The end of a champion's era

This weekend ESPN Classic was dedicated to covering the careers of Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson. So, all weekend, they showed the professional heavyweight bouts of either boxer. I happened to catch the legendary fight between Mike Tyson and James "Buster" Douglas. Until this bout, Tyson had pretty much had his own way in rising to the top and earning the world heavyweight championship. Knocking out opponents was routine for him and several of them were in fact disposed off in the first round! In this instance however, Buster Douglas was clearly not frightened of Tyson. Tyson never got the chance to deliver one of his infamous uppercuts and Buster Douglas was dominating the proceedings until the 5th round. All along, Tyson had the quiet confidence of a champion. He seemed to believe that all that he needed was to connect an uppercut and he would have added another KO to his record. Tyson finally became a bit desperate in the 7th round and began attacking furiously and even managed to get Buster Douglas to fall to the floor. However, Buster Douglas managed to beat out the count. The commentator was predicting this all along and he was overjoyed that it had finally come true. He now predicted that the bout would be over in the next round. What happened instead was that Buster Douglas came out fighting once again (I mean in spirit; of course they had been fighting all along :-)), connected a left-hand jab and Tyson was down .... and Mike "Iron" Tyson failed to beat the count .... James "Buster" Douglas was the new heavyweight champion of the world that no one expected to be.

Doesn't this whole story draw an eerie resemblance to the ongoing Ashes? When the series began last month, no one gave a chance for the Poms to win (though several, including me, hoped they would). After the Lords Test, Australia had their usual swagger of a champion and though England had put up a decent fight on the first day, everyone thought this is the same old Ashes story. But, England have continued with their aggression over the next 3 Tests and Australia's quiet confidence has been shown to be what it's worth. The Aussies have come out fighting whenever they are thought to be completely down and out, but apart from Ponting's brilliant century at Old Trafford, it has usually come too late. In the first Test, the Aussies were under some pressure after being bowled out cheaply in the first innings and so came out firing to skittle out the English for even less. Since then, England has batted first in the next 3 matches and the Australian bowlers have generously allowed them to post more than 400 on all three occasions. The Aussies have shown zero resolve unless defeat is staring them in the face.

So, even if Australia wins the last Test, the popular opinion would be that it is England who gave it away and the Aussies managed to escape ignominy. Given their performance so far, I don't think they can return home with their invincible image intact. The only question that remains now is whether the remaining teams can capitalize on the psychological battering that the Aussies have suffered? Or, is it just going to be the case now that both England and Australia are way above the rest of the heap? Either way, it is the end of the Aussie era of dominance.

Cheers,
Harsha

Is Lance Armstrong guilty?

One of the big stories of last week was that of the Tour de France organizers finding a sample given by Lance Armstrong in 1999 to be positive. The sample taken from Lance before the 1999 Tour was found to contain some substance called EPO. This substance increases the capacity of the blood to absorb oxygen and so, can clearly be of help to any athlete. The TDF organizers have come out only now with this news of the sample taken in 1999 being positive for EPO since there did not exist a test for detection of EPO back then. Incidentally, 1999 was the year in which Lance made his comeback to the Tour de France after surviving testicular cancer.

Armstrong has been hit with doping allegations several times in the past. He is associated with a doctor whose name I think is Michael Ferrari, who has been suspected of advocating steroid use. A few months back, one of Lance's former servants sued him claiming that he had been fired because he had found steroids in Armstrong's bathroom cabinet. But, this latest instance has been the most damning evidence found against him so far. Even this detection of EPO is not fully assured because every doping test requires the test to be positive on both the A and B samples, and in this case, I think only one of the samples had been retained since 1999.

As expected, the reaction to this news has been markedly different in the US and elsewhere. In France, the media has declared that Armstrong's lies are finally out and even the director of the Tour de France said that "we have all been fooled". In the US however, the media has been firmly in support of Armstrong and the reaction largely has been that it is a case of sour grapes that the French have not been able to produce anyone to match Armstrong. The organization of professional cyclists in the US (not sure what they call themselves!) has also released a statement saying that they back Armstrong. This was the same organization that had backed Tyler Hamilton last year when his doping test at the Athens Olympics was claimed to be positive, and once the positive test was confirmed, they immediately backed out and withdrew Hamilton's license! So, I don't think their backing counts for anything.

This controversy has not only hurt Armstrong's image but also thrown up interesting legal issues. Supposedly, whenever samples are taken from an athlete for a dope test, those samples should be disposed off within a few months. But, in this case, the TDF organizers retained Armstrong's samples for as long as 7 years. So, maybe Armstrong can sue them and actually make some money out of this :-)

Anyway, I am not really sure what to make of the whole episode. I take it that these doping tests are not reliable enough and hence, they need to be validated on an extra sample for certainty. But, still .... I would think the reliability of these tests is not so bad that when a sample turns out to be positive, the probability of that indeed being the case is less than say 75%. So, in my mind atleast, the image of Armstrong has been eroded. Giving him the benefit of the doubt (using the principle that innocent until proven guilty :-)), we still have no evidence of him using any illegal substances during the years 2000-2005. And even disregarding 1999, the achievement of winning 6 successive TDFs is unprecedented.

I only hope Armstrong is indeed innocent and he has not taken all of us for a ride ....

Cheers,
Harsha

The oddities of a slingy action

Shaun Tait made his debut for Australia today and from all reports, it looks like he was easily the most effective bowler. The tonnes of newsreel about him since the end of the previous Test has repeated over and over again that his slingy round-arm action will cause problems for most batsmen. The same thing has been said often about Lasith Malinga of Sri Lanka. Unfortunately, neither did I get a chance to watch Tait bowling today nor have I seen Malinga bowling. Tait's action has also been compared to that of Jeff Thompson, and obviously I haven't seen him bowl too! So, it is not really clear to me what oddity in their actions everyone is referring to. From what I have gathered, it seems like both bring their arm over from behind their backs, giving the batsmen very little time to pick the ball coming apparently out of nowhere. However, it is hard for me to imagine anyone bowling like this :-)

Can anyone please offer a better description or insight on what problems these bowlers offer? Or, is there any other bowler of the 90s with a similar action, whom I would have surely seen bowling?

Update:
Here is an article in today's Guardian, in which Richard Williams (isn't that Serena and Venus' father's name too?) dismisses all the hype about Tait's action. He gives as good a description as one can give in plain text of a bowler's action. :-) Anyway, I am looking forward to watching Tait and Malinga bowling sometime soon.

Cheers,
Harsha

Reverse swing is the talk of the town

After England's amazing comeback in the last two Tests, given the hiding they received in the first one at Lords, the unanimous opinion on the cause for this resurgence has been reverse swing. The story goes that Sarfraz Nawaz of Pakistan was the first to discover this skill. He then passed it on to Imran, who in turn taught it to his best finds - Wasim and Waqar. Simon Jones then learnt the art from Waqar while he was at Glamorgan. And now, he has passed it on to Flintoff. Waqar has even come out in the open now stating that what the English called "ball tampering" during his and Akram's heyday, is now being glorified as reverse swing :-)

Anyway, here is an article explaining the basics of swing and reverse-swing. Though the article does not have any cool animations to illustrate the phenomenon, it does a decent job. Reverse swing requires the ball to lose its shine and supposedly, this usually happens by the 50th over or so. But, with Harmison and Flintoff banging the ball in hard, this has happened by the 20th over itself! (I have read other outrageous claims that the England fielders throwing it in to the keeper on one bounce from the deep has also helped this cause, but I think that's rubbish!).

The fourth Test at Trent Bridge begins on Thursday, and it seems like an eternity since the one at Old Trafford ended! I just can't wait :) Gillespie is clearly out of the Aussie XI and the tussle is between Kasprowicz and Tait for the same spot. Let us see if the Aussies blood the youngster. I have been meaning to write a post on the state of Indian cricket for quite some time now. Sadly, my reduced online hours and increased workload have proved to be an obstacle. Hopefully I will be able to cross the hurdle soon. Meanwhile, sorry for the reduced frequency of posts.

Cheers,
Harsha

The signficance of a draw

I guess most cricket fans would have had to, at sometime in their lives, explain to a novice in cricket what the significance of a draw is. The following paragraph from Andrew Miller's column on Cricinfo best summarizes it.

Non-believers have never got the draw. How can you plug away for five days on end and walk away with a shrug of the shoulders? This evening not a soul could fail to grasp the significance, as a team that had been playing catch-up since the very first morning grabbed its glimmer of a get-out clause. Had this been a one-day game, the tension would have dissipated the moment that Shane Warne fell and the distant prospect of an Aussie win had been banished. Today, however, the breakthrough had the absolute opposite effect.

Update:

Talking about exciting draws, here's a link to another drawn Test that must have been just as exciting as yesterday's match. This was the first Test played by England in Zimbabwe and the match actually ended up with the scores equal! It was a draw and not a tie because the team batting last was not all-out. I am shocked that I have no memories about this match! :) Anyway, looking at the current state of Zimbabwe cricket, we can be assured that they won't be involved in such matches any more ;)

Incredible Update:
Just read Shane Warne's latest column in The Times. He has this incredible story to offer that McGrath could actually have been run out in the last over. Not seen this story anywhere else until now. It's amazing how Hoggard's presence of mind in such a pressure cooker situation could have turned the whole series upside down! I guess that is what sports is finally about - performing at your best under pressure (Harmison is the one who needs to learn that lesson the most :)).

Cheers,
Harsha

Been offline

Sorry guys. I have been offline for almost 3 days now. So, haven't had a chance to follow the ongoing third Test. At the moment, it looks like it will be a case of "so near yet so far" for England. Hats off to Ponting though on a century in such circumstances! Let us see what drama unfolds in the remaining one hour of play.

Will be back with a longer post later in the day.

Cheers,
Harsha

Reflecting on the Test gone by ...

The pic that summarizes the final result of the second Test:



BTW, here is an excerpt from Justin Langer's latest column:

Michael Vaughan’s success as a captain has centred on aggressive fast bowling complemented by him setting quite defensive fields. The trick is to remain patient and wear down the fast bowlers.

Looks like he did not share this enlightenment with any of the other Aussie batsmen (maybe he did let in the bowlers Warne, Lee and Kasprowicz though on his little secret!).

Another excerpt from Martin Johnson's column in The Telegraph:

... yesterday morning's remarkable events made you suspect that the Australians, tired of knocking over the Poms without breaking sweat, were amusing themselves by imposing some kind of handicap system. You could almost imagine the dressing-room conversations. "Two hundred and thirty isn't much of a target, let's give 'em another fifty for the last wicket." "Six down overnight? Nah, that'll make Sunday far too easy. Let's make it eight." "We're getting a bit close now, Warney. Why not do something daft, like treading on your own stumps, then leave it to Brett and Kaspar? That'll really p*** 'em off."

ROFL!!!

Cheers,
Harsha

This is what India needs ... an all-rounder!

Immortal Quote?

I'm Andrew Flintoff, and this is the way I play.

Ashes: The second Test (continued)

The previous post was getting stretched out a tad too much, so decided to start off afresh. "Start afresh". That is what both England and Australia should be thinking to do in the next Test. This one hasn't been worthy of being called a Test match. It is more like an elongated ODI! Events have been unfolding at a breakneck speed throughout the game. The run-rate has been above 4 throughout the 3 days of play we have seen so far. And keeping up with the run-rate, wickets too have falling like nine-pins regularly. Other than Langer in the first innings, there hasn't been a single batsman who has shown application to stick out their in the middle.

Atleast in the second innings now, one would have expected the Aussie batsmen to put their heads down and plod their way to victory after Warne and Lee handed the advantage back to them this morning (though Freddie pulled it back a bit with this assualt). After all, they had 7 sessions to complete the job. But, no! How could they not keep up with the run-rate of 4, that seems to the par for this match?! The Aussie batsmen are freely going for their strokes determined to not let the English bowlers dominate. On their part, the England bowlers aren't doing a terrific job as such. Other than Flintoff's first over (which was just out of this world!), the rest of the bowling has been pretty ordinary. They seem to be having a tough time controlling their line and length with the ecstatic crowd pumping up their adrenaline. But, it certainly does not look like they have to worry about the Aussies putting together a long partnership given the way they are batting. Just consider the two other dismissals (I mean other than the two in Flintoff's first over):
1. Matthew Hayden - After all the talk before this test began, that he needed to play in the V, rather than square (supposedly one of the openers in the Aussies' 1930s Invincibles gave him this advice), he got out trying to drive through cover. With Simon Jones slanting the ball across the left hander, clearly the odds of the ball taking the edge are pretty high ... unless Hayden had been on top of his game, which he is not! To Vaughan's credit, he had a second slip instead of first slip and Trescothick gleefully dived across to his left to grab the chance.
2. Damien Martyn - Did his girlfriend ditch him just before the match? Or, is he coming in to bat doped? Looking at both of his dismissals in this test, just one word comes to mind - LAZY! In the first innings Vaughan caught him ambling across and this time round, he just lazily tapped the ball across to midwicket off the first ball of Hoggard's new spell. In fact, Michael Holding was wondering why the hell Vaughan had such a defensive field. There was just one catcher at slip, everyone else was saving a single as though it was an ODI. But, Martyn decided he's had enough out there and played a LAZY flick off this pads to pick out Bell at midwicket.

Anyway, inspite of all this, Clarke, Katich and Gilchrist might just guide the Aussies home. But, so far, the world champions have sucked throughout this Test!

Cheers,
Harsha

Ashes: The second Test

We are through with the first day of the second Test and England notched up 407 at over 5 an over in just less 80 overs. The unanimous verdict all round seems to be that England messed up by scoring just 400 odd on such an insipid pitch. And, that Australia are going to pile up 600 odd over the next day or two. And, then bowl out the Poms on the 4th day to get an innings victory. Hah! Could I please beg to differ? Not completely though. It is certainly possible, considering the might of the Aussie bowling, that they could indeed pile up more than 600. And, just considering basic probability, England will most probably still end up losing.

But, how come no one is criticizing the Aussie bowlers for the hiding they received? The next time India plays on such a dead pitch, and our bowlers concede more than 400 in a day, who do you think the press is going to blame first? Of course, the bowlers! What's different if the bowlers happen to be from Australia instead of India? Just because the pitch does not offer any support does not mean you can just run in and deliver the ball and wait for miracles to happen. I saw the game for only an hour today. The three pace bowlers did hardly anything of note (don't give me the excuse of the pitch, please!). And, particularly Warne was nowhere near threatening. His bowling lacked a good loop and his customary big leg breaks were not to be seen (ok agreed it is a first day pitch, but this is WARNE!). On the whole, my verdict is that you cannot attribute England scoring 400 in a day just to the pitch. The Aussie bowlers are equally to blame. You need to have a gameplan for any sort of pitch. A bowler cannot say "Give me a friendly pitch and I'll drive the wits out of the opposition. Else, don't count on me!".

Anyway, let us hope the English bowlers are fired up by the huge total for once their batsmen have chalked up against Australia. Yeah yeah, all of us know how good the Aussie batting is and that they won't gift away their wickets and that they are surely going to score in excess of 600. But, come on, who the hell wants to see yet another Aussie victory! Let us hope there is a change in the script this time :)

Update: Day 2
Until now, the Aussies seem to be returning the gifts the Englishmen handed over to them yesterday. Ashley Giles is supposedly pointing to the press box in the below pic after getting rid of Ponting. Given the magnanimity that Ponting displayed in throwing away his wicket, I don't think Giles can claim any credit whatsoever for that dismissal!



Query:
BTW, can anyone shed light on why Giles is referred to as the "King of Spain"? Have read that phrase umpteen number of times since morning. Is it because he is not the "King of Spin"? ;-)

Interesting stat hot off the blocks:
Warne becomes the first bowler to take 100 wickets in an overseas country. Tells you not only what a great bowler he is, but also that the Englishmen have been his bunnies for 12 years now!

Update:
Another interesting stat I came upon just now. When McGrath is part of the Aussie lineup, Brett Lee's bowling average is 28 and when he does not have McGrath's support, Lee's average is an abysmal 47! One can only wonder what are the prospects of Lee continuing to play for Australia for tests once McGrath hangs up his boots ...

Yet another Update:
Just noticed this hilarious bit on The Guardian:

Stat of the day
It's been 22 Tests since England topped Australia on first innings. And to dial random Australian numbers to remind them of this fact, the international code is +61.

I guess no one can beat the English tabloids at stretching things too far!

Cheers,
Harsha

Everything dull all round ...

There really isn't anything important going on in sports right now. The tri-series on in Sri Lanka lacks any appeal because a lacklustre Windies outfit has reduced two-thirds of the clashes to no-contests. There is still one month to go for the US Open to begin (yes, the one in tennis; the one in golf is already done with for this year). The regular season is still dragging on in baseball (why the hell do they play so many games?!). OK, the World Championships are on in swimming, but there really isn't anything much happening out there that would inspire anyone ...

The only way of dispelling this ennui seems to be by reading the petty stories conjured up the media. The best I have read today is this. The reporter has painted a complete picture of the Indian team's psychology based on how they sat at a table for a meal! The other interesting bit that I read today is Prem Panicker's post summarizing Ashes coverage in the press. As Panicker points out, I too can't believe how Ian Bell can openly state that he has no clue about Warne's bowling when there are 4 more tests left to play in series! He even claims that the ball with which Warne dismissed him was not a slider, but just a faster legbreak that did not spin enough. Dude, atleast don't openly admit in the press that you are clueless! Anyway, with the second Test scheduled to begin on Thursday, we can be sure that the Ashes hype will once again reach sky-high over the next couple of days. If nothing, this will atleast throw up enough interesting articles to pass time with.

If any of you have read any interesting sports article of late which has made you feel the reporter must be crazy, please do post a link out here. :)

Cheers,
Harsha