash the overseas myth. Winning in India was one thing but winning in New Zealand and Australia? Months of puerile cricket has been instantly forgiven as Team Blue puffed their chests out and exclaimed #WeWontGiveItBack. It has been an extremely impressive 70 wicket campaign with the biggest surprise the overnight transformation into quick accurate bowlers and fantastic fielders. Did someone threaten with an IPL paycut? Whatever it is, it worked.

Why Australia Must Win
To avenge years of pain. Losing the world cup to India, losing the Ashes, losing to Zimbabwe... it has been a torrid few years of which the wounds are only partially healed. This is the big prize, the stage is set perfectly on home soil to reclaim back the mantle they so desperately long for.



What is the perfect grand final?

Australia vs South Africa - A rematch of the epic disasters of 1999 and 2007 where the men in yellow demolished all South Africa hopes. There is no better way for the Rainbow Nation to take sweet revenge, win the cup at the MCG.

New Zealand vs Australia - A clash between neighbourly rivals, fellow co-hosts, and a revisit of the match of the tournament so far. For New Zealand, beating their taller cousins would be the perfect finish to a fairytale tournament.

India vs South Africa - India will have to defeat the only team that beat them in 2011 to claim back to back titles. You can be rest assured South Africa won't turn in the same lazy performance in pool play with so much at stake.

New Zealand vs India - The match up I am hoping for. The two best teams of the tournament, both undefeated, both with roots tied directly to your humble cricket enthusiast. Who does this Kiwi-Indian vouch for here?

Regardless of whatever happens, we can be rest assured the cricket will be nothing short of fantastic.

Game on!

World Cup 2015 - Aus vs NZ, Match of the Tournament?

Forget the famous India vs Pakistan rivalry for a moment.

Forget the Ashes, England have descended back into the 90s and don't look like coming out.

If we are talking cricketing rivalries, surely Australia vs New Zealand is now the most anticipated match up in world cricket.  This match was no exception.

Consider:

• Both teams are co-hosts and equally red hot favorites to win
• It was 23 years ago at this very venue when Martin Crowe's men stunned Australia
• The Trans-Tasman rivalry has been shelved in favor of the "big three" playing each other endlessly, we are deprived of Chappell-Hadlee battles.

The entire nation was humming, four million cricket nuts pumped and ready to dream big, boo David Warner and outplay the Aussies back over the ditch. For once we actually had eleven players capable of the feat, but even so it was an incredibly tough game to pick as both sides are extremely similar. Madness at the top, class in the middle, terrific bowling & fielding and a bloody mindedness to win at all costs.

Have we become a warm friendly version of the win hungry-Aussies, is little brother now an identical twin?


The match was arguably the most extraordinary world cup game of all time (top three at least). It was one of those rare surreal experiences in sport where the contest is so much more than just a bunch of guys on TV bashing a ball around with sticks. The history, the context, the emotion were all brewed in a perfect cocktail of cricket.

Like any truly memorable game the match swung like Wasim Akram in-swingers on grass:

1. Southee Nails Finch - Those first few overs were Zaheer Khan 2003 territory, a nervous wreck spraying the ball everywhere and runs leaking like a sieve. Was Australia going to repeat the 359-2?  Southee cleaning out Finch squashed that theory quick fast and got a nation of 4 million sighing with relief.

2. The Old Pro - The bespectacled king finally has the luxury of an actual bowling attack to work his magic around. His spell changed everything as no Aussie managed to make anything of his seemingly innocuous but unplayable balls. They tried to hit him out and that's when the rot began.

3. Thunderboults - Boult brought back the forgotten art of bowling *at the stumps*, hurrying the new batsman with raw pace and subtle movement and cleaning up the woodwork. A massive upgrade from the English and Indian attacks, maybe that's why Australia avoids us?

4. Greatness is Contagious - The first thing I thought of during the build up advertisement was "I can't wait for McCullum to actually face Johnson". I couldn't have asked for more, BMac was on a mission and he clouted fours and sixes with disdain, bulging left arm or not! Johnson tried to target this smashed arm and even then got pulled away to the fence, now that's raw Kiwi guts.

5. Beware The Wounded Aussie - I warned my fellow couch potatoes that there was a time Shane Bond destroyed Australia only to have Brett Lee issue the same treatment on us for a ridiculous comeback win.  You never discount Australia, and this time Haddin played Bevan and Starc played Lee, a demonic spell that had all of New Zealand wincing and covering their faces.

6. The Final Say - Kane Williamson, our only real class batsman. McCullum is great when he comes off but that won't be all the time, the rest of the batting is a scratchy awful mess in their first few overs especially when facing genuine speed. We wouldn't have reached 100 without The Next Crowe guiding us, remember that.

So what have we learnt?

The Cricket World Cup 2015 is alive and well and so far perhaps the best tournament yet. The 50 over game is truly the 'alternative' from to tests and T20 cricket and it's brand of big bats and small boundaries doesn't promote the arts of proper batting technique, hunting 2s and 3s instead of jogging singles, and scrambling in the field to save 20-30 runs per innings. This is how cricket should be played, all three facets with equal importance.

Secondly, genuine fast bowling is nothing without accuracy, Boult and Starc are fine examples of how it's done and gave us a timely reminder of the lost thrill of cricket stumps in genuine danger.

Now one can only hope for a rematch, if it does happen it will be semi-final or better still the grand final.


But a warning to the Black Caps, Australia will not be this sloppy next time.

World Cup 2015 - India Have Arrived

India's lead up into the World Cup was atrocious.

The defending champions couldn't win a single game in Australia with key batsmen misfiring, their bowling & fielding were both the absolute pits, and captain Dhoni looked as bored as ever. An easy team to write off as title favorites given this form, particularly when up against the trio of Australia-New Zealand-South Africa who seemed to have all facets of the game under control.

But in the wise words of Bill Lawry "... all of a sudden it's all happening!"

Thrashing Pakistan was no surprise...

If there is one match India will always get up for, it's the opportunity to add to the 5-0 World Cup tally of beating Pakistan every time. At times it has been regarded as more important than winning the cup itself!

The surprising element was just how calmly they went about it.  There was no Sehwag whacking Gul half volleys, Tendulkar carving Shoaib Akhtar for dinner, or Prasad destroying Sohail's stumps. This time it was all patience and precision, patiently building a foundation until the 35th over and smoothly accelerating towards the psychological 300 benchmark.

Then with the help of scoreboard pressure, India found an extra bit of mojo plucked out of nowhere with ball in hand. Even more remarkably they turned in a fielding effort that wasn't it's usual lazy standard, India were able to record a professional display to get their world cup up and running.  

But Thrashing South Africa?

Where did this come from! India did not lose any of that India-Pakistan intensity, and that too against a team widely regarded as title favorites.

Dhawan and Kohli saw off the new ball threat without losing their heads (again), and this time it was the best in the world with a Steyn-Philander-Morkel pace battery.  They made sure a strong 300 total was secured rather than aiming for a more subcontinental score of 350.  But the real surprise again was how India bowled tightly with genuine pace, how they held their catches and fielded like demons.

They even executed run-outs! Blasphemy.

They turned the World Cup favourites into chumps, they out South Africa'd South Africa.
Suddenly pool A has a new boss.

Booya!

So What Does This Mean?

We now have a fourth player for the ultimate prize, the blue bandwagon is up and running. If India keep that level of high quality cricket up, they could very well go back to back here.

The already widely open World Cup has another reason to be excited, the defending champs aren't about to let the tight Kung Fu grip on their trophy be pried off anytime soon. This is particularly important with Pakistan, England and the West Indies playing like... themselves.

Bring it on Team Blue!

It's World Cup Time!

Just a matter of hours until the 2015 Cricket World Cup kicks off !!

And this time I won't be battling petty annoyances like time differences. This is without doubt the pinnacle event of cricket, the one tournament that demands undivided attention among all cricket fans.

I was 7 years old when the 1992 edition was hosted in Australia and New Zealand. Forget calling that a distant memory, it isn't a memory at all... and that makes this edition even more special with cricket's showcase event right here in our humble back yard.

Why Should We Care?

There is no test match championship, there is instead a dodgy ranking system which nobody really understands or pays attention to.  So with the 'pure' form of the game not having a marquee tournament, this fifty over World Cup becomes the closest thing we have to gauge which cricketing nation is the best in the world.

Does it truly reflect the greatest team?

Australia rampaged through a triple strike from 1999 - 2007 when they were clearly the best in the business, so that made sense. But then again South Africa constantly under-achieve, New Zealand constantly over-achieve and Sri Lanka pulled off an underdogs dream in 1996 without dominating before or after.

The answer then? Yes and no... two months of good cricket is enough to win the cup but is hard to pull off unless it is really deserved.

So Who Will Win in 2015?

It's a cliché, but his is truly one of the most open world cups in a long time. Ever since Australia climbed a few rungs down the latter it became largely an open playing field among the big guns.

Let's have a go at the order of likelihood to win:

Unfortunately we have to write off UAE, Afghanistan and Scotland. I always welcome the little guys but again there are a few too many soft games coming our way. Of this group, Scotland is the most likely to pull a surprise.

Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are capable of much more but can't seem to get it together.

The West Indies won't show up among their political and selection battles, poor Jason Holder has to carry this hopeless mob on his young shoulders.

Ireland will annoy one or two teams, may there be plenty of Irish luck.

England are a poor ODI squad, they are all noise and hot air.  Led by an Irishman who pretends they aren't scared of Mitchell Johnson, it's pretty hard to back the poms to go beyond the quarters.

Sri Lanka rely too much on their ageing old boys club, there is surprisingly little else going on in their line-up. If Malinga turns up fit though then there could be surprises.

Pakistan are the joker card of the pack, capable of anything and at the same time nothing. They are the gambling man's bet, although on paper though they are disappointingly inexperienced and average this time.


This leaves.....

New Zealand, who were dubbed by AB de Villiers as "World Cup favorites" not long ago... right before he and his men thumped us. A nice piece of reverse psychology! The fact is we finally have the talent for once, and that might actually go against us. We're famous for sneaking into semi-finals unnoticed but this time all the big boys will be watching closely.

Australia and India are two teams never to be written off, both are cocky and annoying but they have genuine match winners littered in there and a genuine hunger to succeed. Always beware the wounded Aussie, however India will have to overcome their horrifically poor bowling and fielding.

South Africa are the most complete team in the world, and yet you can never confidently say they won't pull out their token choke.


Some predictions then:

Winner: South Africa
Deserved Runner Up: Australia
Unlucky Semi Finalist: New Zealand

Most Runs: Hashim Amla
Most Wickets: Dale Steyn
Best Strike Rate: Shahid Afridi
Best Economy Rate: Daniel Vettori
Most Sixes: Brendon McCullum

Meaningless but pretty 20 Award: Shane Watson
Last Man Standing Award: Misbah ul Haq
Disappointing Golden Duck Award: Chris Gayle
Reverse Pull Slog on 99 Award: Glenn Maxwell
The "Why Me" Award: Jason Holder
The Shut Up Award: James Brayshaw (Big men and big levers!?)

Player Most Missed: Dwayne Bravo
Player Most Missed (by opposition):  Ishant Sharma

Let the games begin!

Why Does India try to Sledge?

A week ago my call was 0-4 for India, and at 0-2 the whitewash is on!

Credit where it is due, India have competed quite well at times and in fact inexplicably threw away the Adelaide test which they should have at least drawn. How was that for a brain explosion, it was almost West Indies like. Nonetheless I have been impressed by Murali Vijay and Kohli, and expected worse.

Along came Brisbane, a place where Australia never loses and once again they didn't disappoint. But some hilarity stuck out, in particular India and their new found love for sledging.

Sledging is a cricket exclusive term, or as Steve Waugh termed it... "Mental Disintegration". The Aussies of old used it beautifully to defeat the opposition with mind games and end contests before they even started. Just ask any England team pre-2005 or Daryll Cullinan.

But it is important to realize the most important ingredient the Aussies had, the batting and bowling riches to make it work. The wonderful oxymoron Glenn McGrath is the best example, hurling expletives in the opposition's faces and yet delivering the same dour ball at the same generous pace patiently waiting for the batsman to crack.

Which brings us to India who it seems have adopted the same tactic, hey it worked for them why won't it work for us? This problem is, they are hopeless at it.

So what happened in Brisbane?

• Ishant Sharma, after being utterly thumped all day throws a few f-bombs when removing Steve Smith.  Note that Smith was yet to be dismissed in the series so far and was on 133. Note also that this is one of the most useless bowlers in the game today and it wasn't even a good delivery.
• Rohit Sharma and Superstar Virat greet Mitchell Johnson to the batting crease with some foul mouthing off, followed by some "bouncers" and "fast bowling" of the Indian variety. He proceeds to belt them for 13 fours and a six and then shows them how it's done with the ball including both Kohli (1 run) and Rohit (0 runs).

"Economy rate less than 5, in your face!"

Ladies and gentlemen, this is *not* how it's done.

Add to that whinging more about umpiring (but DRS won't solve anything of course!), Kohli not having enough time to pad up, the practice wickets not being up to standard and apparently the food was no good either. Moan moan moan. 

The real mystery is why India decided to adopt the brilliant idea of annoying the Australians into hammering them. 

In the 90s - Indian teams would show up, get disintegrated, go home and await the return series for revenge. It was horrible, but at least we lost with dignity.

In the 00s - Sourav Ganguly taught the boys to stand up for themselves and push back when pushed. But these guys didn't go around picking fights, the likes of Dravid, Tendulkar, Kumble and Laxman continued to play with dignity and class. It wasn't sledging, it was simply refusing to be bullied and we saw some of the best and most competitive India-Australia cricket. 

In the 10s - We have Gambhir shoulder charging Shane Watson, whose shoulders are bigger than Gambhir himself. We have Raina and Dhawan flopping around on the field mocking an injured batsman. We have two-bit bowlers like Varun Aaron giving send offs to David Warner. Sir Jadeja, Kohli and the Sharmas are always willing to throw in their unwanted two cents, while Dhoni tells us it provides entertainment for the crowd. 

The Indian cricket team that I grew up with was all about humility and grace, they had adopted a more English approach of cricket being a gentleman's game. Now they have taken on the Australian model of turning cricket into psychological warfare, only without any actual weapons. It is all noise and hot air at the moment.

So this is the message to Team India... sledging while winning makes you Australia, sledging while losing makes you idiots.

Farewell Gambhir, Sehwag, Yuvraj & Friends

And so while India are being thumped by Australia (4-0 coming your way folks), they also announced their 30 man squad of World Cup 'probables'.

Hang on a minute, thirty probables!? There are eleven members in a cricket team plus a water carrier, add four or five reserves and we have a touring party. What is the point in naming a probables list double the size of the group that will actually show up?

Here's why, it's confirmation of who will not show up.

India's list of omissions is a strange one.  Sure I can understand the concept of 'out with the old and in with the new', but in Indian cricket? Not exactly spoiled with young riches are they?

Lets examine the miss list:

Zaheer Khan - Is very unlucky. This is the best fast bowler India has had since Kapil Dev, with the exception of maybe Srinath. He was a huge reason as to why they won the last world cup (more than Dhoni) and the other options are average other than maybe Bhuvaneshwar Kumar.  What was Zaheer's mistake? Not playing for the Chennai Super Kings?
Selection Credibility - 9/10

No love guys?

Yuvraj Singh - Another unlucky original from the famous 2003 campaign (and the famous 2003 world cup final flop). He is still a class batsman and experience counts especially in alien conditions. They could have easily brought him back for one last hurrah a la Craig McMillan (who at one point had given up cricket to become a salesman), but alas this is probably the end.
Selection Credibility - 8/10

Gautam Gambhir - Lets recount an actual water cooler conversation where someone remarked "Oh my god.... Dhoni's innings in that world cup was amazing, nobody in the world could have played like that".

While the crickets chirped, I dared not to say a word (already am infamous for Dhoni bashing), but sanity prevailed with a wiser one nearby "..... actually Gambhir's innings is what really turned the match, it was him in fact that won it for India".  Bang on! Although a pathetic Sri Lankan fielding effort helped too (did someone say match fixing?).

Gambhir is interesting, he was very good for a while and had a real future, but instead became pretty much worthless especially outside of India.  A 50/50 selection at the moment, not much to gain, not much to lose.
Selection Credibility - 5/10

Dinesh Karthik - Possibly the most underrated keeper-batsman in the game. He's good enough to bust into the Indian team in any format, but Wriddhiman Saha has obviously been chosen as the next in line after Dhoni. Nothing against Saha, but DK deserves a better career than this.
Selection Credibility - 6/10

Virender Sehwag - Once one of the truly great players of the game.  Despite his reputation of being a stand and slog merchant, his strength was his simplicity and his no-footwork style knew how to get runs regardless of conditions. But time and pies took their toll in the 2010s, and unlike Tendulkar there was no plan B.  A great career, but let him go in peace.
Selection Credibility - 2/10

Harbhajan Singh - Conversely Bhajji was lucky he even had a career that long. A pity because his presence meant someone like Murali Karthik had none. Riding on the wild success of 2001, he shouldn't have even been in the 2011 world cup team let alone this one.
Selection Credibility - 1/10

Sreesanth - Buried underneath this cricketing oddity crying in public, the lifetime ban, out-dancing Shah Rukh Khan in a Shah Rukh Khan show, and bowling like a garden sprinkler gone nuts... there was in fact a high class pace bowler. We're never going to see that again.
Selection Credibility - 0

I'm calling it early, India will not win the world cup or even make the final. Would the likes of Zaheer and Yuvraj pushed them there? Their bag of tricks would have come in mighty handy in a team not built to play out of India.

Farewell to an older generation, and thanks for the memories of better days in Indian cricket.

Blame the Bouncer?

Every now and then, an event occurs within the confines of sport that transcends far beyond the normal boundaries.

Sport exists to entertain, it has no other purpose.  And yet here we are faced with the tragedy of losing Phillip Hughes, a young man primed to become one of the senior Australian batsmen in the years to come.

Sadly we will never know what heights he might have scaled, it was surreal and hard-hitting to see the 'died' section on his Cricinfo page.

Understandably there has been a lot of talk and debate surrounding this tragedy.

It is natural to seek an avenue of blame such as:

• Should the bouncer be illegal?
• Is the batsman protected enough?
• Is the bowler at fault, or perhaps fast bowling in general?

The truth is that none of this is even relevant because we are not dealing with a fault of any kind. Nothing was defective, nobody was negligent, all the appropriate measures were in place.  This is nothing more than exceptionally bad luck and the only option is to accept this harsh truth and move on.

It is certainly no fault whatsoever on poor Sean Abbott and it is very refreshing to see the amount of support he is getting.

Does The Bouncer Belong in Cricket?

Cricket has evolved into a batting oriented game, a bowler has little weapons left to bowl a side out.  These days ODI scores of 400 with double hundreds are achievable, Chris Gayle almost got a double in an IPL match.  Games sometimes hinge so heavily on winning the toss and batting that you can almost write off victory over a coin.  Batsmen have bigger bats, smaller grounds and friendly dead tracks. What does a bowler have?

Rarely these days do you get seaming and swinging conditions and only the very best are capable of using express pace.  But even speed is not enough as inaccurate speed easily becomes fodder, how often does an attempted yorker turn into a full toss or half volley? The margin for error is tiny.

This introduces the bouncer, a rare tool bowlers can use to keep a batsman honest providing it is used correctly.  This doesn't mean a bowler attempts to deliberately injure a batsman, nor does it mean six unplayable deliveries at the head. It should mean a dot ball which can be easily averted but difficult to play.

Nobody condones situations like Bodyline where there is clear malice in the bowling, and that's where the umpires step in.  Within the laws and within fair play the bouncer is fair enough, take away the bouncer and we reduce cricket further to mindless swing and smash.

Is the Equipment Good Enough?

We cannot blame the batting helmet either, and enhancing it's design to protect the neck would simply be a knee jerk reaction.  We currently have helmets, pads, gloves, arm pads, thigh guards and boxes. It is acceptable to state that all the key areas of the body are protected, from here an injury becomes a question of probability and risk. You will never get 100% success here.

The awful accident with Hughes was one of those low percentage occurrences that could happen to anyone without the slightest warning.  Everything we do carries some degree of risk, be it playing cricket or even as simple as crossing the road. Who is to say one of us won't get hit by a bus tomorrow?

What Happens Now?

It was a tragic and truly unpreventable incident that happened and it has left a feeling of dread over the game.  But the game must carry on as before.  It is great that cricket worldwide halted briefly and everyone joined in union to honor Hughes.  After this grace period and moments to reflect, everything should proceed as normal and I am looking forward to an emotional and inspirational series with Australia against India.


What happened to Phillip Hughes isn't fair, but then again what is?

Rohit Sharma has Destroyed Cricket

Cricket has gone mad.

What kind of a world do we live in when a batsman can score 264 runs in an ODI innings, to break his own record of 209 no less?  A world where 264 surpasses the entire second innings score. A mismatch of such epic proportions should only be experienced if India played Fiji.

There is a difference between Jayasuriya sticking it to opposition 1996 world cup in an audacious counter attack, and this snooze-fest of boundaries against club level bowling.

And we aren't talking Tendulkar, Gilchrist or Gayle type pyrotechnics,  Rohit Sharma is a pretty average player.  To regard him has potentially one of the all time greats based on a silly innings like this is nonsense.

How Did This Happen?

It was inevitable that the IPL effect would eventually seep into ODI cricket. That brand of cricket promotes small boundaries, dead batting tracks and atrocious bowling and fielding (thank you Sri Lanka for playing your part).  This isn't ODI cricket, it is Fifty50 cricket.

It is important to note the distinction:

• ODI cricket is a cricket match designed to be a contest between bat and ball
• Fifty50 is a baseball slogathon exclusive to Indian wickets

One could argue that Sri Lanka had the same opportunity on the same pitch to make those kind of runs. But whose home turf is this? Who gets the maximum exposure to these grounds? IPL matches, the Champions League T20, the Ranji Trophy, Irani Cup, Duleep Trophy... this is India's back yard and they know how to use it.

Is Home Advantage Wrong?

Of course not, in fact I am all for home advantage *providing* it continues to be a fair cricketing contest.  There is nothing fair about it when the bowler is taken out of the equation, it becomes Shane Warne Cricket on Playstation.  Batting pitches this bad (or 'good' batting tracks) is equivalent to cheat codes.

I remember when Ganguly's tour party came down to New Zealand in 2002/03, and the reverse happened with wickets tumbling everywhere and Andre Adams was as lethal as Brett Lee. There was such a storm kicked up that the following tour was tailor made for batting again, and the batsman had a field day with India cleaning up the series.

How is a wicket taking paradise any less biased than 400+ conditions?

Some home advantage makes sense, lunacy does not.

The Stats Speak

There are now 4 double centuries in ODI cricket, all of them by Indians, all of them in India.

Rohit Sharma has an ODI batting average of 38.  Decent yes, but nowhere near deserving of the two biggest individual scores in the game.

The real telling numbers come in the home-away-neutral averages treble of 68-27-35, plus lots of games in Australia with an average of 26.

The latest India-Australia series smashed all sorts of batting records.  This included James Faulkner, hardly a batsman, taking away Australia's fastest century record from the incomparable Matthew Hayden.

Something is wrong with this picture.


What is the Damage?

The batting records will rumble, the top ODI innings list has become a bit farcical and so too will the top ODI batting totals as well.  Any bowling attack that concedes 400+ in 50 overs should be shot at dawn.

Don't get me wrong, stating that Rohit Sharma has Destroyed Cricket is *not* an attack on Rohit, he has been simply played with the cards dealt to him.  Who wouldn't love to score double hundreds?

The point is that he is currently a symbol of everything that is going wrong with the ODI game, no player should be getting doubles let alone him.  Glenn Maxwell another prime example, a slog merchant swinging as if blindfolded.

What Happens Now...

Hopefully the game will still live on in sanity with plenty of matches outside of India, and that includes the upcoming World Cup.

If Rohit Sharma hits anything close to a double century during that tournament, I will eat my cricket bat for breakfast.

England Deserve to Lose It All

There was a time where it was fun to root for England, namely when they went about toppling the unbeatable Australians in 2005. The underdogs beating the Aussies at their own game playing with aggressive swagger and style.  It was great.

But that was nearly a decade ago. The so called English dominance of test cricket, brief as it was, is going through a painfully slow death where they can no longer play Ishant Sharma.

And they absolutely deserve it.

lol

There is a difference between the once great Australia and the once "great" England.  Australia were ridiculously good and they knew it, they could field three cricket teams who could blow apart anybody that dared to turn up. One would scream out for those precious moments when another team actually got the better of them (the aforementioned Ashes 2005, a prime example).

The Australians were deliciously, unapologetically arrogant.
But they were *not* obnoxious, and here lies the crux of the problem.

Despite the likes of McGrath, Lee, Warne, Hayden hissing and spitting at you on the field while butchering your so-called cricket team, off the field these guys were actually some of the nicest guys you'll ever meet. They were the ultimate oxymoron. (Well, other than Warne who continues to be a muppet).

But England were different. It was the English who threw jelly beans on the pitch during a test match against India, who had players turning up to training too drunk to throw a ball, who got drunk during a world cup and capsized a boat. One Australian was similar and he got banned for it, Symonds never got the leniency Flintoff or KP got.

But England were winning, and Swann was the new Warne, Prior the new Gilchrist, and some had the audacity to believe that Cook would one day beat Tendulkar's test match centuries record. Oh the cheek of it.

When the going got tough... the Australians reflected humbly and admitted hitting the bottom.  They kept quiet, licked their wounds and bided their time. (Yes yes... other than Warne).

England's responses to the pressure in comparison has ranged from the cowardly to the ludicrous.
Lets look at the highlights:

The Top 5 English Prats:

KP the South African
Number five on the English hall of fame is none other than the polarising pillock himself. Playing only for himself, wrecking the dressing room and back stabbing his captain are among his favourite hobbies. Poor Andrew Strauss (idiotically, but truthfully) told the whole world what he thinks of KP, at least he gave us the refreshing reality. England might not be much good these days, but they're certainly better off without this guy.

Broad the Ghostbuster
The excuse for reaching all new levels of fail was a result of a haunted hotel room and being tormented by ghosts borrowing their bathroom sinks. No really.

Swann the Sprinkler
This goof was once (and probably still is) England's leading spinner. Wisely or not he decided to jump the sinking ship before his precious test averages took a real beating, like a true champion.

Also proud winner of the "Most Punchable Face" award

Anderson the Wet Blanket
Unlike your classic fast bowling spearhead, the once big talking and sledge flinging James Anderson was reduced to tears during a last minute loss to the Sri Lankans. This guy couldn't even get a word out during the post-match interview as he was struggling through his own sobbing. Sobbing!

Did you see Brett Lee and Kasprowicz bawling like babies when they famously lost the Edgbaston test with mere minutes to spare? Dejected yes, but they were not calling for the Wah-mbulance.


And our number one prize goes to...

Trott the Con
Faced against a reborn Mitchell Johnson, England's biggest loser trotted off home citing "stress related reasons". Which might have been acceptable if a) he didn't carry on like an unlikeable upstart previously and b) he had a real mental illness! He more or less admitted to faking it to get out, even his own Englishmen condemned this coward.



So In Conclusion....
I don't say this often but, go you mighty Indians go! Give the English a series defeat at home. Maybe they will go back to the dark day of the nineties, but at least they were gentlemen back then.