Skip to main content

Round 1 to England

To borrow a filmy dialogue, "Jiska dar thaa wohi hua". India had gone into the series with a bunch of their top players coming off a long break and it showed. Strange irony that three of them suffered during the match (though Gambhir and Tendulkar through no fault of theirs). Zaheer's fitness is disappointing again and even though fast bowlers generally tend to be more injury-prone, he seems to be the most across his peers. How well he recovers will be a big key to the rest of the series though I like Dhoni's attitude of "it gives someone else a chance to be a hero". Great statement from a captain and coming from Dhoni you can be sure that he truly believes it.

England though were fantastic and arguably even if India weren't afflicted in the ways they were, they would still be down 0-1. Prior and Pietersen were magnificent and Broad and Anderson (in the 2nd innings) were outstanding too. One little stat demonstrates the difference between the sides nicely. Across their two innings, England added a total of 411 runs after the fall of the 5th wicket (270-5 to 474-8 in the first and 62-5 to 269-6 in the second). India on the other hand managed only 199 (183-5 to 286 in the first and 165-5 to 261 in the second). That's a difference of 212 runs and the eventual margin of defeat was 196 runs. England's bowlers didn't allow India's lower order to resist and extend the innings but India weren't able to do the same. So while the batting will pull through I think, the bowling is what should really be worrying Dhoni and Fletcher.

They need to be wary of making too many changes though given that Zaheer's absence will force one anyway. Harbhajan is a worry but going so far as to play four seamers would be foolhardy. Better to give him at least one more go and bring Mishra in if the Turbanator's performance doesn't lift. Ironically, Gambhir's absence could be a bigger issue given how crucial a good start is in England and how inexperienced Mukund is. This team though has faced lots of sticky situations and pulled themselves out of holes so hopefully they can repeat the dose and fight back well and make it a tight series. Regardless of the final score-line though, I have to agree with Stephen Brinkley that England currently look the best side in the world with a well settled top 6, a great keeper-batsman, and the best bowling unit. Their main challenge now is to show they can consistently compete in the subcontinent much like this Indian team's challenge is to beat England and Australia on their turf.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Et tu?

As a single sport website, I think Cricinfo has brought about a revolution and the fact that they were bought by ESPN is testament to how highly valued they've become. Their editing and approach to articles/opinion has been refreshing to say the least and even though they seem to have had a lot of editorial staff movement they've usually maintained very high standards. Off late though, both in their headline styles as well as in actual content, there seems to be an occasional slippage of standards and an inching towards the modern media sensationalism which is a bit of a pity. This piece  by Siddharth Monga is a classic example. Granted that the last two press conferences by Dhoni and Sehwag  indicated clearly that the captain and his deputy did not agree on this aspect of selection but "discord", "dissent", "public sniping" feels rather presumptuous and heavy handed. Yes, it is a team sport but there is no reason why everyone on the team needs ...

Quick singles: Why the double standards?

I'm no fan of David Warner's but for once, I'm firmly and squarely on his side . Sportspersons are probably treated the most unfairly by public opinion (and often the media) whenever they are involved in pay disputes. "Oh, look these millionaires are complaining about not getting paid enough" seems to be the gist of the general reactions. I find this attitude inexplicable at best and grossly hypocritical if I'm feeling less charitable. Like the rest of us, all athletes have the right to fight for what they think they should be paid. That is the fundamental part. In addition (and unlike many of the rest of us), most sportspersons operate in the knowledge that they only have a short period available as a performer, and therefore only a short period to maximise earnings. Most people that I know would behave exactly the same as Warner and his colleagues are doing. So why all the hue and cry?

Much ado about a run-out

Judging by the amount that's been said and written about Ian Bell's run-out-that-wasn't at Trent Bridge, you would think that it has been the most significant occurrence of the series so far when nothing could be further from the truth. Andrew Miller  and Samir Chopra seem to be of the opinion that it was the crucial turning point in the match, which I completely disagree with (the post-tea sessions on days one and two were far more critical and momentum shifting). Andy Flower says that if Tendulkar had been run-out similarly in Bombay, it would have caused an international incident. He's clearly feeling the effects of having been in the England cricket set-up for too long given that a) its very improbable that Tendulkar would do something as daft as Bell did, and b) when a controversial run-out (but within the laws) did happen to him (against Pakistan at Eden Gardens no less), Tendulkar went out to the crowd and appealed to them to calm down and let the game proceed...