Welcome to Crickblog! : The cricket blog channel that tinkers with your thoughts about the game and attempts to unravel the so:called mysteries amongst the glorious (and not so glorious) uncertainties. Writers should be able to write with style and wit and take responsibility for stories and follow up if necessary. You are requested to send some writing samples and/or links to some of your previous works.
Get onto www.crickblog.com or email the editor with your details and a sample write up of about 400 words to editorcrickblog@gmail.com

The Chennai pitch perhaps played more to the liking of the batsmen than the bowlers. But having said that, Graeme Smith justified his decision to bat first, a predictable decision in the Indian sub-continent. The confidence with which he batted alongside Neil McKenzie perhaps had warranted a mental adjustment on the part of the Indians though none came. While the visitors were expected to be jittery starters, South Africa, in hindsight, benefitted from their tour to Bangladesh prior to touching down in India.

Bangladesh may have jolted them early. But South Africa recovered well to gain momentum and confidence and adapted brilliantly to the conditions in Chennai. All the talk prior to the series was about India’s spin strength and South Africa’s lack of it. But in a situation such as the one presented in Chennai where the fast bowlers failed to find their bearing, the spinners could only do so much on a first day’s pitch. Anil Kumble is class personified in the spin department while Harbhajan has proved a healthy complement to the veteran. But to expect them to spin India out of a dodo situation was an enormous task. It borders on the lines of wearing out your strength even before they should have been called into action.

Neil McKenzie was perhaps a forgotten hero but his career resurrection, coming as it does on the heels of the failure in form of Herschelle Gibbs, seems to have given a more steady stand for Smith to fall back on. With orthodox batting, McKenzie managed to stave off superstitions and India from making inroads but fell for the dreaded 90′s syndrome. But it takes nothing away from the opening partnership that really saw the Indians looking rusty from the contest and South Africa appearing comfortable, although all that could change if India manage to change their game plan come the second day.

India though need to be braver if they are to seriously contemplate wearing the number one tag. Not many things about the Australians impressed the Indians down under, but if there is one thing India must learn that in addition to playing aggressive cricket, India must learn to play their cards to strategic perfection.  What this means is that with such a famed batting line up, India must only benefit from a more balanced line up by taking on the fifth bowler who will provide not only the breakthroughs but also, the much needed respite in such energy sapping conditions.

The contention could be: what can the fifth bowler do when the frontline four bowlers haven’t? Well, it lends balance to the line up and provides a specialist in the role instead of a non-regular bowler like Virender Sehwag or Sourav Ganguly plugging in the gaps. It would also be useful to reflect on the fact that India’s breakdown of fast bowlers has been as fast as their rise. So, given the conditions and the toil that these bowlers were put through in the course of the day, it would make sense to blood the third seamer. What would happen to the bowling should one of the bowlers get cramped or injured and needed time out? While Ishant Sharma’s injury has proved an irritant, his pace could have provided the spark.

The game is still in the balance. All is not lost for the Indians. There is still the matter of South Africa trying to push for the 400 mark, which would seem tougher if India tighten their errors of waywardness from day one.  There is also the other matter, if the pitch holds true, of South Africa getting their turn with the ball and trying to do what India couldn’t on a far less eventful day one!

There has been a surprisingly subdued hype to a series where both teams are gunning for the number one tag, somewhere down the year! Given the fiery  manner in which the Australian tour unfolded, either the Indians are sapped from all the adrenaline or the South Africa have decided to let their cricket do the talking before they set their tongue and their minds on more than just the Indian curry! It may seem boring compared to the controversy riddled tour down under, but this is cricket. It can have its quiet moments but none can deny, this was an absorbing day’s game, sweat notwithstanding!

The only logical manner that cricket can now move on at a saner level is if the Sydney Test is stripped off its official status. It will not be the first time (remember the last time India, and Sachin Tendulkar in particular, was targeted by then match referee Mike Denness in South Africa). Consider the other options. Consider the magnitude of the repercussions. This is not about one-upmanship. This is about delivering justice, where it belongs.

Consider for the moment that not one or two but a good many instances where the umpires have botched up the rules of ruling someone out. Consider the impact where at least seven of the alleged bad decisions were declared wrong when all an opposition side needs is 20 wickets to win a match. This was simply not a case of the umpires getting it wrong. To err is human; to be bias, is to aid the opposition.

Admittedly India’s batting on the final day of the second Test in Sydney was far from encouraging, especially given that India had done so well in the first innings to set the cat amongst the pigeons for Australia. Australia were determined to shake India’s morale. Instead they have only highlighted their bullying ways and ungentlemanly approach to the game, whose crown they wear but whose respect they have failed to command.

The guffaws must be really loud. How does one gentleman’s rule apply to India and not apply to Australia? Adam Gilchrist’s comments to a channel here in India spoke of downright double standards. When Gilchrist asserts that India should accept the umpire’s decision, why is it that on more than one occasion, Ricky Ponting has stood his ground in sheer arrogance? Had the tables been reversed, would Australia stand for this blatant one sided affair? If Ponting is acting dictatorial with the media about being questioning on his double stand on how the game should be played, does not a player of Sachin Tendulkar’s stature speak of a greater integrity when he claims Harbhajan made no racist remarks to warrant this punishment?

Ponting is asserting Michael Clarke has taken the catch cleanly when the replays clearly show that there is more than an element of doubt to suggest Sourav Ganguly was only given out under dubious circumstances. While the members of the Australian team had conveniently brushed it as Mark Benson’s oversight in not consulting with the square leg umpire (thought given that that gentleman was Steve Bucknor, would it have been any different?) , the fact remains that Ponting is claiming a significant wicket. Who gave him the authority to decide who goes (having seen as it can be so biased) just as who did give him the authority to decide how the media should report? How does anyone believe the captain has claimed a catch when he himself stands blatantly despite being out? Is this honesty, or Australia’s meaning of honesty, like their interpretation of racism?

Gilchrist may have made walking a new phenomenon for Australian cricket but to claim mighty that he does not make appeals unnecessarily and that it is India who have gone over the top is foolhardy. Need we remind Gilchrist of his vociferous appeal against Rahul Dravid in the second innings when the bat was nowhere close to the ball? Australia were desperate for victory, and they did employ the sub continent’s tactics of vociferous appealing, and rather needlessly so. Did they not succeed?

The loopholes are many. Consider the fact that these nonsensical charges of racism were labeled by Ponting on behalf of Andrew Symonds and the testimony on which Harbhajan was slapped the three match ban came through Matthew Hayden and Michael Clarke. In the same manner that without evidence, the committee decided to pass judgement against Harbhajan, why was the word of Sachin Tendulkar not taken into account? Does Sachin not command respect simply for the way he has played the game all these years, forget Ponting’s colourful past?

The result simply shows insensitivity in understanding such serious allegations of racism. Racism is not even a concept in India. Yes, casteism is understandable, although deplorable. But racism is a raging matter in Australia where the aborigines for long have been handed a raw deal. Perhaps the word has become rather loose to rattle at the first hint of disruption.

Symonds is playing cry wolf. When it didn’t work in India, he has done it again back home. Someone of his own background must be careful of not degrading the meaning of the word ‘race’, because the word soon loses its charged meaning when used so blatantly. What it once again shows is the divisive nature even in the ten nations that this ‘world’ game is played. Is Symonds the type who will stand still while he is childishly labeled a ‘monkey’? Would the pictures lie when they show that more words were exchanged by Symonds rather than Harbhajan Singh?

If conspiracy theories must abound, this was a well planned ploy. Australia have already had their sixteen match winning streak broken once. That too, humilitation handed by India. The way India bounced back in Sydney, another upset was on the cards. Whether the umpires were adhering to the white supremacy theory or if Bucknor has coloured his vision is subject to debate. But this was an obvious attempt to shift the focus and what could be more poignant that shaking the one man Australia thought was an easy subject? How else does one explain how the two teams appeared to make truce on the field only to have the issue take of racist allegations when the day’s play was done with?

The thing about Steve Bucknor’s age and vision is rubbish. His vision is just fine if he is giving only one team obviously disgraceful decisions at the international team (in this case, India, in all cases, India) while the other team is allowed to get away. (the vision of the third umpire may need an eye specialist though.) One wondered why Symonds was not sharing the ‘Man of the Match’ trophy with the other ‘men of the match’ Bucknor, Benson and company.

This was well thought out and executed to perfection. Kudos must be given to Australia, not only for playing the game hard, ruthless even in the face of obviously deplorable decisions, but also, bullying the game, the opposition and the ICC authorities to rule in their favour. Australia dare not touch Tendulkar. Dravid has his own grave to ponder over while Ganguly has come back raring stronger. Anil Kumble will fight fire with fire. Who then would make for an easy target and who could be provoked into playing the perfect ‘bakra’ (that goat for non-Hindi folks)?

It is no small matter that Australia have been smarting ever since India won the Twenty20, to even denounce the nature of the format of the game. That Australia nursed that grudge through their one day series in India became pretty obvious as the series progressed. Now it is the threat of the Test series becoming more formidable that set fear in the hearts of the Australian players. Australia has played a rather dirty game off the field, and revealed even the top world beating team is not exempt from behaving shamelessly under the threat of fear and humiliation.

(if anything should come from this, Harbhajan must learn to keep in tongue in check; Australia have just exploited his easily provoked nature to malicious intent.) Sunil Gavaskar hit the nail on the head when he said it was hard to accept the honesty of the players who claims a dishonest catch and who has the temerity to stand his ground when he is obviously out. There is only one way to solve Kapil Dev’s dilemma that five years hence on, everyone will forget the injustice delivered to India. Obliterate the result. India should accept that. Australia must live with that.

Just ask Australia if they would accept their sixteen match streak coming to a halt because of such poor umpiring decisions. Gilchrist says, India must accept the umpire’s decision. If India does accept the loss, who gains by the maladies of the Test? Ponder on that and Gilchrist’s assertions will become easier to understand. If the umpired have sullied the game, Australia have shown why despite being world champions all these years has not improved their reputation as unreasonable bullies for their blatant ungentlemanly conduct, unbecoming of a team and nation of their stature. Sri Lanka have suffered, South Africa have suffered. And it is easy to see why racism is such a ‘hot’ (disgracefully) term in their game. Education is required for Australia and the men who dictate the rules of the game to understand sensitivities of people better than they do the laws of the game.

The only decent way this game can go on is for Australia to get an educated lesson on what constitutes racism , for Harbhajan’s ban to be revoked, for Ponting a lesson on what constitutes the gentleman’s game and whether his authority as Australian captain ends, for Bucknor to bid goodbye to cricket, and for the Sydney Test to be stripped of its official Test status. In the game where so many decisions have been wronged; no other balm can effect a reversal of fortunes or stop the Border-Gavaskar Trophy (ignominious if Australia wins the Trophy on the basis of the Sydney Test) from being unfairly retained by the Australians on the basis of this Test.

If there was a time to rebel for the Indian team, it is now. There is integrity at stake and (not Ponting’s kind of integrity, please) and no sport can be a leveler that chooses to divide peoples of nations and people of one world and worse, promotes behavior that sabotages games by using these divisive forces. Neither the game has won, nor has the people who have followed it. Australia has scream from the rooftops; they did not shape this particular game on their cricketing acumen.

If a middle ground cannot be found, if such a champion beating side cannot decipher that their opposition has been handed a raw deal (which could also mean Australia is afraid to take on the challenge again in trying to retain the trophy), India must pack its bags. Forget financial repercussions; there is a lot more at stake here and it simply ain’t cricket, mate! Who wants to play a game like this, let alone watch it?

(As for public information, the author of this piece did not grow up as a fan of Indian cricket. As a sports writer-columnist, she has tempered an objective view about the game and it is from this that steams the anger at the obvious sullying of a game she so reveres. Again for the sake of those myopic to view this as anti-Australian, the author holds the game in reverence as does the champions, but not their unruly behavior. Besides, Australia is much too beautiful a country to be done in by a couple of their uncouth cricketers.)

         Another Test series draws to a close and yet again Pakistan are unsure how much progress they have actually made. Shoaib Akhtar’s antics, Mohammad Yousuf’s change of heart and Inzamam’s winding career were the only stand out features of a Test series that should have brought home advantage to bear. For South Africa though, exceeding expectations with a team looking at becoming self-sufficient could not have had a sweeter reward!

        Back-to-back were supposed to drain the tourists. Instead Pakistan appeared beleaguered even before the series got underway. With Akhtar’s behavior still hanging like a dark cloud, Pakistan forgot their pace potential and shockingly tried to force South Africa into submission with just Umar Gul and Mohammad Asif to bear the brunt. Flawed tactics cost Pakistan an opportunity to square the series in Karachi. Worse still, they failed to stem the swing of momentum that set the South Africans on a roll.

        Jacques Kallis showed his defiance was not without conviction. Openly annoyed and disappointed at being overlooked for the Twenty20 championship, Kallis showed why he is rated as one amongst the few and rare all rounders with match winning ability. His double ton towering presence in the first Test was matched only by his fighting knock in the first innings of the second Test only to be backed by another century that put South Africa in the driver’s seat.

        But South Africa backed up their batting with a bowling that they can be truly proud of. For long, South Africa’s bowling have had as much to do with their sometimes apparent sameness to the attack, pedestrian under assault as much as with the lack of a genuine world class spinner. At the height of getting over excited, South Africa may have rediscovered Paul Harris and in him, their spin hopes of the future.

       Harris made a comeback of sorts to the South African side and standing taller than his skipper, he comes across as an odd career choice for a spinner. But Harris has wrecked havoc for Pakistan and scintillating positions for South Africa through the two Test series to ensure that he would have a major role in setting up South Africa’s subcontinent victory in seven years, the last being conquering India in India on that now infamous tour in 2000.

     Harris nullified Pakistan’s batting with a five wicket haul in the first innings of the first Test and then, came back to break the crucial opening partnership in the first innings of the second Test as Pakistan’s openers made overhauling South Africa’s first innings a cake walk. More importantly, he showed patience, practice and perseverance that is required of a spinner at the international level. In sub continent conditions and against an opposition that is well versed in countering spin, Harris has earned kudos and deservingly so.

     But South Africa had also gambled on another plan, one without Shaun Pollock. While Pollock was turned into a tourist in this series, Andre Nel and Dale Steyn were given the responsibility of making his absence seem as minimal as possible. While Nel played senior pro, Steyn vindicated the selectors’ decision with a victory sealing five-fer in the second innings of the first Test and what turned into the series deciding match.

        Pakistan’s tactics were baffling from the point of view of understanding whether they were made with team interests in mind. While Pakistan relied on spin, they have had a history of fast bowlers and their current line up displayed none of that confidence and considerably reduced the strength of Pakistan’s match winning ability. It was almost as if they had no intention of winning.

      Playing for a draw was meaningless in the second Test. And Pakistan rightly went after the colossal target with the right attitude on a gamely pitch. But Pakistan were underdone by the lack of a third pacer. South Africa fought to get out of a tightrope situation in the second Test and came out looking considerably comprehensive.

      Mark Boucher’s 400 catches as wicket keeper proved the highlight. But he will also be remembered as the man who ended Inzamam’s career with a stumping. Inzamam may have missed out on Zaheer Abbas’ high score of 8332 runs by two runs but if Inzamam was unhappy only for missing out on that landmark, then it would reflect poorly on Pakistan’s interests. After all Inzamam’s presence in this match was secured with the agreement that he would call it quits at the end of day.

       Another factor that caused considerably turmoil for Pakistan to show up with a consistently strong line up was Mohammad Yousuf’s side swinging stunts. Slated to join the rebellious Indian Cricket League, Yousuf disappeared from the public eye only to surface on the eve of the first Test. With changing lanes being cause for concern, Yousuf traded his place in the Pakistan side for the first Test for sorting out his loyalty conundrums. Yousuf did come back to play the second Test. But Pakistan had already let the initiative slip, much like they did everything else related to the serious game on the field!    

        In a classic case pot calling the kettle black, the Australia team is threatening to take India apart for a few stupid spectators who allegedly passed racist comments against a so-called one of their own!

       Indian cricket fans, who not long ago were reveling in India’s winning the inaugural ICC World Twenty20 championships, have had to face much frustration with Australia showing why they are the world champions in one day internationals. Playing like a well knit unit, Australia have brought all their skills to the fore in one composite picture and the result has been an overwhelming series victory in what should have been India’s home territory.

       It was this annoyance that led to a few irate fans supposedly making monkey like gestures at Andrew Symonds, the only player in the Australian who does not bear resemblance to the traditional Caucasian male. Admittedly, if that were the case, then it would be a really stupid uncalled for gesture on the part of the fans. In the land of Lord Hanuman, (to term him loosely as the monkey God does not seem appropriate.) that people even indulged in such behavior shows a small section of completely ignorant or disrespectful bunch of Indians. But by no means, are they a representative of the hospitality accorded to foreign teams.

     But here lies the contention. The Australian team is acting so offended over the entire episode, it makes one wonder if they are just as skilled in donning pastoral robes with the same finesse with which they take the opposition apart. To call it a racist insult is taking things too far. And it is the Australians alleging that this tour to India has been hostile!   

         The Australian team had better get a hold of themselves because they are not about to find too much sympathy from anyone else in the world. Teams that have toured Australia in the past have tales of mental torture that they will not be forgetting in a hurry. In a country with a great sporting history, their acceptance of aboriginal society within their own fold has been appalling. In fact that Australia is consistently a group of all whites makes it a racist issue in itself and something that Australia has dodged, again with equal panache.

        How does one explain Australia’s tolerant culture when Sri Lanka’s Muttiah Muralitharan was mocked at a decade ago and yet again Australian fans’ boisterous behavior was against on show as they targeted the coloured members of the South African squad not so long ago? Australia have failed at an integral integration policy and the reflection of it comes through certain sections of ignorant fans.

         India is one of the most hospitable countries to tour. And the joke is that the generosity does not end off the field but extends of it as well. New foreign players receive baptism, foreign teams get unusual success and the Indian team often folds when it should blossom. Take a look at the number of former Australian player who have continued to come to India much after their retirement. And watch the Australian players cash in on the endorsements while in India! And they are received with fanaticism by the Indian media and fans. Therefore, to isolate one incident and throw a circle of darkness about the tour is downright disgraceful.

        Mahendra Singh Dhoni may have uttered these words in another context but it is relevant that Australians do not talk anything at all just because they can. The series has been more fiercely fought with words rather than with any nail-biting encounters. Australians have shown cohesion and clinical determination, something that India would do well to emulate. But for Australia to be already sounding horns about what the Indians will face when they tour Australia down under is taking things a little too far. Australia would do well not to imitate Sreesanth’s antics of putting words before concrete action.

       There is no denying that the Australians have been a bunch of men gripe with a bad case of sour grapes. The timing of the one day internationals bang after the Twenty20 tourney has meant that Australia has spent a fair time watching the Indian team being praised and feted like none else in the world. The Australians have been generous in their statements to the media talking of how all this felicitation has gone out of hand and that the Indians are in over their heads.

       Yet again it shows Australia’s contriteness behavior of not understanding the cricketing culture of the nation. If the Australians thought the Indian team was being treated like ‘princes and rock stars’, they are absolutely right. The Princely states may have gone out fashion and India’s fame to the ‘western’ rock stars of the world may be next to negligible. But such is the fanaticism for the sport that the Indian cricket team is like a bunch of rock stars. They have their number hits and they have their doldrums. The only thing irking the Australians is the fact they missed out on having their cake and eating it too!

            The season is about to end just the way it started. Lewis Hamilton stormed his way into stardom and now the fate of the championship hinges on his! Who would have thought that Formula One would have such a sensational season in the very first year since Michael Schumacher’s retirement? Yet the season has roared on, ingloriously or otherwise, and no one could have predicted this kind of down-to-the-wire scorching finale! And Hamilton will, one way or another, determine who wears the crown made exclusive by the Ferrari’s phenomenal icon!  

            “Hamilton who?” was not only the banner held up by a Fernando Alonso fan. It was also on the lips of most racing aficionados. Would McLaren gamble on a rookie? Was this not the same McLaren that had two Finns heading their line up? Mika Hakkinen may have hung up his boots, but Kimi Raikkonen moved on. But both of them had sufficient star power even as they climbed into the prestigious seat. What was McLaren trying to pull off?

            But Lewis Hamilton shrugged challenges of races, culture and a sore, vengeful past champion to make his entry into Formula One not only dramatic but also, one that history would feel proud to be have chronicled. Even Ferrari fans, who felt lost in the absence of their colossal icon, tried to stay loyal to two stars in Felipe Massa and Raikkonen, could not help but acknowledge Hamilton’s presence, admire even.

           This is not an ode to a McLaren player against a Ferrari. (The author of this piece has moved where Schumacher has travelled and has ended up showing loyalty where Schumacher left her, in the Ferrari pit garage!) But this is a curious reflection on how a debut driver stands not only on the verge of being crowned champion but also, holding the fate of other established drivers, including a two time world champion in his nimble but firm fingers.

           Hamilton went from one ‘fluke’ victory to a champion-like stand repeatedly. Causing consternation for Fernando Alonso was not on the agenda. But causing the world championship to change hands was. Alonso has gone from being heir apparent in Schumacher’s presence to a grouchy, bitter, and embattled and surprisingly aging champion. Empathy would perhaps best describe the emotion one feels for Alonso.

             It is apparent Alonso has moved on from being reserved to being vocal but disappointingly so. Alonso was expected to be treated like a king (his moniker). However, he has been overshadowed almost entirely by a relatively unknown entity who has taken the world by storm by his fascinating adventures. Perhaps Alonso would have saved grace in taking a leaf from Raikkonen. Raikkonen was clearly the star import. As far as Felipe Massa was considered, Schumacher’s overwhelming shadow had only been lifted. But Massa has quickly come into his own and shown that what Raikkonen had in talent, Massa had plenty in perseverance and determination, making this one healthy Ferrari camp.   

            McLaren were a different story together. As the season draws to a close, bitter inter driver rivalry seems a small but equally excruciating headache. All trades and transactions are on hold as Alonso has now to decide if he does decide to honour his contract and make a go at it once more under McLaren’s wings (pun intended) with the prospect of an irksome Hamilton matching him wheel for wheel and spare part for part.

            McLaren have fallen from grace and ironically, in the same season they should have been hailed to take considerable risk on a debutant, one that would go on to challenge the world order, nay, turn it on its head. McLaren were struggling under Ferrari’s shadow for about the last couple of years. This year should have been crowning glory for their stupendous performance. But the controversies have dogged McLaren and Ron Dennis like never before. The fall from grace to outright shame proved rather quick. How Hamilton and Alonso have managed to stay mired in their own dog fight and steer clear of all this malicious scandal is a wonder in itself!

           Hamilton’s crashing out in the Chinese Grand Prix has given Alonso and Raikkonen mouth watering points to still stay in contention. The Brazilian Grand Prix will herald a new champion, or an old. While the permutations and combinations provide possibilities galore, the simple fact remains that Hamilton finishing on top will mean a case of so close yet so far for a silent star in Raikkonen and a bitter finish to a uncomplimentary season at the wheel of the McLaren.  

          The two week wait (a normalcy between races in the Formula one race season) seems suddenly interminable. The Brazilian Grand Prix, always a race held with fascination and trepidation, will now also hold the key to the suspense. No matter what happens, Hamilton will have a say. This page of the history of the Formula One season 2007 hinges on Hamilton. Go on, turn the page, Hamilton! Can’t wait to see what’s on the other side!

He is not the first. And he certainly won’t be the last. Ricky Ponting may be an aggrieved batsman. But at the end of the day, his grievance as a skipper would have only been graver with India beating Australia in a one day match in a very long time. More importantly, the Australian juggernaut needed a super special effort to be brought to a halt. The brakes are red hot from the Herculean task. Can they now last the distance? Or was it a mere minor dent?

As gaudy as the headline sounds, that is precisely how the ongoing series has been billed. Much has been said and written and for Ponting to correct the Indians that they were not world champions was like Australia saying – don’t ignore us just because we make a habit of winning! Incredible as that sounds, that has precisely been Australia’s bane. Victory for Australia has become mundane; victory for everything else, out of this world! It only naturally follows that celebrations are louder, words more garrulous, the tantrums more annoying or delightful, depending which side of the fence one is sitting on.

After looking inept to take on the wounded Australians, India staged a revival by winning the fourth one day international in Chandigarh. In the three games preceding, Australia bludgeoned the Indian ego with the bat and a few garbled words. Their garish behavior further added to the tag of sore losers that Australia have portrayed themselves to be. It could not have easy swallowing the exit from the inaugural ICC World Twenty20. It would have been far worse still to be camping in the country at a time when feting the Indian cricket team had become the norm.

Ponting- all agony.

The cameras continued to trail Ponting much after he was declared stumped. The reason was the rather magnanimous gesture from the third umpire in a rather close affair and one whose benefit should have been given to the batsman. Ponting stood his ground in disbelief, trudged off the field willingly, and stood defiant and menacing in the team area. The visuals painted the anguish of every batsman who has been unfairly sent back to the dressing room.

But to think what has happened to Ponting is a rare phenomenon is preposterous. The tour to England has shown that the Indian team, and in particular Sachin Tendulkar, has been at the receiving end of some rather unfair decisions. In the match in question, umpire Suresh Shastri refused to send back Andrew Symonds even though Dhoni, Harbhajan and company had a confident appeal for a neat piece of caught behind. Would Australia complain about that?

The match was set on a knife’s edge, perhaps even tilting Australia’s side while Matthew Hayden was on song. But his departure caused a wobble that India were smart to capitalize on. Arguably the turning point of the match was R.P. Singh’s bowling in the 47^th over taking Symonds out of the equation. The double wicket bonus in the follow up delivery showed Australia could topple in the pressure just as easily.

Triple retirements? Think not.

Ponting does like to face the embarrassment of finding excuses for his team’s loss. But even he would have to admit that the Australian team allowed India to get away from a wobbly start. The Indian think tank may be openly exchanging opinions that create divisive distractions. But on the day Mahendra Singh Dhoni played another masterstroke by giving credit to the seniors within the team. It always helps to keep former skippers, and three powerhouses at that, in one’s pocket. Dhoni acknowledged that the opening pair set the match up for the Indians.

While it was not small feat to face the brute of the Australian bowling, Sourav Ganguly appeared to nurse the Indian opening while Sachin Tendulkar fought off an uncharacteristic inability to see through the opening overs with grace. Far worse, the way the bowlers constantly beat his bat, it would have given any number eleven hope. But only a man of Sachin’s stature could come out glorious with gumption from such an awkward situation. It certainly would have not sat pretty with chairman of selectors, Dilip Vengsarkar, especially after being criticized in public for his thoughts of the triumvirate by none other than the team manager, Lalchand Rajput. But Sachin came out unscathed and with team India glorious, tensions are expected to ease ever so slightly.

Pressure –another matter.

Notice it or not, Dhoni appeared a little older than he did a week ago. While his batting has not been affected ( if anything, captaincy has only added to his aura), Dhoni is fighting a few many battles that have little respite with the bat in hand. His forthright, no-nonsense talk has meant he has openly talked out of the role of the seniors with the juniors while also, stating firmly that he has a mind of his own that is far more reasonable than those that rule the BCCI.

How long the dream run will last before the BCCI will want to reel the young hand is subject to speculation! (Besides the fact that the BCCI may have to first wake up to realize that Dhoni has grasped the matter with both hands on two occasions- the Ganguly episode and the balance concerns- already in the course of this match.) Will Dhoni be able to take his straight talk into making the business of cricket on the field a straightforward matter? These are interesting times for Indian cricket, not to mention accompanied by a certain fragrance of freshness even in defeat. But can it be powerful enough to overcome the stench of cumulative bureaucracy?

Without being rambunctious.

There was one person missing. But how many did miss him? There is a fine line between being hyperactive and downright annoying. Contrary to belief that he is a product of nurtured environment of Gen next, Sreesanth has decided to market himself as the flamboyant player on the field and a charmer off the field. His smile and guile fool no one, not even those innocuous looking glasses. People rejoiced and mocked him for his jig against Andre Nel in South Africa last year.

His McEnroe antics were interesting initially. But once the novelty effect fails, nothing else works. Sreesanth has gone from being aggressive to becoming obnoxious. And when the Australians think that, it really is telling! Everyone knows of Australia’s bully behavior but Sreesanth makes them look holier-than-thou. After looking at Australia, no one would be blamed for thinking there is a method in madness even for the Australian behavior. To stand up is one thing. But Sreesanth, of late, has become a case of empty vessels make more noise. That is unfair. Perhaps it would help him recall that his jig in South Africa was only funny because he had tonked the previous delivery for six. Would Nel have taken it on the chin otherwise? Grow up, Sreesanth, have your day in the sun, then rejoice, wait, rage!

Make no bones: Three years and eleven one day matches of defeats against Australia, victory had nearly slipped away from India. It took everything up till the final ball for India to recover to a hard earned victory. Everything hinged on India believing there was a little more in the tank. It was an uphill climb before this game. They won’t forget that. Ponting certainly will make sure of that.

Coming back from the brink of elimination was an extraordinary feat. To beat the high and mighty Australians into subjugation was the stuff of legends. But to snatch victory from under Pakistan’s nose needed every ounce of courage India could muster. Twenty20 could not have asked for a better encounter, or a harder fought winner in the end! The inaugural Twenty20 World Cup had two winners in cricketing spirit. But Twenty20 perhaps won more hearts than both teams put together.

Pakistan appeared gutted. And why should they not? Losing by five runs and losing their way after a phenomenal campaign will hurt Pakistan for some time to come. But Pakistan’s high jinx against India at World Cup continues. Led by Shoaib Mallik and a team of youth and exuberance, it was simply not to be Pakistan’s day. But Pakistan proved that they can be a sensation when they play like a team. There is much to be proud of, trophy in hand or not.

Pakistan were the team to beat. India did. Credit must go to India to hold on even when the game appeared to slip away. An extra edge of courage made India the first ever champions of Twenty20 on a World Cup platform.

The sedate manner in which India started their innings, threat lurked that this could be an antithesis of a final. Batting was not easy against the obvious superior Pakistan bowling attack. Wickets crumbled. Heroes fell by the way side. The target in the end seemed frighteningly short for a campaign to raise the Cup.

But India’s bag of tricks made this one magical atmosphere. Gautam Gambhir played his part. But there would not be fancy shots over the boundary for Yuvraj Singh. The stage was set perfectly. The team that wanted the Cup badly would have to fight. India fought back with aplomb. Pakistan’s wickets fell to a consistent R.P. Singh and Irfan Pathan and Pakistan shifted from cruise mode to a determinate struggle.

The task was getting onerous for Pakistan. But India could not afford to take it easy. The point could not have been driven home better by Misbah-ul-Haq and Shoaib Tanvir who connected the ball with ferocity that nearly snatched victory from India in the end. Joginder Sharma can take his place amongst the stars. Bowling at the death in two successive matches against Australia and Pakistan, Joginder saved India the blushes and spurred the team to victory.

It is hard to see beyond the youth to know why the team had a refreshing approach right through the tournament. Their courage to fight back from the mediocrity to stage three dramatic knock out matches to seal the World Cup has made India’s World Cup campaign a memorable effort, sealed by the sparkling trophy as a reminder of better days in India’s cricketing history.

For Mahendra Singh Dhoni, it has completed a three year honeymoon. His talk may appear confident but his body language speaks a rather positive dialect that reflects on the feedback from the team. A young captain, an inspiration leader and a man respected by the team he leads, Dhoni could not have asked for a better initiation to his captaincy.

He will come back to lead the charge against Australia and Pakistan. Not all days will be like this. But if Dhoni’s early inclinations suggest rightly, Dhoni has his head and his heart in the right place. Now if the BCCI can move away from geriatric redundancy, Indian cricket may well see men of these young boys.

Twenty20 has won over many a purist. Twenty20 cannot challenge the classic case of a Test. But what it has shown is that Twenty20 has its own place and niche and cricket has something to offer everyone. For Twenty20, it could not have asked for a better launch. Progressive Australia disposed, it has opened up the field for new champions, new heroes.

Twenty20 is not all about bang. The World Cup has been a short, sweet story no less inspirational than any other cricketing tale. India have raged with passion and enjoyed their game. Not all of cricket allows this, but any game is richer for the experience. In the translation of this exuberance into the other forms of the game remains paramount for India. Converting this victory into a successful formula should be India’s goal. Lifting the Cup is not the end; it is only the beginning that someone like future skipper Dhoni would do well to remind himself of.

That the final could swing either way is true. But the fact remains India showed a little bit more edge in the end, and were duly rewarded for plain sticking around. Their victories may not have been comprehensive (not many matches in the Twenty20 World Cup have been). But for fighting the odds, fighting their demons, fighting obvious weaknesses, fighting night after night, India passed an endurance test to herald what could potentially be a turning point in Indian history. India have shown more mettle and their victory is well deserved. On an even better note for the Indians, Irfan Pathan has bounced back and bleak days when one of India’s brightest shining stars faded gave way to a speculator array of dazzling fireworks. Bounce back ability is no longer a confined virtue.

It brings one to wonder: what would the men (who still happen to sit on the high chairs of the BCCI) who claimed India had no need to play Twenty20 have to make of this. Would they dare undermine India’s victory now? India’s victory and Twenty20 have proved a bonanza, the very princely purse that pays cricket’s luxurious days. Indeed the Cup flows over!

It would be like killing two birds – money and mania – with one stone, er, tournament. But having come thus far, the scenario for the final suggests nothing could surpass a seething border rivalry. Pakistan and Australia have a ‘been there, done that’ feel about them while India-New Zealand seem a tad boring combination. On the other hand, Australia and New Zealand’s Trans Tasmanian rivalry has always had a combative thrill about them. Commercial cricket though would put the vote on the other piquant border- India and Pakistan in the final. But would Twenty20 throw up a new world champion or throw a new tantrum? The twist in the tale lay veritably in the semi finals.

Saturday’s double sundae featured some unusual entrants. Of the four semi-finalists, only one can truly claim to have held the banner of tournament favourites true. New Zealand was considered the most adaptive of all teams to this format of the game and reasonable performances kept the team on track to the semi finals. But thereafter Zealand played inexplicable cricket, one that they will sit back and look long into the sunset trying to decipher.

New Zealand may have just watched the match between South Africa and India a little too hard. The disease of failure can be quite contagious. If South Africa unraveled in a so called ‘safe’ game, New Zealand failed to perform to its potential. For all of the trying clichés used against Pakistan (including “Don’t know which Pakistan will turn up for the match), Pakistan performed uncannily professionally and consistently through the tournament.

New Zealand contradicted all the versatility they had displayed in the course of the tournament. Their tall hitters turned into tame batsmen and their running between the wickets was appalling. It was a lesson in cricket by the novice. Suddenly it showed not even the semblance of the New Zealand the world has come to expect of them.

It is an even sad reflection on Daniel Vettori and unfairly so. His selflessness for the team’s cause was evident as he sacrificed himself for some crazy misjudgement of running between the wickets by Ross Taylor, this one proving more costly than others. Taylor is a gifted batsman but his presence of the crease was reflective of the patchy, hesitant batting that New Zealand stuttered with. His mighty blows in the final over showed how his skipper’s presence of mind paid off. But would it be enough against a fired up Pakistan?

New Zealand looked remarkably relaxed at the change of innings. Perhaps it was a deliberate attempt to approach the Pakistan innings with nerves under control. But there would be not be many smiles for too long. Imran Nazir played a healthy innings, survived by a missed run out chance and a catch that neither wicketkeeper nor first slip really attempted to pouch. With a target that was never going to really test the opposition, Pakistan made their task all too easy. Except from a brief little melodrama that did not really threaten the outcome of the match, Pakistan were firm favourites for the finals come Monday.

New Zealand survive an own goal: On a cautious note, Lou Vincent was fortunate to survive a direct hit to his head from none other than his fielding team mate, Jeetan Patel.

The matter of the other semi final was not too far. Somehow while both, Australia and India, suffered hiccups, Australia appeared far less intuitive about the game and India’s resurgence against South Africa gave the latter that extra edge. But knowing Australia, India would not have it easy like Pakistan.

Australia have not shown the ability to crack under pressure. But pressure can do strange things to people. The greater the opposition effort, greater was the chance to put Australia under pressure. That was exactly what Mahendra Singh Dhoni and India did by batting first. Without the pressure of chasing on them or the fact that the bowlers could easily submit the initiative as Australia looked to make headway.

While other batsmen did play their part, yet again Yuvraj Singh proved the star of the show. More than his seventy, it was the alacrity with which he batted that set the tone for the way India would end in a flourish. Australia had to brace themselves and injured skipper Ricky Ponting could only look on concerned.

Australia’s reign thus far in the tournament can be attributed in large part to Mathew Hayden’s bat as much as some of their bowlers. On this occasion as well, Hayden nearly took the game away from India. Frenetic changes from Dhoni, not to mention taking a gamble on the odd occasion, paid off in the end. It did not come easy but it was helped by the fact that India had forty-fifty more runs in the bank than in their previous encounter against South Africa. From a possibly difficult situation for most teams, Australia holstered their chase in Hayden’s hands. Sreesanth, RP Singh and Irfan Pathan, all came good for the effort. But Harbhajan Singh held his nerve as did Joginder Sharma. In the end, it was the best team effort on exhibit for India in quite some time.

Australia appeared ill prepared for the scant regard and respect they would be met with by opposition teams. But even from a straight forward speaking stand-in skipper like Adam Gilchrist, excuses seemed to flow through at the end of the day. Gilchrist felt Australia missed it by one odd mistake. Let us be precise, Australia fell short by precisely three big shots. In Twenty20 matches, 15 runs are gold. And yes, Australia lost that sheen and they would have sounded a lot more dignified to admit it, accept their fate that this would be the first World Cup final since 1996 that would not see the famous green and gold.

For Australia to hide behind the excuse of Australia having come out of hibernation speaks of unprofessionalism. Surely, an event as big as the World Cup merited preparation, off season or not. Perhaps then Ponting was not off the mark claiming Australia needed to show a little more respect for the game. May be that is where Australia should look, in their backyard!

The tournament can rejoice; the outcome of the fanfare has outlived the expectations. Now if only it can continue for one final encounter…

Even the self-assured Graeme Smith appeared set aback by the stunning events of the just concluded encounter in the Super Eights of the World Twenty20 championship. This would be South Africa’s live nightmare at every cricket World Cup thus far. Just when it seemed South Africa had ridden over the storm, along came a hurricane and blew away the home team into bygone woe and piercing despair. Smith has a point. But the case hinges on more than his point. The host jinx stays; South Africa have once again missed the World Cup train!

‘Chokers’ is a cruel word, especially if you happen to be a fan of the team labeled so. However, if choking is a harsh word, it would be pretty hard to describe South Africa’s debacle against India on the sordid night. What would be fairer to say is that South Africa were faced with a scenario no one had foreseen. When the moment was upon them, they were plain too paralysed (and crippled by the early blows) to react, let alone salvage. When they realize they could lose it all, South Africa’s mind set changed – from staying crouched ready for an attack, the hunter suddenly became the hunted. Only in this case, it was not so much India that were preying on them, it was the burden of their sudden twist of fortune that proved to fearsome of one of the most ‘formidable’ teams of the tournament.

Graeme Smith seemed slighted by remarks that South Africa lost their virtual place in the semi final by virtue of their getting their equations wrong. Wherever that assumption came from, this time it did not appear South Africa were unaware of their target. It seemed a plain case of nerves making the tournament favourites stutter their way to another significantly shambolic World Cup loss.

Smith is a strong skipper and would not have let that predicament pass. But he is also shrewd to point out that the tournament that kicked out the team that had won all its matches thus far would have to be looked out. While he may have stated a thought provoking point, it must then create some cause for consternation that teams like Australia that have lost to the lowliest teams have made it thus far. The tournament has thrown open the doors such that most teams have scrapped through games and group tallies and perhaps, this must also be a case with Smith takes it all with a pinch of salt.

Smith was very aware of the loss of momentum. His fiery motivation in the middle of the Indian innings may have seemed like the tirade of a dictator. But Smith has his own way of gearing the team and leading the charge. In hindsight it would seem if the captain was not happy with certain mishaps in the fields (dropped chances, misjudged opportunities), he had every reason to be.

But just leafing back the articles in this column, one point was reiterated on the fateful night. South Africa’s top three never really fired in the tournament. There was no real charge from the start of the innings and if the law of averages had perhaps done their job, Smith would have been so aggrieved. But Smith has to take the blame for his own inability to see through the India’s resurgence and stayed on to impact the game more. South Africa were put to the ultimate test at thirteen for three. While in previous matches, the likes of Justin Kemp and Albie Morkel saw through the tough turmoil, to do it all over again was perhaps just a task too much.

It is all very well to boast of depth in the batting order. But to rely on the lower order while the top order does a lullaby is just not on, even in a short game like Twenty20. The recovery between Mark Boucher and Morkel did cause a few flutters for the Indians but it was another matter that held South Africa down while India motored on, right into the semi final.

Besides a difficult start to the chase, South Africa appeared paralysed. It was not just the possibility of loss, but also, rather the distant plausibility that they could go out of the tournament. Distant because all they has to chase was 126, a target not particularly frightening for a team of this depth and fortitude. What did them in was the sudden fear of an unanticipated scenario. The factor seemed to have crippled them beyond belief.

It would not have helped their chances that their prolific batsman of the tournament and their biggest connector of the ball, Justin Kemp, was felled by a run out. Some may even raise the issue of the dubious decision surrounding Herschelle Gibbs with the umpires coming increasingly under the scanner. But was it possible that the big three up the order, Gibbs, Smith and AB de Villiers, could have approached the innings differently? While it serves no purpose to ruminate on the past, these are perhaps the areas that the team should look at. It seems prophetic now when Kemp mentioned that there were a few more areas that South Africa could improve on.

But it is a matter to look into. Otherwise considered a formidable side, South Africa develop a sense of vulnerability about them when a World Cup comes around. Their fragility has bizarrely passed down even though significant personnel changes have come along as also a varied bunch of skippers, each more different from their predecessor. There is always next time, but South Africa are increasingly finding themselves reflecting more on their losses than setting their sights on significant victories.

This is nothing to take away from India’s plucky performance. Whether their batting faltered to reveal a rookie hero or one of their star bowlers proving wayward once again, India continued to fight. And that made all the difference. South Africa had the fate of this matches in their clutches. But when it was time to fight, the will and the might deserted them, with devastating effect.

Daniel Vettori openly said his team would support South Africa in the match against India in order to be able to go through. The match did turn on its head, and one does wonder, did New Zealand dare buy the Indians a round of beer knowing they could plausibly meet each other in the finals? Or did Vettori extend a conciliatory beer to the much disconsolate skipper of the home team? Not a pleasant treat, any which way one looks at it. New Zealand were fortunate, but South Africa have not ended the tournament a pretty sight. Ironically the team that first handed Australia its defeat in the warm up match, perhaps significantly of things to come, have to painfully look back only to realize they themselves had perhaps stymied their progress on the apparent road to victory!