One for the Annals

With the relationship between Indian and British time and the fact that I have to work for a living (and haven't found a way of watching cricket while I do so), I didn't manage to see what happened in Chennai until last night.

Of course it was utterly brilliant, even though I knew the result, and like Samir here, I thought one of the nicest and really most touching moments of the whole epic came at the end when Tendulkar stopped to shake the hands of the groundstaff. No triumphalism, just celebration, thoughts of the Mumbai victims and an innings for the annals.

But in many ways I thought Yuvraj's contribution was the most interesting, if not the most significant. Okay, Viru laid the foundations like only he can (and left me wondering just what the hell standing in the gully to him is like) and Sachin steered the ship home, but Yuvraj, with a relatively ordinary Test record and plenty to prove, appeared immune to England's attempts to disrupt his focus and produced plenty of his signature shots, played with a style, grace and verve which few can match. It remains to be seen whether he can kick on - and even I, an unashamed devotee, have my doubts - but, if he doesn't, he'll always be able to say he played a vital role in one of the great Test run-chases.

This was a game which could very easily not have happened. That it did, that it turned out to be a great match, and that England played such an important part in it, is something to be truly thankful for.

One final thought: When I was growing up, 18 or 20 Test centuries was regarded as outstanding. Now we have someone with 41, from 19 years at the crease.

Not bad.

Off the Rocks

Of course, the other thing that unequivocally went right for England was the return to form of Paul Collingwood, who seems to be making a habit of rescuing his career just at the point when it seems to have hit the rocks. We should, of course, no longer be surprised. The tougher the situation, the better he tends to play.

Which is far more than can be said for Ian Bell, a batsman whom I've had a lot of faith in (perhaps too much ), but who's stretched it to breaking point. Owais Shah deserves an opportunity in Mohali, but, somehow, I'll be surprised if he gets it.

Strauss

Despite their defeat - and the questions which will have to be asked of certain members of the attack, Monty very much included - England can take at least one very big consolation out of the first Test - the return of Andrew Strauss to something approaching prime form.

Strauss's form has been affected by various issues over the last couple of years. He was disappointed not to be chosen to lead the side to Australia in 2006 and I've always felt that the loss of his original opening partner, Marcus Trescothick, led to some confusion in Strauss's mind about the type of role that he was required to play without the scoreboard-ticking assurance of a really attacking player at the other end. And then there's the fact that the analysts of the international circuit - and their bowlers - got to work on his technique, identifying and exploiting a weakness around the off-stump, especially when driving.

Despite his centuries at Napier and Old Trafford earlier this year, this was the first time in a long time that I've felt as though he was back to something like his best. He's changed, though - the spinners are almost exclusively played off the back foot and the loose drive is eschewed in favour of the type of judicious leave which can break bowlers' hearts - and his batting looks all the better for it.

His twin centuries in Chennai were the work of an experienced, skilful and mentally resourceful international opener, and, at 31, he hopefully has several more years in the side ahead of him. starting in Mohali later in the week.

Loud and Long

It's a little worrying that we're now twelve days into December and this is my first post of the month. Time was I'd be into double figures by now, but there are reasons. For one, I haven't had internet access at home for several weeks (which I'm actually quite enjoying and which may be why I haven't got round to getting the problem fixed) and so have had to do all my blogging at work, and just recently I haven't been at work all that much, having spent a very enjoyable few days in Paris, taking in the sights and the titanic Heineken Cup game between Stade Francais and Harlequins last Saturday.

Before I went away I was very doubtful about England's Tests in India even taking place, and I certainly didn't expect to be writing after the second day of the first of them about England being in a very strong position. But I am, and they are.

There are reasons for that too, including a cool century by Andrew Strauss, some equally well-judged lower-order batting from Matt Prior and an eventful maiden Test over from Graeme Swann, who I, for one, am pleased to see in the side.

At 29, time is against his chances of developing a long career in the five-day game. His bowling style (slightly old-fashioned orthodox off-spin) doesn't help either, but he's always impressed me as a confident, humourous, open and articulate character who bowls in a more attacking vein than many a similar English bowler.

He also appeals loud and long, as Daryl Harper will testify. The two lbw decisions which Adelaide's finest gave were far from being stone dead (especially Dravid's) but my initial impression was that both were well worth a shout and the vehemence of Swann's representations may just have done the trick.

This was highlighted by Nasser Hussain on Sky, who said something along the lines of 'you've got to work your umpires', which was a bit less controversial than what he may have been thinking, which may not have been dissimilar to 'Darryl Harper's an inconsistent, occasionally weak and often downright poor umpire who's only stayed on the Elite Panel as a result of some typically mad ICC decison-making'. Well, to be fair to Nasser, that's just what I think, and those two decisions were far from being among Harper's worst, but if you can make sure he knows what you think you've always got a chance.

Going into day three, England have a decent chance too.

Blogs

I've slipped a couple of additional blogs into my roll over the last week or so. The first, Stumped, is the work of Venkat Ramnarayan, a former Indian first-class player of the 1970s, and contains some rich and enjoyable descriptions of games and players from India's past. Well I, as someone with a bit of a fetish for the Indian game since 1979, like it, and look forward to seeing more of Ram's writing.

The other is the new blog by Iain O'Brien, the Wellington seamer who's become an unexpectedly important member of the Kiwi attack over the past year. O'Brien's been known to me for a while because of his range of wry and amusing contributions to a message board about club cricket in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire (where he spends every summer), and his blog has opened in the same vein. It remains to be seen how long NZ cricket's media managers allow him to get away with publishing such an unsanitized account, but as a revelation of what actually goes through a Test player's head during a game, it is brilliant.

Enjoy it while you can.

Shah's Time

After what happened in Mumbai yesterday, which is bound to cast a shadow - and very possibly curtail - England's tour, it seems a bit passe to bang on about the inadequacies of English selection, but it's an easy target, so why not? With England posting a decent total but still losing at a canter yesterday, you were left wondering what on earth Alastair Cook was doing there, but, more specifically, what has Owais Shah done to deserve such consistently inconsistent treatment?

Having made 72 at number three in Bangalore (to add to his 58 in Indore earlier in the series), Shah was again shunted down to six, from which position he made a coruscating 66* in support of Pietersen's century. With everyone rightly adamant that England need more ODI centuries, and Collingwood once more in awful form, it seems illogical that Shah hasn't been trusted with a higher position in the order throughout the series.

Shah has been an international since 2001 but his career at the top level has taken a long time to mature. His fielding was initially a real weakness and is often ponderous still, while his right-hand dominated technique is hardly a thing of beauty and can tend to detract from his very real qualities of class, confidence and aggression.

All the evidence was that Duncan Fletcher didn't trust him, but Moores and his selectors have at least seemed happy to give him a run in the side, and Pietersen, as an attacking batsman of genius, recognizes him as a kindred spirit.

With just two Tests behind him (an impressive Mumbai debut in 2006 and a nerve-ridden one-off against the West Indies at Lord's in 2007), now increasingly appears to be the time to look again at Shah's credentials in the longer game, and I fervently hope he gets the opportunity to show what he can do.

Whether that opportunity comes in India before Christmas remains to be seen.

Compensation Culture

As the fourth ODI finally came to a conclusion last night (with England, hardly surprisingly, losing again) it was amusing but just a tad annoying to listen to Jonathan Agnew getting more and more frustrated at the lateness of the finish. Apparently it was nearly midnight in India, and, as Agnew had mentioned earlier in the day, he and his media colleagues (and the players, presumably) would have to get up at six to catch the plane to Orissa for the next game. Oh, and Gus Fraser didn't like the hotel in Kanpur and hopes the city won't get an IPL franchise until it improves (not that he needs to worry unless Middlesex join the IPL).

It could be worse, lads. You might not have someone willing to pay you a large amount of money to travel round the world watching cricket. And the six a.m. starts are even more taxing when you've got a crap job and it's winter in England.

I think the BBC Cricket Correspondent's job has more than enough compensations, even if you've seen enough ODIs to last three lifetimes and England still keep losing.

Extraordinary

While I was getting ready for work this morning, I was aware that, in the background, Yuvraj was doing what Yuvraj does best: destroying an England bowling attack with the headiest mixture of elegance and power you will ever see. I saw a few of the best shots but couldn't really follow the innings as I had other things to do.

At the same time I was aware that the TMS team - Agnew, Simon Mann, Gus Fraser and Steve James - were raving about the innings, although Agnew did spend a long time banging on about the fact that Yuvraj had a runner (which did seem ridiculous).

The strokes I saw were sumptuous but such displays by him seem so commonplace now, especially against England (Durban, his sublime century in the ODI at Goa in 2006) that I almost wondered what all the fuss was about.

Yuvraj is a batsman who makes the extraordinary look ordinary. That is what he does.

As I've mentioned before I regard him as one of the very best attacking batsmen I have ever seen, and, unlike the England bowlers, I'll be happy to see as much more as he can produce in the rest of the series.

Bring it on.

Batting with Attitude

With Australia out of the way and England yet to offer themselves up for humiliation (although they got most of the way there yesterday), the obvious thing might be to write a valedictory piece about Sourav Ganguly. I'm not going to do that, although, like everybody, I recognize the contribution which he made to Indian cricket over more than a decade. I saw his debut century at Lord's in 1996 and always enjoyed watching him, with a representative memory being the sight of him in one-day mode, taking a couple of steps down the pitch and one back before thrashing a seamer high over the offside. That was the essence of Ganguly; aggression, attitude, and plenty of style.

No, I'll write about Dhoni. The Dhoni who, when he came to England with India for the first time last year, had acquired a reputation as an unsophisticated if dangerous hitter but who showed straight away that he could do more, much more, and has shown since, most recently in Nagpur last weekend, that he can play with patience and selectivity when necessary while never losing touch with the fact that bad balls are there to be dispatched. Throw in serviceable keeping, which will improve, and his astute captaincy, and you have a really impressive figure who looks at the moment like just the man to guide his team through the choppy waters which are bound to accompany its inevitable reshaping. Indeed, Dhoni's apparently effortless ability to hit the right tone was encapsulated in his decision to allow Ganguly to captain the side for the last few overs of his final game. He didn't have to do it, but he did, and it looked and felt absolutely right.

India's future is firmly based around Dhoni as batsman, as wicket-keeper and as captain.

And it's bright.

Done and Dusted

With a decent Test series done and dusted and Australia, ultimately, well beaten, India appear well-placed to challenge for the world number one spot.

However, any assessment of where they stand now has to be coloured by the fact that they're on the verge of having to rebuild. Kumble and Ganguly are no more, and, while the early signs from Amit Mishra have been good, I'm less than convinced about his future in the side, with Chawla probably a better bet in the long run. Dravid's future must be uncertain, with runs needed against England to prolong his career, and Tendulkar and VVS clearly can't go on for ever. For India, over the next 3-5 years, everything depends on how their replacements shape up, but, with the brilliant Ishant Sharma there and the hugely impressive Dhoni pulling the strings, the future looks relatively bright.

For Australia, on the other hand, the future looks rocky. While the batting still appears strong, too many of the major players are the wrong side of thirty, Haddin is no Gilchrist (who is?) and the attack, for all the individual merits of Lee, Clark, Johnson and, well, Krejza, isn't what it was (how could it be?). Seeing them slide to defeat this morning one had the first inkling for a very, very long time that this was just another side, with strengths, sure, but a number of clear weaknesses which better teams, like India, will exploit.

At this stage England will fancy their chances for next summer too, and, while there's a lot of water left to flow under a number of bridges before then, at the present moment I'd probably back them.

Generational Shift

The now retired Anil Kumble was, in an Indian (and probably a world) context, a great bowler and, just as importantly, perhaps the most mentally-tough Indian player of his generation (although Dravid in his pomp and of course SRT would have something to say about that).

He never seemed to have too much in his armoury at first glance (just ask Keith Fletcher), but to watch him bowl a long spell, especially in Indian conditions with smog and spices in the air and the sun on his back, was to be educated in the art of the spin bowler as water-torturer. Accuracy, repetition, variation, aggression and intensity combined with enough spin as was necessary to ensure that few batsmen were ever completely comfortable against him, whatever they thought. Which was part of his greatness, because, if anyone ever started to think they had him, he would have them.

And now, with Kumble gone, Ganguly on the verge of going, and the bell tolling for Dravid (if not Tendulkar), India are suddenly in the midst of the generational shift which they've been on the verge of for what seems like years. And all at a time when they're looking like the type of united, determined side which can put away an Australian team that still has plenty to offer.

They'll come again. But the catching does need some work.

(How To) Get Rich Quick (or Not)

Like virtually everybody else in the known cricketing universe (it seems) I was watching as things started to go wrong for England on Saturday evening. I couldn't however, manage to summon the energy or interest to watch until the end, as it was pretty obvious what the outcome was going to be. And, without trying to come across as too much of a purist, I was more interested in the Test match in Delhi, even if it subsided into a tame draw, than I was in anything which happened in Antigua.

I can't add anything original to what's been written by innumerable other people already, but I think that Rob at Cricket Forever and Patrick at Line and Length summed things up very well.

As Patrick says, it'll be great if what Stanford's team have achieved (and how they've done it) has a lasting influence on the game in the islands. While I can't agree with Stanford's pronouncement that the victory meant that West Indian cricket was back, it does at least look like a vague step in the right direction, something they've taken very few of in recent times.

And, as Rob says, England choked. Partly, I suspect because they wanted the money too much but at the same time weren't really sure what they were doing there. They were only too well aware that their week in the Windies constitituted a poor preparation for the imminent Indian tour, but they were only doing as they were told (and, as a by-product, hoping to get rich).

I think it's about time we moved on to something which really matters.

Fraught with Difficulties

A superb piece by Athers on the whole Stanford debacle here.

Flirting

So many people are putting in their oar in about the Stanford series that it's difficult to keep up with it all and all too easy to become confused about what you really think.

For the record, I have nothing against T20 cricket (I'm basically a fan, as many of my past postings show) and I also don't mind sportsmen earning huge amounts of money (wouldn't we all love the opportunity to do the same?), but I can't muster much enthusiasm for what is, essentially, an artificial and empty series of contests designed only to publicize Stanford and swell the players' bank balances. I'll probably be watching on Saturday night but I wouldn't bet on my making it to the end, because, basically, I couldn't care less who wins.

All this aside, the story that Stanford had been forced to apologize for his 'on-camera flirting' with various England 'WAGs' was designed to raise a laugh, although it would have been even better if Matt Prior's other half had given him a bloody good slap.

Dan the Man

With all eyes turning towards India at the moment (and, for some people, Antigua from tomorrow onwards), the ongoing series of ODIs and Tests between Bangladesh and New Zealand has been largely forgotten. Which is a pity, because it looks as though some decent cricket has been played, if the going has been a bit slow at times, and New Zealand haven't had things all their own way.

I couldn't let the Chittagong Test fade from memory (well, there must be someone who'll remember it) without paying tribute to Daniel Vettori's contribution to the Kiwis' victory in the first Test. 5-59, 4-74, 55 not out a vital 76 in a successful 300-plus run-chase.

Captain's contributions don't come much better, and nor, frankly, do New Zealand cricketers.

They resume in Mirpur early tomorrow morning.

Beaten For Pace

During the summer I heard Devon Malcolm talking on the radio about the time he ran through South Africa at The Oval. If there's one dismissal from that spell which lingers in the memory, it's the way in which Cronje shaped up with what could easily have been mistaken for a perfect forward defensive, the only problem being that the ball had already gone past him and laid waste to his stumps before he could get his bat anywhere near it. If you ever want to see something that embodies the old chestnut about a batsman being 'beaten for pace', that is it.

It came to mind again yesterday when I watched Ishant Sharma - lower in pace than Malcolm but infintely more promising - do something very similar to Ricky Ponting.

For Ishant the future looks impossibly bright; for Australia, and perhaps even for Ponting himself, the clouds are gathering.

All You Can Ask

After Friday's Tendulkar-fest, yesterday was the day when Australia came face-to-face with what life's increasingly going to be like in the post-McGrath/Warne era.

Just after tea, with Ganguly and Dhoni going well, and Shane Watson and Cameron White bowling, you had the feeling that, for the first time in a long time, an Australian side in the field were toothless. Watson and White are players with many strengths, mostly with the bat (and they're probably nice guys too) but integral parts of a good quality Test attack they're not and never will be.

Okay, Australia subsequently wrapped the Indian first innings up relatively quickly, but today the game went away from them again, to the point where India must be strong favourites to go one-up in the series.

The Indian bowling attack has impressed on a bland Mohali pitch; Zaheer got his rabbit Hayden again with a neat piece of variety, Ishant Sharma oozes promise every time you see him and the new leggie, Amit Mishra, has been cool and threatening, finishing this morning with a debut five-for.

As I said, the Australian attack has looked more limited, but a word for the game's other debutant, Peter Siddle, whose powerful, consistent action, sharp pace and muscular aggression has stamped him as a bowler who'll hurry a few people up on faster tracks.

And there have been people there to watch it. Not huge numbers but enough to give the impression that it matters.

And that, these days, is all you can ask.

The Henry Blofeld (Non) Appreciation Society

Before he was dropped late last season I always enjoyed Mike Selvey's appearances on Test Match Special; I thought he was mature, droll and perceptive, with a great line in anecdotes from his playing days. I think it's regrettable that he's no longer going to be heard while an outright buffoon such as Henry Blofeld, who regularly struggles to remember who he's watching and what the score is as he rambles along in his archaic and cliche-ridden way, has been retained.

Selvey writes well too, and his piece about Monty Panesar in yesterday's Guardian chimes very well with what I've been thinking about him for months now.

This ought to be an important winter for Monty, and it would be nice if we started to get some clear indications of whether he can take the next step from what he is now - a very good bowler - to what he could be - a great one (certainly by contemporary English standards). However, there are only two Tests in India, and, assuming he plays a part, he may find the West Indies batting line-up insufficiently strong to really push him. Couple this with the fact that he's unlikely to be really challenged for his place in the side (much as I'd like to see Graeme Swann do so), and things could still be as inconclusive when next summer starts as they are now.

Still, you've got to laugh at what Selvey says about the curmudgeonly Bishen Bedi and his need for a Tardis. Perhaps some previous there...

Borrowed Time

With the sun shining in the south-west of England and places to be (at work and doing what I do most in the English winter, watching rugby), I didn't catch a huge amount of the first Test. However, my impression, based on the odd snatched session, was of an old-fashioned draw from which honours emerged basically even but from which Australia will take a little more. In particular, Ponting's century, full of characteristic class and discipline, consigned his past failures in India to the history books, while no single member of what now seems to be customarily described as the Indian 'big five' stood out, and Kumble really struggled.

On the day before the Test I said that I felt that India looked the more settled side. At the time, in my own mind, I was equating that with them being slightly stronger, but I now think I was wrong to do so. Being settled isn't necessarily a good thing. When you watch the two sides you have a nagging feeling that while Australia have been forced to start to adjust to life after the greats - and are perhaps better off for it - India still haven't had to do so, and, perhaps, are just living a little on borrowed time.

They'll resume borrowing in Mohali on Friday.

Crisis Mentality

I haven't been posting much since the English international season ended in August. It's partly been a product of the desire to do other things after more than two years of crazed writing, partly because there didn't seem to be that much happening, and partly as a result of the type of existential crisis which any blogger can face if he (or indeed she) isn't getting many comments.

However, I'm back, and so too is Test cricket, with Australia and India, both of whom seem as though they might be on the edge of their very own existentialist crisis, gearing up for what promises to be an excellent four Test series.

Australia's issues in the spin department are well-known: with Warne and MacGill firmly consigned to the past, one wouldn't much like to be in the shoes of Jason Krejza or Cameron White over the next few weeks, although, as any Somerset fan will tell you, White could well biff some good runs to make up for any wickets he fails to take. And the lack of either of the two leggies in turn puts additional pressure on the occupants of the seam-bowling berths - sure, Lee, Clark and (possibly) Johnson are big enough to cope, but in India? Well, it'll be a good deal tougher than at home, that's for sure.

With the bat the onus will be on Hayden, Ponting, Clarke and Hussey. Their stats are great (as is the power of understatement), but you just never know; Hayden is getting old, Ponting's never made a run in India, Clarke's been ill and Hussey surely has to have a run of failures sometime. Which could mean that it'll be down to Brad Haddin to chip away further down and prove that he's just a little bit worthy of Gilchrist's mantle.

India, despite defeat in their last series, look slightly more settled and, with home advantage, should be narrow favourites. Although, with Ganguly becoming the first of the middle order to jump ship, it remains to be seen whether his decision is an inspiration or a hindrance, both to him and his colleagues. With the ball I reckon that Kumble and Bhajji will fancy their chances, as will Ishant and Zaheer.

So, for the first time this winter, it'll be a worryingly early start with Charlie Colvile, Ian Ward or whoever else Sky put up. And even if the dreaded Colvile is there,the cricket promises to be great.

But one thing worries the hell out of me. Will anybody be watching at the ground?