India reached the no. 1 ranking in ICC Test Rankings after beating Sri Lanka at home 2-0 in December. The real test came this February when they played No. 2 South Africa at home. They promptly lost the first Test by an innings and more at Nagpur, crumbling against a speedy and swinging Dale Steyn. Reverse swing used to be the domain of bowlers from the subcontinent and Dale Steyn seems to be the first white bowler to have cracked the code. We sorely missed Dravid and Laxman, both out with injuries.
India needed to square the series (don't ask me about the logic of a 2-match series) at the lovely Eden Gardens to retain their No. 1 ranking. And that is exactly what they did. The win was made possible by a mammoth 643-6, thanks to 100s by Sehwag, Tendulkar (his 47th!) , Laxman and Dhoni.
India's ascent to the top has been built on a batting order "designed by God himself" as someone said. With Sehwag, Gambhir, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman and Dhoni you can probably create two international teams of great batting caliber. The so-called seniors (Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman) don't seem to be in any hurry to retire. All 6 of them have been in form recently and that is a bit too much to handle for any attack in the world. With the wise Zaheer Khan's reverse swing and the wily and fighting Harbhajan Singh's off spin, we have a reasonable bowling attack to boot.
The South Africans are a sporting bunch - they actually walk when they're out without looking at the umpire; a welcome change from the lows in sportsmanship inhabited by the Aussies. It was nice to see that these things still happen in cricket. Most of the Indian players still walk (may be except the naughty Harbhajan).
Call me old fashioned, but I believe Test Cricket is the only pure form of cricket bcause it is a true test of bat against ball. I detest 20-20 and I eagerly await the day it will go away. Limited overs cricket makes sense when the need to slog is balanced by the need to keep the wicket to last the entire overs. With 20 overs, there is little risk of getting bowled out, so batsmen can slog with impunity. This tilts the equation too much in favor of the bat.
As for tests, yes, it is impossible to sit and watch all 5 days, but you catch pieces of the action when your favorite batsman or bowler is operating and the extended highlights in the evening are rather convenient. To be No. 1 for the first time in this form of cricket is just plain awesome.
- R. Balaji
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Keezhadi Museum
Around 2015, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) made an exciting new archaeological discovery south-east of Madurai in the Keezhadi ...
"I detest 20-20 and I eagerly await the day it will go away." -- this from the guy that (once?) loved American "football"?!
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, you're probably right - the 50 overs game has significantly more strategy involved (a bit more like an NFL game?).
When they wanted a 3-hour version of the sport, I wish they had gone more baseball like - perhaps a 2-innings version (like in Test matches) of 10+10+10+10 = 40 overs, with 3 wickets per inning (so they can't slog like crazy), "exchangable wickets" (if you lose only two wickets in the first inning, you have up to 4 for the second, etc.)... as it is, I find the 20-20 an abomination as well. Too many short pitches, pulls and lofted shots for my taste...
Yes, they need to do something in 20-20 to tilt the balance in favour of bowlers. I was thinking of something more cruel like shortening the pitch for the bowler (batsmen still need to run the full pitch for the run) to have about 33% less reaction time for the batsmen.
ReplyDelete- Balaji
Another proof tat, 20-20 is heavily in favor of the batsmen..
ReplyDeletehttp://sify.com/sports/indian-origin-batsman-smashes-unbeaten-228-in-melbourne-twenty20-match-news-news-klmmEkbeiij.html
-Thambu