As Good As It Gets

After the first couple of days in Kanpur I was ready to join the chorus of anguish about the future of Test cricket in an age where pitches often seem only to come in various shades of dead. Today, though, we had a reminder that you can still make things happen pretty well anywhere if you bowl well enough. And the man who made it all happen was Kerala's finest.

Back in this blog's early days, in the summer of 2006, I wrote admiringly about Sreesanth's potential. But the volatility of his temperament and some injury issues hindered him to the point where, in the brave new Indian world of the ultra-fit Zaheer and the ultra-promising Ishant Sharma, he seemed little more than a dated afterthought, reduced to earning a crust on the county circuit with Warwickshire in a seemingly vain attempt to bowl himself back into contention for a place in his national team.

His bowling today comprised an alchemic mixture of reverse and conventional swing (sometimes, seemingly, with the same delivery), coupled with a quality of seam position rarely seen outside a coaching manual. The dismissals of Rangana Herath, bowled by a subtle away-swinger to the left-hander late in the first innings, and Dilshan, caught behind to begin Sri Lanka's follow-on slide, stood out, with the latter as good a piece of finely-honed seam-bowling as I've seen since Glenn McGrath, or even Richard Hadlee, retired.

In case anyone was in any doubt, today proved it. This is a man who can really, really, bowl.

Permeating My Indifference

I've had a week off work this week and have been out and about doing things - some mundane but necessary, others highly enjoyable - while the County Championship has slowly cranked itself into gear in its time-honoured way in England and the IPL has hit the ground running (and at a furious pace) in India.

I haven't got access to the channel which is broadcasting the IPL in this country so I haven't seen any of it and inevitably feel a bit detached as a result. I enjoy Twenty20 but only if I can watch it. While I'll always keep an eye on events in Tests which I can't see, I can't be bothered to do the same for the IPL.

A few events and statements have permeated my indifference, though.

This morning all the news seems to be about Harbhajan Singh supposedly slapping Sreesanth. Apparently Bhajji denies it, saying he merely pushed him (I've heard that one before somewhere), but various other people have supported Sree's account. Who knows? I certainly don't, but I can't say I'm surprised. It was only a matter of time before someone took a pop at Sreesanth, and it's just a surprise that it wasn't Andre Nel. As for Harbhajan, well, if this is true he needs to take a long hard look at himself.

I also, of course, heard about the fact that Sir Allen Stanford had suggested that Twenty20 cricket could surpass (Association) Football as the world's most popular professional sport.

I find Stanford interesting - Americans who seem to have got into cricket properly generally are - and he's right that T20 might just make a bit of a dent in the 'American market' - but bigger than football?

Er, no. You and I will be watching Chris Martin make a Test century before that happens.

Hitting the Fan

With India having gone the way of every other team that faces Australia, the s*** has really started to hit the fan in Sydney.

From this distance one can only agree that the umpiring throughout the match was poor; Bucknor has looked past his best for a year or two now and Mark Benson probably hasn't reached his best yet. And most of the errors went against India, although Indian fans should be wary of getting too paranoid. Even allowing for the part played by the officials, the Indian batsmen should have been able to bat through the last day, especially when they made such a good fist of the first innings at the SCG. Andrew Symonds and Michael Clarke may be many things, but world-class bowlers they're not (even though Clarke's Test average - 15.54 for 11 wickets -suggests otherwise).

As for the other controversy of the hour, well, who knows what was said, although I assumed that the umpires must have heard something and reported it to Procter for the case to have been declared open and shut so rapidly. Now I read that it was the word of Ponting and Symonds against that of Harbhajan and Tendulkar.

Either way, there's too much postured verbal sparring between players going on for my liking. No sooner have we gained an injury-induced respite from the lunatic Sreesanth than Harbhajan's piling in. Not that Australia can complain; they virtually invented 'sledging' and there's more than a few players in the current side who know how to mix it with the best of them. And then there's Nel and Prior (oh, sorry, the England selectors have seen him off for the time being).

Time to grow up, calm down and just play the game.

Not Bad, But Not Good Either

You wouldn't say that England were categorically poor on another perfect day for batting at The Oval, but they could, and should, have done a lot better.

Cook, although he made 61, is finally being forced to wake up to the fact that Test cricket is a difficult game, and his reliance on his strength, the straight-bat clip through the leg side, is becoming a weakness. Pietersen started well but his eyes lit up a little too quickly when Tendulkar came on. Vaughan was deceived, Collingwood got another bad one from Howell, and Matt Prior is having one of those games. Ian Bell, with positive footwork and, until his dismissal, good shot selection, was England's best player.

India stuck at it all day, relishing their advantage. Zaheer was excellent once again, Kumble was steady, RP was under-used and there were late signs that Sreesanth was getting mind and body together.

Now will Dravid enforce the follow-on?

Respect

After the Trent Bridge Test ended in a deserved victory for India and a welter of media and blog comment about the antics of both sides I decided to take a few days to let the dust settle before commenting about what went on. On Friday, however, The Times published a piece by Simon Barnes (link below) which summed up just about everything I wanted to say.

The incident with the jellybeans received more attention than it deserved (such as the perenially barking Charles Colvile saying on Sky that 'in years to come this will be known as the jellybean Test match') but it was symptomatic of the attitude that leads England players and coaching staff to embrace a culture that values and encourages the abuse of opponents as a valid means of playing the game, apparently for no very good reason other than that Australian sides have often done it. So what. I didn't like it when Shane Warne and, less subtly, Glenn McGrath were doing it, but they did have the advantage of being able to play the game a bit better than any of England's current players. It's a culture that fails to respect opponents and, more fundamentally, fails to respect the game. They don't realise that the game is bigger, much bigger, than any of them, and its fundamentals require respect; when someone else is batting the pitch is their territory. Don't encroach on it, don't try and tamper with it, don't scatter sweets on it.

The same is true of posturing idiots like Matt Prior, who despite still being wet behind the ears in Test cricket persists in telling people how tough it is. Matt, you've done pretty well so far in your six Tests, but you'd be better off trying to get your keeping up to scratch rather than trying to show people how hard you are. A middle stump knocked several yards back by an RP Singh inswinger looks much the same no matter how tough you are.

Peter Moores has made a good start as England coach, but I was very disappointed with his response to what happened at Nottingham, paying little heed to the jellybeans and then suggesting that the stump microphones need to be turned down so that his players can say whatever they want without anybody off the field being able to tell how stupid and inane they are.

Of course, India, and especially Sreesanth, were also guilty of lowering the tone. After his decision to make shoulder-to-shoulder contact with Michael Vaughan and the bouncer which he bowled at Paul Collingwood from several yards down the pitch, he was fortunate to escape with a match fee deduction. I think a one-match suspension would have been more appropriate. The comments of Collingwood himself after the Jimmy Anderson-Runako Morton incident showed that he was unaware that if there's one thing that cricket definitely isn't, it's a physical contact game. If Sreesanth is under a similar misconception he needs to be shown that he's very, very wrong.

The history of Test cricket is littered with players who started their careers well but took their eye off the ball and disappeared from view as soon as they arrived.

That's something that Prior and Sreesanth would do well to remember.

The Simon Barnes article is here.

Getting it Wrong, Getting it Right

Well, now. I got it a little bit wrong, but India, ultimately, got it very right.

I fell into the trap of assuming that if India were going to bowl a side out in the second half of a Test match to set up a victory, the man to do it had to be Kumble. An indolent reading of history suggested as much but in England? In the monsoon summer of 2007? At a lush Trent Bridge - which has gained an increasing reputation as a swinging ground in recent years - it was always more likely to be a seamer. And, with the way he's been bowling since his first spell at Lord's, it was always likely to be Zaheer Khan.

The fact that they only took a single wicket in the first session didn't matter at all either, with most of the side - Sreesanth excepted - patiently biding their time through a warm afternoon and the majestic quality of Michael Vaughan's century in the knowledge that the new ball could change things quickly. With Zaheer and RP using it beautifully and the below-par Kumble seeing to the tail, it did, and only a further 63 are now needed to secure a deserved victory.

India have flattered to deceive many times over the years, but, if they can win tomorrow and repel England at The Oval (and England will really come at them hard there), perhaps we can start thinking about a future in which the side can start to get a bit nearer to fulfilling the perenially disappointed hopes of its millions of followers.

The middle-order is certain to need some re-stocking before long but the bowling looks good. In Zaheer you have as mature and skilled a left-arm swing bowler as there is in the world, in RP Singh as promising a left-arm swing bowler as there is in the world and in Sreesanth as contradictory and potentially dangerous (in many senses) a right-arm seamer as there is in the world. And Pathan and Harbhajan to come back in.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. For now the onus is on Wasim Jaffer and Dinesh Karthik at 11 o'clock tomorrow morning.

Everything else comes later.

Uncertainties

With rain preventing any play at Leeds yesterday I took the first opportunity I've had to take any notice of the Bangladesh-India Test series. Not a lot, mind, as it ended pretty quickly, but it's clear that Bangladesh still have a lot to do to bring their Test performances up to a level where they can consistently challenge the better sides. In their case, more Tests and many fewer ODIs would help them develop, but the market forces of Asian cricket and commerce will probably dictate otherwise.

India are one of those better sides but many uncertainties remain ahead of their tour of England - no coach, the core of the side ageing, continuing uncertainties about their openers and seam attack - but at least they'll travel with a victory under their belt after the disappointments of the World Cup.

At the top of the order Jaffer and Dinesh Karthik have been shaping up well, but you have to have doubts about how they'll do in England, especially if the weather doesn't improve by July. I'd like to see Sehwag back in the side - perhaps reinvented as a middle order player - but I expect to see Jaffer and Karthik walking out at Lord's.

The seam attack could be capable of matching England's if Zaheer, Sreesanth and Patel all show up fit, but how likely is that? It was interesting to see Ishant Sharma, who looked so good on the under-19 tour last year, but his real time will have to wait, while one has to feel that more will be heard from Irfan Pathan. He's surely too talented and still too young for that not to be the case. But what's the key?

And, when it comes to spinners, although you know that Kumble will always be there (at least until he isn't), there's the question of support in a department which will be important in exposing England's vulnerabilities. Powar seems to have done okay in Bangladesh, but a Test off-spinner in preference to Harbhajan? Doubtful.

England have looked good in the first two Tests against the West Indies but they're playing a poor side. India should be capable of much better and it could be a decent series if India get their players fit and their selections right.

We'll see.

Fading Reputations

After yesterday's game at the Queen's Park Oval it now seems almost certain, unless the tournament's ultimate whipping boys, Bermuda, can beat Bangladesh, that India are out of the World Cup.

Homer, at My Two Cents, posted a very comprehensive and thought-provoking critique of the position in which Indian cricket found itself before the Sri Lankan defeat. And the way in which the game unfolded - early promise with both ball and bat falling away in the face of the pressure created by an opposing team full of discipline, focus and, yes, brilliance - won't have done anything to quieten the voices of those who see a painful contrast between the effervescent Sri Lankan side, which looks a genuine title contender at this stage, and an Indian team which has suddenly started to look its age.

Kumble is 36, Ganguly rising 35, Dravid 34, Tendulkar 34 next month. Sehwag is younger, but struggles for form like he never has, Yuvraj consistently flatters to deceive, Harbhajan and Pathan drift in and out, fighting their own demons.

Of those not in the West Indies, Laxman won't see 32 again, Jaffer provides occasional glimpses of class but won't rescue any fading reputations and virtually everyone else remains either unproven or untried.

Only in the seam bowling department do things look at all stable, with Zaheer retaining his discipline, Patel fit again and Sreesanth waiting in the wings for greater Tests.

Trying times lie ahead.

Standing Still

India's second innings capitulation in Cape Town, which led to the loss of the series, showed that, despite the advances made by the likes of Sreesanth and Zaheer Khan, and the continuing excellence of Kumble, they persist in taking about as many steps backwards as they do forwards, and remain one of the most consistent sides in world cricket.

Utterly consistent in failing to make the most of their talent and in falling apart at the first sign of pressure.

Greg Chappell has a lot of work to do, and it remains to be seen how much longer he will be given to do it.

And you were wondering why I think England will beat them this summer?

Sreesanth

Readers may remember that I extolled the virtues of Sree Sreesanth back in July.

Well today he was at it again, taking 5 for 40 as India bowled South Africa out for 84 at the Wanderers in Johannesburg. There's some way to go in the game but India have the upper hand.

I think he's great and it's difficult to decide on his greatest asset. I'll settle for his seam position. If there's a better, more consistent one in world cricket I've yet to see it.

From Kerala to Kingston

India's win over the West Indies in the final Test at Sabina Park (to take the series 1-0 and secure their first win in the Caribbean since 1971) reminded me again of how impressed I've been over the last few months with the young Indian opening bowler Sree Sreesanth.

He has all the assets you look for in a young seam bowler - a technically sound and well-grooved action, enough pace to hit the bat hard (although he won't frighten anyone at international level), the ability to move the ball, based on a consistently excellent seam position, and, perhaps most importantly, more than a hint of 'attitude'. It is this - as exemplified by the way he came back to take Sarwan's wicket after he had repeatedly been hit for four by him - which leads me to believe that he'll be around for longer than many others who've had first use of the Indian new ball over the years. Throw in the raw-boned and pacy Munaf Patel, who was so impressive against England earlier in the year, and Irfan Pathan (although he has work to do after a surprising dip in pace and form), and things look good for India's future.

Sreesanth is also an interesting figure because of where he comes from. Traditionally one of India's weaker states, Kerala had only produced one Test player before Sreesanth. Tinu Yohannan was another seamer who made his debut against England in India in late 2001 but faded from the scene very quickly.

I think we'll see and hear a bit more of Sreesanth.