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.

Oh Black Caps... How Ye Flatter to Deceive

It was a cool winters evening in New Zealand and here I was, a humble supporter tuning into the late night cricket, brimming with optimism at the prospect of chasing down a reachable 239 to achieve glorious victory at Lords.  We had come fresh of a hard fought 0-0 stalemate at home with the 'moral victory' (if such a thing counts for anything at all), the apple was ripe for the picking to give it back to the motherland at no other than the home of cricket itself.

Mere minutes later alas, it was 29-6 at lunch and I amongst the few cheering the visitors on had no choice but to cave in and choose the infinitely more comforting warmth of the bedsheets.

What happened?

It seems we were due for a moment of madness after three and a half tests worth of quality cricket, which is usually about three and a half more than what is normally produced. Despite all the doom and gloom that has triggered memory loss amongst most fans for the months before this ill fated match, there is room for optimism.

1. Captain B-Mac
There were all sorts of shenanigans during the Ross Taylor vs Brendon McCullum saga as the battle between the humble crowd favourite and the cocky aggressor raged on. Every armchair critic and talk back caller had an ill opinion usually directed against the latter due to the poor handling of Taylor.

Seriously, you want this guy?  © Getty

But it is the latter who prevailed, and dare I say for the better. Yes he is cocksure and smarmy, but he's also an innovator as opposed to a reactor. When he came on board things started happening, he and Hesson have ensured us consistent selections, an aggressive mini-Australian attitude and the best use of McCullum with the bat, with middle order blasts as opposed to all or nothing approach when opening.

Under him we have seen an ODI series victory in South Africa and the 8th ranked black caps giving it to the 2nd ranked English. We needed a leader, not a nice guy. Yes we have seen a fair amount of crap with it, but ranging between extremes is still better than a constant hopeless lull of mediocrity.

2. An actual fast bowling unit
We can thank our bowling coach Shane Bond for this one. How is it that a nation of green tops couldn't produce seamers for years? Perhaps they were always there but we didn't know how to unearth them (or in the case of Neil Wagner, import them from South Africa). Suddenly we have three seamers with a bit of pace to go with their swing ability and we have Tim Southee bowling like a spearhead and not a buffoon with a big mouth.

Most importantly from a New Zealand perspective they are young and fit, the keyword being fit as Kiwi bowlers break down faster than Auckland's public transport.

3. What about the batsman?
Kane Williamson is a class act and will be the best thing we have produced since sliced bread and Martin Crowe. We have the hit and miss whackjobs of Taylor and McCullum but honestly little else. The others will have their days along with a few too many off days along side that. And when they all have an off day... well that is when 68 all out happens.

The Bottom Line
New Zealand will not be #8 for long, mark my words.  This is slowly becoming the best test team we have produced since the days of the early 2000s when we were sticking it to the Aussies and the English through Nathan Astle mutilating cricket balls and Shane Bond cricket bails.

So heres to better days than day 4 at Lords 2013.

The Australian Collapse: Has It Been Worse?

It was the early hours of the morning when I was tuned into the forever reliable cricinfo.com text commentary for the South Africa vs Australia test match. Fresh off (what I thought then) a career defining 151 from Michael Clarke, I witnessed the (what I thought then) underrated Shane Watson produce a record breaking five wicket haul and a typical South African choke. At 96 all out at nearly 2am in the morning, sleep took quick preference over this supposedly dead test match.

But alas!

In the car on the way to work, and the good folk on talk-back radio were going bananas the next morning. I remember distinctly thinking that 96 all out is a bad effort, but nothing to be flipping upside-down about, what's all this excited chatter? Then I realized they weren't even talking about them, the king of chokers were out choked themselves. Repeat after me, 47 all out, Australia. Forty Seven. All Out.

No? Try this one for size, 9 for 21. Nine Australian wickets, 21 runs. Hasn't quite sunk in yet? Me neither. The most ridiculous result since these two teams produced the 438 run chase. 

The first thoughts for everyone were how can a team as good as Australia be quite so abysmal.

• Was it the pitch? Nope, as Amla and Smith showed us with glee. 
• Was it the pressure? Not with a huge first innings lead. 
• Was it amazing bowling? It was solid at best, but no demolition job.

why why WHY © Getty

Excuses nil, it was just bad batting. Exceptionally and inexplicably bad batting. The question I put to you dear reader is, has it ever been this bad? Has a test team of this quality ever been ripped away in such a manner? The Cricket Musings aims to find out (at least for the last decade or so), along with a grading of possible excuses.

Case 1: India Fail. New Zealand Epic Fail

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64021.html

India were the laughing stock of the world after Shane Bond finished them off the in first test of this series. A series famous for is green tops that made Daryll Tuffey and Andre Adams menacing (!), things were no better as India slumped to a pathetic 99 all out after another inept display. But the real laugh arrived when New Zealand themselves were blown away for 94 all out, three innings in one day. Too bad that India couldn't capitalize and gave New Zealand a poor 160 as the successfully chased down fourth innings target, but it was nonetheless a harsh lesson for a team only slightly worse than the tourists.

Pitch Quality: D

Bowling Quality: B

Stupidity: B

Case 2: Australia Squander 107

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64102.html

Having already crashed India's party at home by bowling them out for 104 with a 2:0 lead in the series, Australia were left to chase 107 after a manic Indian third innings saw Laxman and Tendulkar manage important 50s and Michael Clarke take bowling figures of 6 for 9. Michael Clarke successes are a bad omen it seems, as Australia were bundled out for 93 on what was a dodgy Mumbai minefield. When was the last time Bhajji ran through a line-up? This was probably it.
Pitch Quality: D
Bowling Quality: B
Stupidity: B

Case 3: West Indies Destroy England

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/63639.html
It was a rare and beautiful thing to see the Ambrose and Walsh machine fire on both cylinders, and when it does happen only devastation is left in its wake. England were the unfortunate victims this time, forget the entirely achievable target of 194 because when you get the greatest fast bowling partnership of our generation, almost nothing is achievable. Given the bowling quality, it seems a miracle they even got to 46.
Pitch Quality: B
Bowling Quality: A+

Stupidity: not applicable

Don't even bother turning around son. © PA Photos

Case 4: West Indies Destroy England - Deja Vu

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/352661.html
Fast forward fifteen years later and we have a strong English unit and a generally woeful West Indies. The poms were looking to wipe away the first innings lead the West Indies had, a measly 73 runs. Too bad then that they didn't even get that far, as Jerome Taylor in a career one-off performance, smashed England to bits as they succumbed to 51 all out. Those old skeletons of 1994 were back in their glory. England recovered and this wasn't the defining turning point for West Indies cricket, but what a great piece of nostalgia it was.
Pitch Quality: B
Bowling Quality: A

Stupidity: not applicable

Case 5: The Adelaide Ashes Choke

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ausveng/engine/match/249223.html

Not so long ago England were fodder, and this match was ample proof of it. Having met Australia eye to eye in this important 2nd test, England were faced with one day to play out the draw. They met an inspired Shane Warne instead who helped demolish them for 129 all out in 73 overs of truly aimless batting giving the Australians a target of 168, accepted with glee at more than 5 runs an over. It set the tone for a famous 5-0 whitewash, the most damaging thing being that one of the Glenn McGrath predictions actually came true.
Pitch Quality: A
Bowling Quality: A

Stupidity: A

Case 6: The Fawad Alam Debut From Hell

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/403368.html

Poor Fawad Alam. Ignored by the selectors now, he produced a classy 168 on debut and that too in Colombo. With no Murali around Pakistan were cruising along at 285-2 with a nice healthy lead and their sights on a fourth innings target touching the 300 mark. Wrong, chaos ensued.


2-285 (Younis Khan, 78.1 ov), 3-294 (Mohammad Yousuf, 81.2 ov),4-303 (Misbah-ul-Haq, 86.5 ov),
5-303 (Fawad Alam, 87.2 ov), 6-306 (Kamran Akmal, 88.3 ov), 7-312 (Shoaib Malik, 89.2 ov),
8-316 (Abdur Rauf, 90.2 ov),9-319 (Umar Gul, 95.4 ov), 10-320 (Saeed Ajmal, 96.4 ov)


It all started with Younis Khan attempting and failing a dumb reverse sweep. Sri Lanka knocked off the eventual target of 171, losing nine wickets for 35 in a true definition of losing the plot.

Pitch Quality: B
Bowling Quality: C

Stupidity: A

How about that sprinting career then? © AFP

Case 7: Pakistan's 50s... In The Same Match

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64002.html
Arguably the worst performance by a batting team in test match history. Pakistan needn't have bothered turning up as they registered their lowest score in test history, folding for 59 all out. Not content with that, they lowered their own mark in the same match with a second innings response of 53 all out. The match was over in two days, and in the wise words of Steve Waugh "You expect to have to fight a bit harder than that to win a Test match". 

Pitch Quality: B
Bowling Quality: A

Stupidity: A+

The bottom line: Australia, you were not alone. Rest a little easier.

Think of any more? The comments section below awaits!

World Cup 2011 - New Zealand vs Australia Verdict

It has become a familiar story really, an utterly dismal batting performance from the Black Caps against their trans-tasman rivals. While Australia bowled well, they weren't a menace, the chief destroyer for the kiwis was simply the usual, totally inept batting.

Lets recap the top orders efforts shall we:

McCullum (16 runs off 19 balls)
Determined to top edge his way to victory over third man, he eventually and inevitably holed out in the deep.
Dumb Factor = 8/10

Guptill (10 off 25)
Scratched around for 19 deliveries before getting off the mark. Fell to a Watson delivery that kept strangely low, probably the only one who could claim to be unlucky.
Dumb Factor = 5/10

Ryder (25 off 31)
Singles are overrated for Ryder, 24 of those runs were boundaries. He faced a ridiculous 19 consecutive deliveries off Johnson before finally edging to the slips.
Dumb Factor = 8/10

Franklin (0 off 3)
For a man who I rated for having technique and temperament, he showed neither. A lazy waft outside the off stump that was totally uncalled for.
Dumb Factor = 8/10

Styris (0 off 4)
Following the trend, Mr Experience then decided to try to cream a wide delivery through the covers in a blaze of glory. Ugly and untimely.
Dumb Factor = 8/10

Taylor (7 off 22)
After looking totally out of sorts, decided he would try to Viv Richards a full ball by whipping it through the leg side.
Dumb Factor = 9/10

Dear Mr Taylor, Viv Richards you are not. © Getty Images

How (22 off 47)
Batting at number 7 (?) How only managed to stick around before completely missing a dead straight Smith delivery. Just to be sure of his impact on the match, he also wasted a referral. On what basis was he selected again?
Dumb Factor = 7/10

And so after the carnage they stood at 7-121, before the typically feisty Nathan McCullum battled away, coupled with the standard Vettori Innings In Vain. The eventual total of 206 of course nowhere near enough.

Should we be surprised? There is something about New Zealand and Australia in the last decade or so, in the big events, where we just tend to capitulate. It often happens after talking ourselves up too. So as an added bonus, lets take a small trip down memory lane and see what I am talking about here:

The Hall of Shame
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/66183.html
ICC Champions Trophy 2002 - 4th match, Pool 1
Chasing 296, New Zealand barely even got going as McGrath and friends ran havoc through the entire order. All out for 132 with no lower order rearguard to save face either.


http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65279.html
ICC World Cup 2003 - 47th match, Super Sixes
After Bond set up the match perfectly by reducing Australia to 7-84, his useless bowling support ensured that Australia managed a still chase-able 208. Too bad that only Fleming showed the stomach for it, with the rest of his buddies contributing 55, that's ten batsmen. They ended up all out for 112.


http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/66204.html
ICC Champions Trophy 2004 - 9th match, Pool A
Nathan Astle actually started things off brightly by picking off a few boundaries. Nothing bright about what followed however as the middle order fell apart to leave them at 7-89, including a ridiculous run out where Harris sold McMillan down the river without a paddle or a canoe. Some lower order spunk took them to a losing score of 198.


http://www.espncricinfo.com/iccct2006/engine/match/249757.html
ICC Champions Trophy 2006 - 1st semi final
On the back of some strong batting by Stephen Fleming, the kiwi's made the semi's of this edition of the champions trophy looking a good chance. Chasing a lowly 240, the top-middle order had the usual game plan, reducing us to 6-35. I still remember that awful heave McCullum hit straight to mid-on. A determined, almost tragic 79 from Vettori got them to a face saving 206.


http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/247503.html
ICC World Cup 2007 - 47th match, Super Eights
To be fair, chasing 348 is a big ask. But at least make something resembling an effort. All out for 133 in under 26 overs is not on for a team that boasted a 3-0 victory over the same opponents before the world cup. 


So in 2011, we continue in our determination to follow the trend set by our black caps gone by over the years. Long may it continue.

© Reuters