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
posted by Harsha V. Madhyastha @ 1:40 PM
30 Comments:
There have been talks of this being the greatest series of all time. My feeling is that this series doesn't beat (atleast as of now) the 2001 Ind vs Aus series. Of course, that series was only 3 matches long. But, the comebacks there were even more incredible.
And if Aus go on to win this series 2-1 (3-1), no one will remember it.
Don't know much about the remaining series. Can't remember anything from 1990 onwards that has been as exciting as Ashes05 (or the Ind-Aus series).
I would think this series is more exciting than the 2001 Ind-Aus series. Agreed that the comebacks made by India were even bigger. But, what has made this series more exciting is how down to the wire both matches have gone. The end to the Kolkata Test was not as close as these even though the result was much more unbelievable. The Chennai Test comes closer but even there we did not have to go down to the very last wicket for victory.
Of course, if the next two matches are as close as the two gone by, this series will beat the Ind-Aus one hands down. Though I agree that if Aus do end up winning the series, England maybe pretty much back to square one in terms of their psyche!
that eng-zim match ended with a last ball runout that denied england that one run needed to win it. Can it get any closer?
The most exciting match with current zim team will be when they need just one run to beat the follow on target with 1 wicket in hand....after batting twice :p
I thought that the Aussies were in with a chance when Ponting & Clarke was batting.....
I might be a bit prejudiced in stating this, but I think Vaughan should have been more sporting in his declaration.....
Karthik - Yes, I noticed from the scorecard that Nick Knight was run out off the last ball. That would have one helluva' match as well I guess.
Point5 - I have to disagree with you on both counts - I don't think Australia were ever in with a chance as they kept losing wickets regularly and I also don't think a more sporting declaration would have helped. I think the draw basically comes down to Ponting's amazing knock and England's over-dependence on Flintoff. Harmison needs to learn to bowl wicket-taking deliveries more consistently.
That Eng-Zim match also raised some controversies regarding negative tactics. Zim bowlers started bowling deliveries which would have been deemed extra wide in a routine one-dayer. And they also had 9 players on the boundary during the last few overs.
Eng as always bitched a lot about this, instead they were reprimanded severly by the match referee for excessive appealing in the 2nd innings (when they couldn't get Guy Whittall out)
BTW, is anyone amazed that Aussie bowlers have not been able to get reverse swing? On the other hand, English bowlers (excluding the over-hyped Harmison) have been able to swing it towards both sides of the wicket.
IMO, that's been the main difference between the two sides (plus the fact that Aus have been playing with 3 bowlers). We have all said that Aus batsmen haven't batted well, but I guess it's not that easy when you have Flintoff swinging the ball at 90mph.
Anyway, I am looking towards a total demolition of Eng in the next two tests. As McGrath calmly said when questioned about his 5-0 prediction. "It's down to 3-1 at the moment!"
Yes, I heard McGrath's comment about his prediction being 3-1 now. Frankly, I am beginning to find his comments irritating now. Especially his other comment that Australia has been nowhere near its best and yet England have failed to beat them convincingly, and so, bright futures lie ahead! Wish the Indian team could make this excuse every time it plays :P
Rather than being intimidated by his comments, I think it is more the case now that one of the English batsmen while at the non-striker's end might take a swipe at him when he is returning to his bowling mark. IMHO, his comments smack of arrogance and not confidence.
Mcgrath carried his injury
Lee brought his knee infection
Clarke suffered back problems
Hayden stayed woefully out of form...
...I am afraid England might have lost their best chance to regain ashes.
..remember the Aussies need only 1 victory to retain the ashes...
Chris Mpofu run out (Vettori/McCullum) 3 (207 all out)
Completed single that brought Mahwire to 50, and trotted back down the pitch to congratulate him without waiting for the ball to be adjudged dead
oh dear!
Point5 - I don't think injuries hampered the Australians in anyway. I think the problem is the fact that several of them are out of form. Whether they can rediscover their golden touch in the next few weeks is questionable ...
Karthik - Yeah, I read about Mpofu's dismissal. He must be crazy!!!
This series is way better than the Ind vs Aus series for a variety of reasons. At least two I can think of...
1. That series was close more because of India's incompetence than due to good performances from both sides.
2. Also the home advantage of India playing in India is far greater (thanks to good old cow dung pitches that crumble on the first day!) compared to England playing in England.
With regard to recent exciting series: I believe the last NZ vs Aus series in Aus with Shane Bond on top of his game was pretty good too (I think the series was tied)
I dont have much fundaes on reverse swing: the amount of reverse swing depends on the wear and tear of the ball, Im guessing that the Aussies belt the ball a lot more than the Poms ( with due apologies to Flintoff and Pietersen ) .. that might explain the English bowlers getting more reverse swing :-) Point5 back me up !
Atleast the Aussies claim that the England bowlers manage to get more reverse swing because Harmison and Flintoff rough up the ball by banging it into the pitch regularly. And Simon Jones ends up benefitting :)
And yes, with Shane Bond back in full form, NZ should be a force to reckon with. Though I distinctly remember a match between Aus and NZ in the previous World Cup. NZ were defending a low score and Bond blew away the Aussie top order ... but, once his spell was over, there was no firepower left in the attack to remove the remaining batsmen. Let's hope Oram, Martin and Franklin will be able to give him enough support this time round.
Here's your chance to pick the SuperSeries XI team
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/INTERACTIVE/COMPETITIONS/SURVEY/SUPERS/
(You have to choose exactly 14 players for both ODIs and tests)
Here are my picks: (The players in the brackets are my substitutes)
Tests:
G Smith, Sehwag, Dravid, Lara, (Tendulkar), Kallis, (Pietersen), Sangakkara, Flintoff, Pollock, Bond, Murali, Vaas, (Akhtar)
ODIs:
Tendulkar, Sangakkara, Kallis, Dravid, Inzamam, Pietersen, Flintoff, Pollock, Murali, (Razzaq), (Afridi), Bond, Akhtar, (Vettori)
I actually submitted my team for Tests yesterday (didn't bother about ODIs). My 11 for the Test:
Graeme Smith, Sehwag, Dravid, Vaughan, Inzamam, Flintoff, McCullum, Vettori, Muralitharan, Bond, Akhtar
Substitutes (I don't see the point in picking a 14 in the first place, a 12 should be enough):
Kallis, Sangakkara, Lara
Will take a look at the ODI team now ...
BTW, isn't it amazing that Bond is on both our teams even though he just got back?! He isn't on the list chosen by the ICC selectors mind you. We can only wonder what he could have achieved if he hadn't been injured for so long ... He's already 30 years old :(
BTW, I think the opening pair of Smith and Sehwag for the Tests is a certainty. The selectors have left themselves with no other choice :)
Ok, here's my ODI team. Starting 11:
Tendulkar, Jayasuriya, Inzamam, Lara, Pietersen, Afridi, Flintoff, McCullum, Bond, Akhtar, Harmison
Substitutes:
Gayle, Sangakkara, Vettori
Note that Harmison did actually pretty well in the ODIs against the Aussies coming off as the first change bowler. Also, I think Jayasuriya would perform a better job at the top of the order compared to Sangakkara. I am inclined to drop one of the pace bowlers for Murali, but I think Jayasuriya and Afridi should be able to do a good enough job.
If the first four in the batting order are able to bat through 35 overs, the next 4 should be able to blast away in the next 15 :)
Can't believe that you have such a low opinion of Pollock and Kallis.
BTW, I didn't want to include too many express pace bowlers in my ODI squad and had to decide between Harmison and Akhtar. I have to concede that Akhtar tries to use atleast 1% of his brain.
Pollock is a good bowler but he no more has the ability to run through a side 1ike Akhtar or Bond. And his batting is nowhere near comparable to Flintoff to be picked ahead of him as an allrounder.
On the other hand, Kallis is a great batsman, but I believe Dravid, Inzamam and Lara are better than him. And his bowling isn't as threatening as Flintoff to take the all-rounder's spot.
All in all, both are good but not great! :D
Regarding Harmison, I think his utility in ODIs will be more because the awkward bounce he generates can make run scoring difficult, which in turn will translate into wickets. Though as I admitted before, I would have liked to pick Murali, but there is no room in the squad for him :)
I agree Akhtar, Bond, Harmy can be picked ahead of Pollock but not Vettori (in tests atleast) especially when it's Aus vs WorldXI
in Aus.
And I don't think Vaughan is a better batsman than Kallis even when Vaughan is in good form. Although I am not sure how good Kallis is against Warne. Inzy has always struggled against pace bowling especially when the ball is seaming a bit but he can be a really good 3(4)-down player if the top order does decently well.
BTW, there's an inherent difference between our ODI squads. You have gone for the aggressors and I have gone for stability.
I think there should have been atleast 2 tests so that everyone in the 14 gets a chance.
Vettori has troubled the Aussie batsmen quite a bit in recent times. Only problem has been Gilchrist seems to have a hold over him, which doesn't bode very well :)
Yes, they should have atleast 3 Tests. Nothing can be decided in one Test! That too the lone Test is a 6-day one, which is pointless considering how soon most matches end.
I am going completely off topic here but it's regarding SUPER-SUB rule.
I have a question regarding it.
Q. Can I replace a batsman who has got out with another batsman during the innings?
If so, then there's really no big mystery to the super-sub rule. Always have one of your top batsman as the super-sub.
If you are batting 2nd replace one of the bowlers. If batting 1st replace one of the batsman who gets out (assuming the batsman who is replaced isn't an allrounder, captain or great fielder).
In such a case you essentially have 12 players who can bat but one of them (probably a tail-ender)won't because you only have 10 wickets. I hope you are getting what I am saying.
You can achieve whatever combination you like using this idea.
My next question is can you replace a batsman who gets retired hurt with another batsman. If so, one can play with 12 batsmen.
I don't think the ICC had a good idea of what was going to happen when they introduced the super-sub. After the Natwest Series, I got a feeling that the side which won the toss had the advantage regarding the usage of super-sub, but if you're allowed the above then you don't need to do anything out of the box (in most cases. I am sure this rule will keep on bringing new surprises).
Also, I think rain can play some havoc with the power-play rule. I hope they already have something in mind regarding this. Don't want to see anything controversial happening during the World Cup.
Nice try. The basic tenet is that 11 people can bat and at any time, 11 people can be in the field. You cannot violate these two rules. Obviously, the teams would have figured out your workaround otherwise :)
Hadn't thought about the effect of rain on powerplay though. The mechanism tried out in the 92 World Cup was tried out for the first time then. But, the super-sub and powerplay rules will be tried out for atleast a couple of years before the next world cup. So, I think all issues should get figured out by then.
BTW, I'm amazed the ICC guys who suggested the new rules did not realize the advantage that the team winning the toss has. Did they not even think through the strategy any team would employ to use these rules?
No you don't get my point. Only 11 are going to bat except that it's upto the captain to decide which XI.
Assume this situation:
You have a normal Indian XI except that Laxman is the sub. Let's assume that India gets to bat first and Sehwag gets out early and India replace Laxman by Sehwag which they can going by the rules. Now, Ganguly also decides that Nehra is not going to bat but he will bowl when India will field. Which rule is broken???
Actually here are the rules. What I was suggesting cannot be done.
http://www.icc-cricket.com/natwestchallenge/content/story/213010.html
But, it seems you can replace a retired hurt batsman with another batsman.
Nice articles madhyastha! Any bets on the fourth test? I think aussies have seen the worst and might notch up a level or two.
Karthik
An interesting article
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/ashes2005/story/0,15993,1553784,00.html
An important thing to note is that Jones (who is a master and a good teacher of reverse swing), Flintoff and to some extent Hoggard have been able to reverse swing it both ways. And that has been the main cause of problems.
Waqar and Wasim (and Shoaib Akhtar), on the other hand, were masters of reverse in swinging yorkers. And of course they swung it a whole lot more than the Eng bowlers.
BTW, I was surprised at McGrath's comments. Reverse swing was the biggest craze of the 90s and not having a requisite knowledge of it is, to me, a sign of arrogance and over-confidence.
Sorry the link was incomplete.
Here's the article
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/ashes2005/story/0,15993,1553784,00.html
Well, I had remarked about McGrath's arrogance a week back, when right after managing to draw the third Test, he gave his revised prediction for the series as 3-1. It might well come true, but I think it is essential for a sportsman to show some humility when he has been beaten - which the Aussies clearly were in the Old Trafford test.
Post a Comment
<< Home