What happens when every TV channel and its auntie wants compelling cricket programming?

Rahul Bhattacharya03-Jan-2006

Click here to view this article as PDF download © Cricinfo Magazine
There is a programme on India’s most watched television news channel called . This translates into Criminals of the Match or, more charitably, Culprits of the Match. It goes like this.On the evening of every India match day a mass of people is gathered at a venue, usually in a small town in the Hindi-speaking north, to which Star News primarily caters. Some portion of their estimated 20-million viewers tune in, mobile phones at the ready. Four potential from the day’s cricket are nominated. Of them one will be voted the main culprit. Every Indian player could have put in a perfect winning performance but the manhunt will proceed.The game finishes after 30 minutes – it used to be 60 – of sound and fury, of climbing and falling vote-share graphs. The crowd, spurred on by the anchor and a prosecution attorney on a podium, will have tried the cricketers; anywhere between 5,000 and 10,000 will have managed to squeeze in their SMSes in the time.There is something perversely intriguing about the exercise. Irredeemably vulgar, unknowingly comic, reductive, Indian: the , the blame game, the sense of anger, but at the heart of the anger, really, a futility that nothing will ever come of anything so get it off your chest and struggle on. followed proceedings on the night of the Zimbabwe tri-series final loss in September at a glitzy mall in Gurgaon, before a small, metropolitan gathering, maybe 300, and two experts – Bishan Singh Bedi, naturally, as prosecutor (also “the voice of the public”, the assumption disconcertingly tacit) and Syed Kirmani, the “unsuccessful defence lawyer”.It was a curiously bland affair: nobody seemed to be carrying nooses. A few banners were around, though, uniform black felt on white chart-paper in identical hand. “Nehra, ” (Nehra, hide your face). “Ganguly ” (Remove Ganguly, save the country). “Dravid, ” (Dravid, the wall has collapsed).The Gurgaon final can be considered a momentous occasion in the annals of because it was here that Sourav Ganguly was disbarred from the game. He took the suspense out of the exercise: of the 27 match-days involving him since the show began during the home series against Pakistan last March, Ganguly had been the some 20 times. Moreover he tended to sweep the polls, hitting the high seventies and early eighties, whereas otherwise the split is more or less even. Better than anyone else, Star News has understood that the easiest way of starting a fight in India is to say the word “Ganguly” in a crowd.The show proceeded with the natural absurdity of a school debates competition, where the idea of the activity, rather than to expand minds, is to make kids stick by a designated view in an outwardly convincing manner. Kirmani, poor chap, had no chance in this scheme of things. Bedi had not much to do. In the past he had called Harbhajan Singh a “” (thief) and a “” (an abusive amalgam of petty, vulgar and immature), and promised the crowd, to its vocal delight, that as a follow-up to Ganguly taking off his shirt at Lord’s, his pants were going to be taken off here by them all. A 12th one-day final loss out of 16 times simplified his task considerably.A middle-aged gent with a white moustache asked whether it would not be a good idea to offer a walkover every final to save them from ignominy. An aggrieved youngster wondered why Irfan Pathan’s form never deserted him in commercials. A young lady ripped the very manhood out of Ashish Nehra and drew applause for her passion. A man with an agreeable smile felt it was time to banish Dravid from the team after this wretched series: and Dravid it was who walked off with the night’s honour.The thing finished amid revelry from a group of young boys, jumping and waving their posters with a chant like hammer to metal. Was it about Ganguly? No. It was, simply: “ITM” – the name of their college. But the posters? “, they were given to us by the channel . They called us here. Are we mad to waste our evening on this otherwise?’

Bishan Bedi and Syed Kirmani on jury duty for © Getty Images
Uday Shankar, CEO and editor of Star News, speaks up for . He argues that “in this country increasingly the grounds of accountability in public domain are getting eroded. Politicians are always held accountable, business people are always held accountable, we go and examine small little things that other celebrities do, so what is so special about our cricketers?”He feels that “even though the BCCI is a private body and cricketers are not paid directly by the people of the country, people spend so much of their material and emotional resource on this team. We thought we needed to give people a forum to connect and express their ideas. I think somewhere accountability has to be brought in and I’m proud of the role Star News is playing.”Stirring talk but quite thoroughly unconvincing. Does faux-crucifixion of players truly add accountability? “It’s a start. Give us a year. Not just Star News but all other channels will follow our lead.”Is the handing out of inflammatory posters to an audience, this part-staged passion, in any way defensible? A denial is placed on the record. But there is no reason to disbelieve the ITM student – or, indeed, the Star News employee present at the site who confirmed the fact.Would the channel have gone through with a similar show were India on a winning spree? “Sure,” he says, “The idea is to get the team to perform better and better.”But there was no during the Test matches against Zimbabwe which followed, where victories were assured.Indeed, it all began to look a bit silly as India shook off their one-day woes with a spanking start to the home season under a new captain. Somehow a villain was unearthed after the thumping opening win against Sri Lanka at Nagpur (Yuvraj Singh – 14 off 18 balls and out to a dodgy decision). The next win, at Mohali, coincided with the dropping of Ganguly from the squad, and so the poll was modified into whether Ganguly could fit into the World Cup team or not. After a third win on the run, the question became whether there was indeed any left in this team, whereupon Bedi modestly conceded that his work was finished since his words had been heeded. And so on. By the time India won the second one-dayer against South Africa, the show was pulled off air. It is scheduled back on for the tour of Pakistan.In theory, is a successful, some might say ingenious, blend of three or four ingredients. There is cricket, of course. Then there is the suggestion of crime (, the crime show on Star News, is one of the most popular programmes on Indian news television). Integrated with this is the newest television mantra: interactivity. Here, not only are the baser instincts of viewers catered to, by inverting the formula and asking them to pick villains rather than heroes, but the format is such that both television and live audiences are co-opted; most programmes manage one or the other. In this, Star News is a step ahead of its rivals.The rivals are many and the competition very intense. According to a paper by Nalin Mehta to be published in the journal , there are already an astounding 16 round-the-clock news channels in Hindi and English alone, while news is broadcast on 30 channels in eight languages.Virtually every network now owns a cricket-only show – this apart from the updates and sports bulletins, and the kind of insufferable live coverage that greeted, for example, the appointment of India’s new coach in May. This is understandable but not usual. Perhaps we have on our hands a unique combination of a nascent and exploding media and a single pan-national sport, but it is worth pointing out that none of the major general news channels in the USA, Australia, or England – where Sky have a dedicated sports-news channel as part of their five-channel sports bouquet – features extensive single-sport programming.As Mehta argues in his study, the significance of cricket on Indian news television is exaggerated by the structure of the market. Because the television economy in India opened up under the, well, somewhat rusty Indian Telegraph Act of 1885, networks were unable to gain control over their own distribution, which fell into the hands of the dreaded “cable operators”, who continue to substantially under-report the number of subscribers. Thus the revenue model in the Indian television industry is more skewed towards advertisers than consumers (up to 80 per cent) than in virtually any other part of the world. This, coupled with terribly unsophisticated viewer-tracking systems, means that channels are constantly trying to reach for the lowest common denominator to draw in advertisers. Cricket in India is one-size fits all. It is oblivious to geography, wealth, age and, increasingly, gender. It is a mighty tool.We thus find ourselves in an age of the inescapable cricket discussion with the ubiquitous cricketer-expert. Star News itself, besides , runs a number of specials, previews and reviews with Sandeep Patil. Aaj Tak uses Saba Karim and Madan Lal for the before play and during every interval on match days, apart from the many, sometimes hour-long, special packages. Headlines Today, the English channel from the same stable, follows a similar formula. Channel 7 does an hour-long call-in show, , with Ajay Jadeja and another celebrity guest on every match- and pre-match day; it is also now running the heavily publicised , a hunt for the fastest amateur bowlers in the country. Zee News, during series, runs a 30-minute live interactive show, , every morning and evening with, currently, Chetan Chauhan. India TV, during matches, uses Chetan Sharma for , a 10-minute experts’ interpretation , and has plans for a weekly cricket show. Sahara Samay does a one-hour show, , on and before every Indian cricket day, with a revolving cast that includes Maninder Singh, Kirti Azad, Ashok Malhotra and Javagal Srinath. The NDTV sister channels – 24×7 and India – have slotted in weekly one-hour programmes, and , one-hour sit-down audience shows, apart from and , which are half-hour analysis sessions on match days, all of them with Navjot Singh Sidhu.While the channels do a fine job of keeping viewers updated with news, views and scores, the amount of content they must produce feels like so much excess baggage. In the pursuit to tell the same story in different ways, the programming is, by and large, pointlessly aggressive, repetitiously inane, amusingly melodramatic or a mix of these. Virtually all of it lacks rigour.Rajdeep Sardesai, a cricket aficionado and editor-in-chief of the forthcoming 24-hour English news channel CNN-IBN, finds coverage increasingly and uncomfortably gravitating towards trivia and, more so, towards “gladiatorial programming”. Sardesai’s own for his former employer NDTV, formatted along the lines of the US presidential debates, was the first successful Indian audience-oriented programme in this genre.”Yes,” he says, “you could argue that perhaps fell into that trap and therefore sometimes the heat and dust generated were greater than the light. With every passing show it became harder. You looked for extreme opinions because moderate opinions did not elicit the same kind of passions. Perhaps it was the weakness of the show, perhaps it is the weakness of our system at the moment.””Cricket does sell,” he adds. “I once did an interview with Virender Sehwag for the Hindi show and the ratings for that were much higher than for politicians and even film stars. But at the moment Hindi channels are in such a competitive market that they are constantly trying to find ways in which to differentiate themselves from their rivals, and if that means living in a normless world then so be it. There are no norms left in Indian television in general and Hindi television in particular.”How will the arrival of two new 24-hour English channels affect coverage? “I’d like to think there is space for something more intelligent. Yet the pressure is intensifying all the time to be more and more innovative, more and more sensational, more and more provocative.”In this simultaneous pursuit of the trivial and the gladiatorial, there is bound to arise a tension beyond the usual. Both journalists and players have felt its brunt. “Why do you want to talk to me? I’m a am I not?” a Star News reporter was asked some time ago. Towards the later stages of the series against Pakistan at home last year, a beleaguered Ganguly, at the very nadir of his popularity, put in a request that the show be stopped. Another player refused to speak to a channel which flashed an SMS from a viewer observing that his servant could play better than Ganguly – a remark frankly more revealing about India’s attitudes towards its poor than towards its cricketers.Counters prosecutor Bedi: “I always used to consider a critic my best friend. My sincere advice to people is to not take , not to take me, too seriously. There is a light-hearted element to it. But yes, I do hope we are able to do something for the heroes, not just the zeroes.”Probably the most engaging of the programmes (also among the least-viewed because of the channel’s low penetration) is on Sahara Samay, because it is the least artificial. Free-flowing, unrestrained, it centres on a three- or four-way conversation, and captures the spirit of a discussion as it might happen between followers or, in this case, Test cricketers. Of course, this also means allegations fly thick and fast. One of its mainstays, Kirti Azad, like Bedi, is well-regarded in news television partly because of a reputation for “telling it like it is” – which is usually at the expense of nuance or balance. Neither of them, though, can compete with the undisputed of cricket on news television, Navjot Singh Sidhu.Whether or not he makes chowder of your brain, Sidhu’s gifts – his stamina, his memory – are properly extraordinary. And rating-points crunchers vouch that he has attracted many more people to cricket programming than he has driven away.Sidhu symbolises what it’s come to. He looks at himself not so much as an expert as a spectacle. He prepares accordingly. He will ring in all day to find out what kind of questions are to be expected; often he will request a question so that he may utilise, not statistics or background research or historical parallels, but his newest proverb or . On the show he is perched upon a stool, beneath the cushion of which rests a notebook that contains his aphorisms. During breaks he will whip it out from underneath him for a quick reference; he will practise saying them with his most trusted expressions and gestures. Not all of it will be appetising. (“?” – Can be fried in spit? Can fish swim in urine? In other words, are not some tasks impossible?) He is able to always shout, always respond without stutter or delay, and never doubt the strength of his point no matter how uninformed or irrelevant. He is so overbearing that some journalists refuse the invitation to appear on his show. He is so outrageous that it’s hard to not stop and gawk. With Sidhu the circus is complete. The man is a monster, the man is a marvel. The man is the most sought-after and best-paid on the circuit.None of this is to make a statement about print versus television or sports versus news, for each has its limitations and its advantages, its high and low points. Rather, the suffusion of cricket programming in the burgeoning world of round-the-clock news-television is only the most recent acknowledgement of the point that cricket is not played in a vacuum, that it exists within a social, political and economic order, and that it is an intimate part of many people’s lives. The reality is that much of what we have now, far from making sense of the madness that is Indian cricket, only lays madness upon madness or else creates a parallel madness. If indeed we are in store for a more fulfilling future, as Uday Shankar suggests, this phase will as likely be remembered as passing folly as necessary rite.

From the Faisalabad saga to the “subterfuge” of reverse swing to the crowd violence of the nineties, England v Pakistan has always been more than your garden variety cricket contest

Osman Samiuddin10-Jul-2006

Shahid Afridi’s pitch-dance at Faisalabad was yet another colourful chapter in an eventful rivalry © Getty Images

It is in cricket a rivalry unique. It does not rely on the conventional ingredients that form the undercurrent of most traditional rivalries: geography, religion, a tainted historical antecedent. Yet it has been as fractious, as heated, as packed with history, incident, drama, plots and sub-plots as any. Contests between Pakistan and England, by rule, have not been dramatic; often they have been direly one-sided, often deathly dull. Yet, always they have been loaded. It isn’t, as with India and Pakistan, a matter simply of love or hate, moulded by prevalent political winds. It isn’t, as with the Ashes, tied inexorably to a history that has shaped the game itself.Although there is considerable emotion, some history, and even a colonial legacy, there is a whole lot else that is more compelling. And precisely because the strength of antagonism is dictated by unconventional sources, it is maddeningly complex.Barring a handful of contests – the 1954, 1971 and 1996 tours to England by Pakistan – nearly every series, irrespective of venue or decade, holds something: controversy, theatre, intrigue. Even the mostly friendly 2005-06 tour of Pakistan produced at Faisalabad two controversial dismissals, a blast during play, and a ban for Shahid Afridi for scuffing the pitch. Each series has added a layer of subtext, some acrimony, some implication, some “previous” onto the next. As a relationship, progressively through the decades this one has mostly worsened, interrupted only sparingly by clashes which have merely left the status quo unmoved.In 1955, when Donald Carr’s MCC toured Pakistan, a template of umpiring mistrust and discontent was set. The tourists complained about umpire Idrees Beg, then infamously doused him with cold water in Peshawar – allegedly as a prank. The series would have been abandoned but for diplomatic intervention; the tourists claimed Beg came voluntarily. Beg and other Pakistani officials asserted he had been kidnapped.Ted Dexter’s tourists in 1961, on what was an amicable enough tour, came across, according to reports, “reasonable umpiring, although criticism came here and there”. The sending back of Haseeb Ahsan from England in 1962, at his captain’s behest after Haseeb’s action was whispered to be less than legitimate, unfurled its significance two decades later when he toured as manager in 1987. That tour, of course, was steeped in confrontation and Haseeb was widely condemned by England as the instigator.In 1967 and 1974, Pakistan rumbled about inadequate covers allowing water to seep through at the English grounds. Even in between, in the Pakistan of 1969 and 1973, in encounters relatively free of rancour, there was the embellishment provided by political turmoil. The first of those series was played against the backdrop of Bangladesh’s impending birth and abandoned after riots in the third Test at Karachi; Wisden called the tour a fiasco. The second went ahead after extra security was arranged for the tourists. The British mission in Islamabad had received a hand-written threat from a group called Black September promising to harm the team.From there on, the rivalry has spiralled: through the late seventies travails of the Packerites and the felling of Iqbal Qasim by Bob Willis at Edgbaston. It reached its confrontational peak, of course, in the spectacularly raucous mid-to-late-eighties and early-nineties contests, when familiarity bred hatred (the sides played 11 ODIs and eight Tests between December 1986 and December 1987, in those days considered overkill).What makes it what it is? Pakistan and England ostensibly provide cricket’s affirmation of Samuel Huntington’s thesis of the clash of civilisations. Huntington’s treatise of the same name, which examines potential ideological and cultural conflict post-Communism, serves to explain, superficially at least, the incendiary nature of this rivalry.Javed Miandad, no two-bit extra in these dramas, sagely substantiates this in his autobiography: “Underlying cultural differences are always a fertile ground for misunderstandings.” Certainly, as Simon Barnes argued before England’s 2000 tour to Pakistan, two more culturally divergent sides on the field are difficult to find.Barnes wrote, “The fact is that Pakistanis are not only different to the English, but they really don’t mind. They don’t see their culture clash with the English as a personal and national failing; they suspect that there might be problems on the English side as well. Like arrogance and xenophobia and Islamophobia, just for starters.”

Mike Gatting and Shakoor Rana face off © Getty Images
The behaviour of administrators further augments this line of thinking. The planning and method which seems to infuse every action of the British is anathema to Pakistan, where only the last minute is the most important – as was learned by, for example, the English tourists of 1968-69, who were disgruntled more than once by the inconvenience of last-minute venue changes.Both sets of players collectively and individually are, inevitably, subjects of caricature-ish, sometimes rude, profiles in the other’s backyard; if Pakistan is the abrasive, deviant child, inclined to deception and erratic behaviour, then England is the uptight, grumpy old man, moaning about anything and everything, bringing his own food, and unwilling to mingle.Pakistan’s heroes are portrayed as geniuses – sometimes mystical as in the case of Abdul Qadir, and sometimes warrior-like, as in that of Imran Khan and Wasim Akram. Imran, aware of this flimsy characterisation, prompted Qadir to grow his hair and a goatee to further heighten his numinous aura. Pakistan’s villains have been devious, conspiratorial and antagonistic, as Javed and Haseeb were deemed.Simon Heffer’s remarkably distasteful piece for The Sunday Telegraph in 1992 – “Pakistan – The Pariahs of Cricket” is the best example. Miandad was likened to a rickshaw driver and card-sharp; Pakistan was labelled a country of cheats, capable of fair play only when their grounds were “turned over to their other popular use, as stadia for public flogging.”England’s heroes have been plodding, but with innate goodness and uprightness of spirit – a Colin Cowdrey or a David Gower. Their villains have been pantomime – racist, colonialist and obnoxious like Mike Gatting and, of course, Ian Botham. The latter is remembered not so much for his 8 for 34 in 1978 as for his mother-in-law. Nothing has existed in between, and it is a seductive contrast.Add to this superficially enhanced clash considerable colonial residue and you have the beginnings of a dysfunctional relationship. Imran and Javed argue that the atmosphere only soured once Pakistan began asserting itself as a powerful Test nation in the late seventies and early eighties. As the one-time subservient colonised – tolerated for one-off successes like the Oval in 1954 – challenged at the very top, asserting a regular authority over the supercilious coloniser, the clashes became increasingly fraught and disputatious. A fundamental relationship was overturned.In a Daily Telegraph column about his retirement, Imran writes about how breaking free from mental “colonial shackles” and ridding Pakistan of its inferiority complex – where the ultimate ambition of every manager of a tour to England was to be elected to the MCC – was one of his most cherished achievements. Javed, naturally, was blunter. “For years, Pakistani teams on foreign tours found it difficult to shake a sense of inferiority. Perhaps we were embarrassed to be from a Third World country that not too long ago had been ruled by white colonialists.”Although, like with the cultural clash, there is undeniable truth in this argument, it too lacks depth. Revenge, colonial-style, was certainly on Aamer Sohail’s mind when he directed Botham to send his mother-in-law to bat next after a cheap dismissal in the 1992 World Cup final. But it overlooks, one, a quintessentially Pakistani paradox and two, a legitimately questionable English outlook, that have together added, if it was needed, a little extra zing. Now it gets complex.In broad swathes of Pakistan there is a deep-rooted contradiction towards the English (and Western civilisation). For a pot pourri of reasons – colonial, religious and cultural – they generate animosity. Post 9/11, this has intensified. Yet in this same country it is a widely held and cherished ambition to move westward and seek opportunity, fortune, and a better life.Similar paradoxes exist in cricket. One disconnect is exemplified best by Imran’s own experience of, and attitude towards, England, as Ivo Tennant hints in his biography. Imran was seen by many in both countries as a product of English society. He had studied there but more importantly had attuned himself socially; he was accepted. Yet publicly he spared no chance to express his distaste for “parochial English attitudes”. Imran writes about how breaking free from mental “colonial shackles” and ridding Pakistan of its inferiority complex – where the ultimate ambition of every manager of a tour to England was to be elected to the MCC – was one of his most cherished achievements Given his background, the contests of 1982 and 1987, over which he presided, should not have been as thorny as they were. In the event, Imran at least managed to emerge unscathed, being careful enough in 1987, as Tennant outlines, to ensure that Haseeb did his bidding on contentious issues such as umpiring. Haseeb was demonised, Imran tolerated. Javed rationalises this with a thinly veiled dig at Imran: “Those who try to conform are better tolerated… if I too had gone partridge shooting… or had been photographed in morning dress at the Ascot, people would have found me more palatable.”The other inconsistency is related but afflicts the Pakistani cricketer in general. For all the alleged resentment he bears, and the perceived injustices he has suffered at the hands of the English, he has traditionally held performing well in England in great regard as a benchmark of achievement. Performances against England in England guarantee folklore, acclaim; Zaheer Abbas’s double-hundreds, Fazal Mahmood’s 12, Asif Iqbal’s 146, Mohsin Khan’s and Javed’s doubles. Javed, who skippered the cantankerous 1992 tour and was persistently demonised there, is reverential. “There is something special about playing in England, because you really have to do well against England, in England, to get the stamp of accomplishment in world cricket,” he writes. He’s not alone; Pakistani autobiographies are rare, and rarer still are those without a chapter on England and the English. Akram gives them five chapters.Further, for many Pakistani cricketers, county and league cricket have long been considered the ultimate education. Imran praised, exultantly, the county system, saying, “there is no better school in which to learn how to play cricket and to polish one’s talent”. In the last three decades, many Pakistanis have spent summers in England, improving both their game and socio-economic status.Shouldn’t familiarity with the players, the country, its norms and traditions, make for less fractious encounters at the international level? But barring 1996, when Lancashire team-mates Akram and Michael Atherton ensured a refreshingly cordial series, and 1973, when Majid Khan and Tony Lewis, ex-Cambridge and Glamorgan mates, skippered a dull but friendly one, the majority of encounters in which Pakistan had a sizeable contingent with strong county ties have been riddled with misunderstanding and suspicion.Undoubtedly these inconsistencies at the heart of the Pakistani approach to England have contributed to the nature of the relationship.Almost as much, perhaps, as a beguiling yet genuine duplicity in England’s approach to the relationship. Take umpiring for instance, which forms, outwardly, the basis for so much. When a former England player remarked after Faisalabad 1987 that Pakistani umpires had been cheating England for 35 years, it was a comment born of a systemic, rigid belief – unwavering as any in religion – that Pakistani umpires were biased. As Martin Johnson explained in Wisden of Faisalabad, “At best, they had come to regard the home umpires as incompetent; at worst, cheats.”Even Scyld Berry, in Cricket Odyssey, a diary chronicling the tumult of that tour, portrays the appointment of Shakeel Khan, and later Shakoor Rana, as part of a byzantine conspiracy designed solely to cartwheel the English, deliver victory, and assuage a nation baying for blood. Rare has been the Pakistan tour to not contain some reference, snide, muttered or public, about the umpiring.Two points must be raised here. One is generic; in the days before extensive, super slo-mo TV replays, how much conviction could be invested in the belief that a decision wasn’t just wrong but deliberately so? Even today, with all the technology available for lbws, thin edges and line calls, definitive judgments remain dicey. How credibly can we treat the belief that a majority of past decisions have been incorrect on purpose?

Chris Broad wasn’t a happy chappie on that ill-fated tour in the late ’80s © Getty Images
The other, more pertinent point is this: much indignation was expressed in 1987-88 when the Pakistan board refused to accede to the tourists’ request to remove Shakeel Khan from the umpire panel. They felt he was incompetent and biased. Yet when Pakistan as tourists had made a similar request to the England board asking for David Constant to be replaced not six months earlier, their request was declined and leaked to the press as evidence of their gall. In contrast, India’s request five years earlier to have Constant removed had been accepted.Constant had officiated at Lord’s in 1974 and had decided Pakistan had to play on a pitch on which inadequate covers had allowed water to seep through. Derek Underwood took eight wickets, and although the match was drawn, the Pakistani management lodged a bitter complaint with the English cricket board.At Headingley in 1982, Constant contentiously adjudged Sikander Bakht out, potentially costing Pakistan the match and the series – a decision that has riled Pakistan more than any other. In Cricket Odyssey, Berry admits that appointing Constant was instigatory but cannot quite bring himself to believe Constant would ever cheat. Constant may be “abrasive” in his officiating, but Berry is convinced it is the manner of his decisions rather than the decisions themselves which so enraged Pakistan.Could the same be said of the brothers Palmer, Ken and Roy? After the latter was involved in the Old Trafford fracas with Aaqib Javed in 1992, elder brother Ken (never a favourite of Pakistan’s, and accused by Khalid Mahmood, Pakistan’s manager in 1992, of ball-tampering during his playing days), adjudged Graham Gooch not out when he was run out by at least three yards in the next Test, at Headingley. Pakistan appealed themselves hoarse during that Test and not much of it, noted most newspapers, was frivolous. Irrespective of evidence, England’s suspicions of Shakeel were similar to Pakistan’s of Constant or Palmer, and yet, we’re given to believe, they were somehow not.In fact, appealing itself sheds light on England’s attitude. For years, Pakistan have been derided for their appeals on the field. Politely, their excessiveness has been “energetic”, but it has also been a source of friction and resentment. Bob Willis, England’s captain in 1982, chastised Pakistan for their incessant appealing, proclaiming it “was histrionic and Imran should have controlled it. Pakistani cricketers adopt the attitude of press-ganging the rest of the world in what they want.”Willis’s ire stemmed from thinking of it as an affront to the umpire and to the spirit of the game. Yet two of the most dramatically insolent acts, by far, against officials on the field have been perpetrated by two Englishmen, on the infamous 1987-88 tour. The circumstances were extenuating in Chris Broad’s refusal to walk for a whole minute after he was given out at Lahore, but he was neither the first nor the last of his species to have felt hard done by at the hands of an umpire. Why he snapped then and there we don’t know, for he had received poor decisions against Pakistan – from Australian and English umpires – through the year and had protested only meagrely then. Faisalabad, as Simon Barnes argues, revealed nothing more than an absolute refusal by an Englishman to bow to a Pakistani authority. The English cricket board punished each player of that touring party with a “hardship bonus”, thereby officially endorsing the view that Pakistani umpires, at least, could be affronted with abandon And how many captains have, like Mike Gatting, vigorously indulged in a finger-pointing slanging match with an umpire? Faisalabad, as Simon Barnes argues, revealed nothing more than an absolute refusal by an Englishman to bow to a Pakistani authority. The English cricket board punished each player of that touring party with a “hardship bonus”, thereby officially endorsing the view that Pakistani umpires, at least, could be affronted with abandon.Neither is this duplicity time-bound nor restricted to umpiring. Lord MacLaurin, then chairman of the England cricket board, suggested before the 2000-01 tour, significantly the first by England for 13 years since Faisalabad, that Pakistani players implicated (not proven guilty, mind) in Justice Qayyum’s report on match-fixing should be suspended from playing. When Alec Stewart was named during the same series for alleged involvement, was Pakistani resentment at his continued participation through the series not understandable?What, too, to make of reverse swing? Righteously condemned as an illegal concoction of bottle-tops and fingernails in 1992 when Wasim and Waqar were rampant, it is now an art form to be marvelled at. In 13 years, like an ex-con it has undergone a complete and successful rehabilitation. On the back of reclaiming the Ashes, it has become legit.Given this overbearing context, the rivalry cannot be anything but unique. And, as Kamran Abbasi has pointed out in recent years, with the continuing evolution of the expatriate cricket fan, clashes aren’t likely to get any simpler.There was a time in the sixties when Pakistani-origin fans were mildly exuberant, never disruptive. Occasionally they would foray into the rowdy, as when mobbing Asif Iqbal at the Oval in 1967 when he reached that hundred. Even in 1987, when racial trouble flared at the Edgbaston one-dayer, clouding over a breathtaking contest, the incident was a relatively isolated one. But over the decades, as a second generation of Asian Briton has matured, Abbasi found that “a new Asian cricket fan had emerged, one passionate in support of a faraway land”.In 1992, a pig’s head had notoriously been thrown into a Headingley stand full of Asian supporters. By the NatWest Series of 2001, against (and perhaps fuelled by) a backdrop of racial violence and, in Abbasi’s words, “provocative National Front and British National Party posturing”, overt enthusiasm had given way to perturbing acts of defiance. The media, predictably, heightened the tension by stereotyping the fans as thugs.A link between the difficulty the Pakistani-Briton, as opposed to his Indian counterpart, has faced in integrating effectively into Britain, and the growing volatility of the fans can be argued, especially if you consider that one of the bombers involved in the July 7th bombings in 2005 was of Pakistani origin and loved cricket. But certainly the second generation has volubly expressed its alienation and sense of dislocation in British society, more so than their predecessors.In any case, the support prompted Nasser Hussain to balk at the number of young Asians supporting Pakistan during the 2001 series; it prompted Old Trafford, home to a large Pakistani community, to market the Test as a virtual home game. And this was, remember, before 9/11 and 7/7, two events so cataclysmic for the Pakistani immigrant that it is impossible to predict how their impact will play on relations in the long term. Suffice to say, during Pakistan’s current tour of England, the various fundamental equations governing the relationship between the two are likely to enter a different and possibly more volatile realm altogether.

India had an eventful, often turbulent year, marked by all kinds of leadership-related turmoil, but it was a surprisingly successful one as well

Siddhartha Vaidyanathan07-Jan-2008

Crash out of one world event, storm to victory in another; fumble over the appointment of a coach, win a rare Test series in England; get flustered after one player resigns from captaincy and another refuses the job, revel in the newly appointed captain, dominating Pakistan in the process; panic after an informal league lures domestic players, watch the closest Ranji Trophy league round in recent memory.Rarely did a day go by in 2007 without Indian cricket throwing up something or the other. If it was an unnamed member of the team management leaking news at the start of the year, an unnamed selector was doing the same by the end of it. If none of the board officials made the headlines, there was always Sreesanth.Scratch the turbulent surface, though, and you have one of India’s most successful years. The year began with them squandering a series-winning opportunity in Cape Town and ended with a thrashing in Melbourne, but India made up with a couple of series wins against England and Pakistan in between – one after 21 years, the other after 27. Throw in a win in the World Twenty20 and you had a year to look back on fondly.If India rose steadily in Tests, in limited-overs cricket they oscillated from the pathetic to the inspirational. If they could do nothing right against Bangladesh in the World Cup opener, they were unstoppable against Australia in the World Twenty20 semi-final. When India won an ODI, it was usually owing to Sachin Tendulkar. Whether it was his 76-ball 100 in Vadodara that sealed the series against West Indies, or the twin 90s against South Africa in Belfast, or his magical 94 that helped level the series at The Oval, or even his uplifting 97 against Pakistan in Gwalior, he was the guiding force. His only weakness? Falling in the nineties.He was far quieter in the Test arena, preferring the path of least risk. Eclipsing him were two contrasting batsmen: the languid Wasim Jaffer and the enigmatic Sourav Ganguly. Jaffer’s efficient run-scoring underlined his coming of age as a batsman over the last couple of years, but it was Ganguly who made for the poignant story. Banished into exile a little over a year ago, he returned to conquer, batting better than he had ever done before. A number of moments stand out but his towering double-hundred in Bangalore will be talked about the longest.India went through much of the year without a coach. Greg Chappell resigned after the World Cup debacle and the board didn’t think it was urgent to appoint someone on a long-term basis. Ravi Shastri, Chandu Borde and Lalchand Rajput handled the responsibilities over different series before Gary Kirsten was finally handed a two-year contract.Captains changed too. Rahul Dravid relinquished the job after the England series and the selectors gave Mahendra Singh Dhoni the responsibility in the shorter formats. Anil Kumble was handed the reins for the longer version, though the appointment was likely to last only a couple of series at the most.

High point
The final of the World Twenty20 against Pakistan will top the list. India’s first victory on the world stage for 22 years was engineered by a bunch of rookies who started without much of a chance. Dhoni was leading a group of unknowns, but they turned in one fearless performance after another to strike gold. The Test series win in England must come a close second.Low point
The first-round exit from the World Cup. India were outclassed by Bangladesh and Sri Lanka and never looked good enough to mix it with the best. A bunch of ageing stars dawdled in the field, and a helpless captain and garrulous coach bungled at the top.Several shenanigans of the board will vie for a close second.New kids on the block

A number of promising stars were part of the World Twenty20 squad. Rohit Sharma and Robin Uthappa shone bright but it was probably RP Singh who emerged the strongest, going from a second-change bowler to a new-ball exponent. He was probably India’s most consistent bowler in England, and began the New Year leading the attack.What does 2008 hold?

There’s no doubt that a number of voids will open up. With Dravid, Ganguly, Laxman, Tendulkar, and Kumble nearing the end of their careers, India could be in for a serious depletion. The challenge would be to phase these players out gradually, blooding new talent at the right time and making sure the boat isn’t rocked too hard. It may turn out to be the most challenging task yet.

Andrew Miller’s report card on Sri Lanka’s individual performances in the three-Test series

Andrew Miller23-Dec-2007

Mahela Jayawardene was in a zone of his own … © AFP
Mahela Jayawardene – 9.5
As close to perfection as a captain can get. Beneath the placid exterior lurks a competitor forged from steel, and nobody withstood the heat of battle better than he. Vital contributions to each andevery Test, and his returns grew as the series went on. The tempo of his double-century at Galle was exemplary – he piled on the runs while baking England in the heat for two-and-a-half days, and afterwards turned on them with the directness of a Waugh or Ranatunga, accusing them of giving up too soon. He was spot on as well.Kumar Sangakkara – 9
Utterly imperious at Kandy, where he ascended to the top of the world rankings with his fourth score of 150-plus in consecutive Tests, not to mention a 92 in the first innings. At that stage of the series England had not a clue how to dismiss him, so it came as some surprise that he failed to pass fifty at either Colombo (where he received an excellent delivery from Ryan Sidebottom) or Galle (where he suffered a rare lapse in concentration straight after lunch). Nevertheless, thatfirst-Test performance wrecked the resolve of England’s bowlers.Muttiah Muralitharan – 8.5
An historic series for the rubber-wristed one, as he reclaimed his world Test bowling record from Shane Warne and set about establishing a benchmark that may never be surpassed. It was not as easy for him as the statistics suggest – he was made to work hard for his breakthroughs on three unresponsive surfaces, and was vocally frustrated about the pitch that was presented for the second Test at the SSC. Nevertheless his class oozed through whenever it mattered.Chaminda Vaas – 8
Entered the series with doubts about his future, but answered his critics in time-honoured fashion. Played a vital role in breaking England’s second innings at Kandy, but really came into his own on that seismic third day at Galle when England’s fortunes hit rock-bottom. Though he missed out on a hugely deserved second Test century, he was the principal destroyer with the ball as England slipped to 81 all out. He says he wants one more year of Test cricket and two more in ODIs. On this evidence he’ll get his wish.Michael Vandort – 7
Valuable contributions in the first two Tests, including his second century in four appearances against England. Surprisingly lacks stature for such a tall man, but England found it nigh on impossible to dislodge him when well set. Set the scene nicely for the middle-order colossi who followed.Lasith Malinga – 7
Only six wickets in the series, but the stats tell a fraction of the story. Malinga’s flamboyant hostility gave Sri Lanka’s attack a razor-sharp cutting edge, never better exemplified than at Galle, when he all but decapitated Kevin Pietersen with a searing lifter that flicked the glove. He also applied the coup de grace at Kandy, where he yorked Matthew Hoggard to seal victory with 20 minutes remaining. None of England’s batsmen were ever entirely at ease facing him.Tillakaratne Dilshan – 7
Belatedly recalled for the off-colour Jehan Mubarak, and instantly made his presence felt with a punchy 84 that carried Sri Lanka out of danger on the second day at Galle. Denied himself a century in trying to secure one for his captain, but made amends for his own run-out by throwingdown Ian Bell’s stumps at the start of England’s innings, to trigger their chaotic collapse.Chanaka Welagedera – 6
An impressive debut, aided in no small part by England’s abject batting. But he was sharp and accurate in his solitary outing, and looks like a made-to-measure replacement for when Vaas calls time on his illustrious career.

… while his namesake, Prasanna, was very tidy behind the stumps © Getty Images
Prasanna Jayawardene – 6
Like his English opposite number, Jayawardene was all or nothing with the bat. Important fifties at Kandy and Colombo were followed by a third-ball duck at Galle. The big difference was his performance behind the stumps, where he was unobtrusive and reliable – except forone uncharacteristic spill on the final morning of the series. The mere fact he has been keeping at all is a bonus for Sri Lanka as well – it has allowed Sangakkara to blossom as a specialist batsman.Dilhara Fernando – 5
Effectiveness was undermined by a long-standing ankle problem that eventually forced his withdrawal ahead of Galle. Nevertheless, his three wickets at Kandy included England’s middle-order pillars, Pietersen and Paul Collingwood, both of whom were capable of carrying their side to safety. And at Colombo he even chipped in with a career-best batting effort of 36 not out – only the third time in 30 Tests he had reached double figures.Upul Tharanga – 4
Secured his recall after heavy scoring against England in their warm-up matches, but wasn’t able to translate that form into the Tests. Twice fell early at Colombo and Galle, but twice it proved tobe a false dawn for England’s batsmen.Chamara Silva – 4
A bit-part contributor. No performances of note, except that Steve Harmison exposed a weakness to the rising off-stump delivery. Played a minor role with the ball at Colombo, where he picked up his first Test wicket. But otherwise it was a quiet series.Jehan Mubarak – 3
Sri Lanka’s only outright failure. A desperately poor run of form came to an end after 18 runs in three innings, on two of the more batsman-friendly surfaces a player could hope for. He’s played in just ten Tests since making his debut in July 2002, and has never featured in more than three in a row.

Cricinfo looks at which bowlers have held the record for most Test wickets before Muttiah Muralitharan

Cricinfo staff03-Dec-2007

Courtney Walsh goes past Kapil Dev’s 434 wickets against Zimbabwe at Sabina Park in 2000 © AFP
708: Muttiah Muralitharanbowled Paul Collingwood in his 116th Test, against England in Kandy 2007-08, to go past Shane Warne’s record of 708 Test wickets.532: Warne broke Murali’s tally of 532 wickets by dismissing Irfan Pathan in Chennai in October 2004. It was Warne’s 114th Test.527: Murali grabbed the record after both, Warne and he, were on 527 wickets each. Martin van Jaarsveld was Murali’s 528th wicket in Galle in August 2004.527: Warne equalled the world record for the first time when he had Upul Chandana stumped in Cairns in 2004 but he couldn’t go past Murali in his 112th Test.519: Murali claimed the record for the first time, from Courtney Walsh, by dismissing Mluleki Nkala in Harare in 2004. It was his 89th Test and it was the first time that a spinner had the record since Lance Gibbs.434: Walsh became the first, and to date only, West Indian fast bowler to hold the record for most Test wickets. Walsh surpassed Kapil Dev’s 434 wickets when he dismissed Henry Olonga in his 114 Test at Sabina Park in March 2000.431: Kapil Dev huffed and puffed past Richard Hadlee’s record of 431 wickets in his 130th Test, against Sri Lanka in Ahmedabad in February 1994. Hashan Tillakaratne was his victim. He had equalled Hadlee in the previous Test against Sri Lanka in Bangalore.373: Hadlee equalled Ian Botham’s tally of 373 wickets against Australia in Melbourne in December 1987; went wicketless in his next Test against England in February 1988; and broke the record in his 75th Test, against India in Bangalore in November 1988.355 – Botham took the record from Dennis Lillee in his 86th Test. He returned from drugs ban at The Oval in 1986 and dismissed Bruce Edgar with his first ball to equal Lillee’s record, prompting Graham Gooch to ask “Who writes your scripts?” He dismissed Jeff Crowe in his second over to claim the record.

Shane Warne dismisses Upul Chandana in Cairns to equal Muttiah Muralitharan’s record of 527 wickets in 2004 © Getty Images
309 – Lillee destroyed West Indies with 7 for 83 in Melbourne in December 1981 to take the record from Lance Gibbs. Lillee was playing his 58th Test and Larry Gomes was his 310th wicket.307: Gibbs drew level with Fred Trueman’s tally of 307 wickets in the fifth Test against Australia in Adelaide in January 1976 and broke the record when he dismissed Ian Redpath in the next Test in Melbourne, which was his last match.242: Fred Trueman beat Brian Statham’s 242 Test wickets in his 56th Test, by taking 9 for 91 against New Zealand in Christchurch in March 1963.236: Brian Statham became the world-record holder, surpassing Alec Bedser, when he took his 237th wicket – Barry Shepherd – in Adelaide in January 1963.216: Bedser broke Clarrie Grimmett’s record of 216 wickets in his 46th Test when he dismissed Australia’s Gil Langley at Headingley in July 1953.189: Grimmett went past Sydney Barnes’ record tally of 189 in his 35th Test by taking 10 for 88 against South Africa at Newlands in 1936.142: Barnes overtook Hugh Trumble’s 141 wickets in only his 23rd Test when took 10 for 105 against South Africa in Durban in December 1913.119: Trumble beat Johnny Briggs’ 119 wickets when he took 9 for 141 against England in Melbourne in 1904..

It would be ridiculous to suggest that a new world order is upon us but one thing has been re-established at Perth: Australia v India is the Test rivalry of the decade

Sambit Bal at the WACA19-Jan-2008

Australia must wonder why they always run into India when in full flow. The same opponents had halted them in 2001 by conjuring a miracle in Kolkata; now they have done one better by overwhelming them at the bastion of Australian supremacy. Perth didn’t quite live up to the hype, but it was still the paciest, bounciest track the Indians have experienced this summer and it is likely to remain so.More significantly, though, after a blip in Melbourne, a great rivalry has been restored to health. Just over four years ago India had taken a Test off Australia in Adelaide and now they have done it again. It would be ridiculous to suggest that a new world order is upon us but one thing has been re-established: Australia v India is the Test rivalry of the decade. England popped up spectacularly in 2005 but only India have been able to match, fight and beat Australia over a sustained period.Since India’s disastrous tour in 1991-92, the teams have met 21 times in Test cricket; the numbers now stand at 10-8 in Australia’s favour. In the corresponding period Australia’s record stands at 27-9 against England, 12-2 against Pakistan, 15-4 against South Africa and 9-1 against Sri Lanka. And India were the last team to humble Australia in a home Test.Till 2001, contests between India and Australia followed a familiar pattern: India were hopeless in Australia and Australia could never beat India in India. Steve Waugh’s team, though it lost that great series, actually started the change – Australia were two wicket-taking balls away from winning the series – and Sourav Ganguly’s Indians continued it during a magnificently competitive series in 2003-04.There was a real danger of this series ending as a washout. A less resilient side would have been shattered by the heartbreaking last-minute loss at Sydney, and the other distractions it brought. India are fortunate to have a man of Anil Kumble’s resolve and calm, and a bunch of steely senior players in the dressing room. Instead of licking their wounds when they retreated to Canberra after the stand-off, they renewed their spirit to fight on and found the calm to be able to do so. Kumble spoke after the win about the special bond within the team and this is as united a team as India have ever been.Kumble had no hesitation in ranking this win the greatest of his career and he is hardly off the mark. The good thing about this Indian side is that the wins have been getting better and better. Adelaide in 2003 was special because no one had given them a chance of competing against Australia before the series and, more so, because they were 85 for 4 in the first innings chasing 556. Like Kolkata, it had a touch of the miraculous to it. And of course, Australia had contributed to their defeat by some reckless batting.Not so here. This was a Test in which India looked Australia in the eye from the first session and never blinked. Apart from batting and bowling better than their opponents, they even caught more safely. Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid showed what difference technique can make by batting through a challenging period when Brett Lee and Stuart Clark were at their best on the first day; when they failed in the second innings VVS Laxman stood up. Virender Sehwag’s two wickets in successive overs hastened India’s win but his contribution with the bat was equally vital. He got India off to quick starts in both innings and in fact had looked to have regained his form in the second innings. Mahendra Singh Dhoni is still far from his booming best but this is his first tour of Australia and his restrained 38 in the second innings saved India from a collapse.

But the bowlers won India the match and, staggeringly, they outbowled their rivals. Even more staggeringly the bowling line-up, had injury not intervened, would have read Zaheer Khan, Sreesanth and Munaf Patel. Rarely has the gap between expectation and delivery been so huge in a positive sense. Even though Perth was expected to deliver pace and bounce, the Indians always knew they had to do it with swing and, irrespective of what the pitch did, they were prepared to throw it up.Teamwork has been a feature of India’s recent wins and, as in Trent Bridge and Delhi, there were no singular performances here. Wasim Jaffer and Sourav Ganguly were the only failures of the match, and even Jaffer played his part in the first innings. It’s a sign of strength and a healthy departure from the not-so-distant past when they were over-reliant on individual brilliance.The result in Perth was also a victory for world cricket and there were few Australian journalists in the press box who were not alive to the fact; they were even prepared to rejoice over it. Australia’s dominance has been boring and unhealthy and, even though this is not a sign of a decline, to see them challenged itself is uplifting.The Australian season began in misery with Sri Lanka belying their promise. Now, Test cricket is alive again. The trophy has been won but there is a series that can be shared. Adelaide is a salivating prospect.

Like everything during the early stages of Kevin Pietersen’s captaincy, the speed of England’s one-day revival has come as a surprise.

Andrew McGlashan at The Oval29-Aug-2008

Like everything during the early stages of Kevin Pietersen’s captaincy career, the speed of England’s one-day revival has come as a surprise. After less than a month in charge he has secured his first trophy and if England go on and claim a series whitewash they will climb to second in the world rankings. Pietersen likes to do things quickly, but that would be outdoing himself.Of course, 5-0 is still two good performances away for England and with the series in the bag it remains to be seen whether they can keep the motivation levels high enough. South Africa have certainly found it difficult to rouse themselves after their main task was completed in the Tests. But the benefit of the upheaval England have been through since their Test-series defeat at Edgbaston is that it has given them plenty of incentive to perform. Not least because their new captain is constantly taking notes.”It puts extra pressure on us [searching for 5-0] because it takes us up to second in the world, which is very very interesting,” Pietersen said. “That’s the sort of pressure we want. Pressure, I believe, is a privilege. If we win 5-0, which is a goal, then it takes us up to the top with Australia. If we keep delivering there’s no reason why we can’t do it.”We are doing a real good job on South Africa at the moment,” he added with a sense of achievement. “I know South Africans really well. They wouldn’t have wanted to lose the series 3-0. They are very proud people and very stubborn people. I know them well, it’s definitely hurt them, but it’s the pressure we have applied over the three games.”Pietersen isn’t someone who accepts second-best and he won’t be shy of putting anyone in their place if they start to drift in the final two games. However, England are currently a very happy team – a term Pietersen spread liberally after the match – and there is a clear enjoyment in everything they are doing. It helps, no end, to be winning. “There’s no fear, playing with Kev,” said Samit Patel, who was Man of the Match after his vital 31 and 5 for 41. “It’s a freedom to play cricket and enjoy it. You can’t ask for any more from the captain. As a newcomer coming in it’s been great.”Contrary to some expectations, Pietersen seems genuinely thrilled by the individual success of his team-mates. “One of my goals was to get guys playing to their potential, loving playing for England and loving the badge. So far the guys have been brilliant,” he said. “The fortunate thing I have is that I have guys who bowl at 90mph and two guys who can bat as well – [Stuart] Broad and [Andrew] Flintoff.”In the space of three matches Pietersen has been able to form a side that looks like a winning ODI outfit and plays like one. Compare it to the team that finished with their second consecutive 3-1 defeat to New Zealand in July and the transformation has been stark. Only five players remain from the side that lost by 51 runs at Lord’s, compared to the one that won by 126 runs here. Pietersen’s attacking mindset – the desire for pace in the middle overs and a deep batting order – has been key.It has been Pietersen’s good fortune to have Flintoff and Steve Harmison firing, but he makes his own luck. He had the force of personality to persuade Harmison out of retirement and has given Flintoff the responsibility he relishes. The pair have been fundamental to England’s upsurge in form.As it was at Headingley, Flintoff’s batting was central to the success. When he came in at No. 5 there was the ideal platform of 146 for 3 in the 26th over, but that soon became 182 for 5 in the 35th. It was the tipping point of the innings. One more wicket and England’s lower order would have been exposed too early. He played the perfect innings. It started with a languid cover drive, then he made sure he played through the mid-innings wobble alongside the mature Patel. He waited until well into the final 10 overs to have a dip, trusting in his own ability.At the start of the 40th over Flintoff had 38 off 46 balls; then he took a nasty blow from Morne Morkel off his 50th delivery. But he refocused – in every sense – and cracked 39 off his next 27 balls. The authority is returning to Flintoff’s batting, a commanding presence that hasn’t existed since the heady days of 2004 and 2005. He has been given a huge vote of confidence by Pietersen and is repaying him.It is a long while since England have produced one-day cricket of this vibrancy in a run of matches (albeit just three games) against supposedly superior opposition. They had their moments against Australia in 2005 when they also had a side packed with fast bowling and a deep order. But the stand-out feature of these last three matches is that South Africa have either completely outplayed or, if they have momentarily had a sniff, England have come down hard on them.Although this doesn’t seem the moment, a word of a caution is worthy. When England had a major change of captaincy in 2003 a certain Michael Vaughan swept all before him in one-day colours winning his first two series, including thrashing South Africa in the Natwest Series final. Then, last year, Paul Collingwood beat India and Sri Lanka early in his reign. They were both false dawns, and the one-day side quickly slipped back to mediocrity. This time, you sense, it might just be different.

Although their defeat in the fourth Test took away some of the gloss, South Africa’s first series victory in England for 43 years is an achievement that will live long in the memory. Cricinfo takes a look at the 12 men who made history for their country

Andrew Miller12-Aug-2008Although their defeat in the fourth Test took away some of the gloss, South Africa’s first series victory in England for 43 years is an achievement that will live long in the memory. Cricinfo takes a look at the 12 men who made history for their country
Graeme Smith: majestic batting and magnificent leadership © Getty Images
Graeme Smith – 9Majestic. Few could have imagined that Smith could live up to the sensation he caused on his maiden tour of England, but he did just that with a pair of performances that epitomised his never-say-die leadership. His second-innings century at Lord’s stymied any prospect of a South African surrender, but it was his incredible unbeaten 154 at Edgbaston that carried his game to new and rarified levels. Vaughan could no longer breathe at such altitude, and nor could many of his colleagues. So long as Smith remained at the helm, a history-making victory was assured.Neil McKenzie – 7Overshadowed by his captain and opening partner, but quietly competent in everything that he did. He batted for a total of 11-and-a-half hours at Lord’s to reassure his team-mates that survival was within their grasp, while his 72 at Edgbaston – though not chanceless – was the first vital step towards the series-clinching victory. After his three-year exile from the South African set-up, he has been welcomed back with open arms.Hashim Amla – 7From first Test to last, England targeted his perceived weakness against the short ball, but they were up against a much doughtier competitor than the one they had seen off in two Tests during the 2004-05 series. Amla played a peripheral role during the two victories, but his final-day century at Lord’s helped transform the momentum of the series, while his 76 at The Oval launched a point-proving fightback. A live-wire in the field, and an important cog in a top-order that outscored their English counterparts by seven centuries to four.Jacques Kallis – 5His batting fragility was a mystery to all, not least the man himself, who has not endured such a lean series since his maiden tour of Australia 11 years ago. Good deliveries hunted him down (not least a pair of yorkers from Sidebottom at Lord’s and Flintoff at Edgbaston) and instead he earned his tour bonus with the quality of his swing bowling. Invariably uphill, into the wind, and devoid of glamour, he was nonetheless the only bowler in the series to average less than 30. What is more, his ten wickets for the series included Pietersen at crucial moments of both South Africa’s victories, and only one genuine tailender (James Anderson at Edgbaston).Ashwell Prince – 8His first-innings hundred at Lord’s was arguably the most valuable and overlooked of South Africa’s batting performances. While his team-mates were tumbling all around him, Prince stood tall and counterattacked with élan to score 101 out of 247 – a performance that settled the tourists’ nerves, and dispelled any doubts they might have had about the surface. Prince declared after that innings he felt he’d let his team down by getting out so soon after reaching three figures, but in the next Test at Headingley he made no such mistake – a crushingly efficient 149 that made England pay dearly for rolling over inside two sessions on the first day.
AB de Villiers: grew in confidence as the tour progressed © Getty Images
AB de Villiers – 8Booed for claiming a spurious catch at Headingley, but de Villiers soon won the crowds round with the ambition and expanse of his strokeplay. A magnificent 174 embedded South Africa’s dominance in the second Test, while his selfless 97 at The Oval briefly threatened a twist to Pietersen’s coronation fixture. Though he has often played as an opener, his fluster-free approach to batting with the tail makes him the ideal man to have coming in at No. 6Mark Boucher – 6Only one innings of note, but it could not have been more crucial. As a veteran of the 1998 and 2003 contests, Boucher knew precisely what was at stake on the fourth evening at Edgbaston, as he joined his captain with South Africa still 110 runs shy of their unlikely target of 281. First he endured, then he cut loose as England’s bowlers started to panic, as a decade of heartache was packed into 85 balls of bloody-minded determination.Morne Morkel – 6Steve Harmison would recognise the symptoms, and sympathise with the plight. Morkel is a tall and genuinely quick fast bowler whose greatest asset is his vicious bounce from a good length. His greatest failing, in this series at least, was a wonky radar. Especially culpable during England’s second-innings fightback at Edgbaston, and badly out of sorts in the Lord’s Test as well, he nonetheless finished as South Africa’s leading wicket-taker, which is a testament to his effectiveness on the occasions he did get it right. However, he is only 23, and a long and hostile career awaits him, for he will be stronger for the experience of this tour.Paul Harris – 4An ordinary bowler who never threatened to run through any innings at any stage of any match, Harris does not look like the answer to South Africa’s spin-bowling prayers – not least because his action is too round-arm to make full use of his height. All the same, he was probing in an Ashley Giles-esque fashion, and collected useful wickets at regular intervals, often through batsman indiscretion – the Pietersen and Flintoff double-whammy at Edgbaston was the undoubted highlight. His brave tail-end batting was an added bonus.Dale Steyn – 6Disappointingly ruled out of the final two Tests with a thumb injury, at precisely the moment he was starting to live up to his billing as the No. 1 paceman in the world. Michael Vaughan’s troubles were triggered by his slippery, full-swinging length, but his seven-wicket haul at Headingley was merely a taster of the damage he was expecting to inflict on England’s batsmen.Makhaya Ntini – 6He may have been the only man to pick up five wickets in an innings all series, but Ntini was a shadow of the bowler who bounced England to oblivion at Lord’s on the 2003 tour. He entered the series looking woefully short of match fitness, although he did improve as the tour went on, not least when he was encouraged to go back to bowling from wide of the crease. For a brief session at Edgbaston it was just like watching old times, as Cook and Bell both flapped angled bouncers to the keeper, but the days must surely be numbered for one of South Africa’s finest warriors.Andre Nel – 5″Gunther” enjoyed his rare outings on this trip – his first Tests since January after Steyn’s injury created an opening. Three key wickets on the first day at Edgbaston represented the pinnacle of his efforts, but thereafter he grinned and gurned with pantomime villainy, and diminishing returns.

Wicketkeeper Vinayak Samant, pushed into opening by Amre in the final league game, scored his maiden ton to allow Mumbai have a firm grasp on their 38th title

Sriram Veera in Hyderabad15-Jan-2009
Vinayak Samant: “It feels great to score your first hundred as an opener and that too in the Ranji Trophy final” © Cricinfo Ltd
Yesterday Praveen Amre said this season had been his most clinical campaign as Mumbai coach. Everything that was planned fell into place. And some that wasn’t planned too. Today two contrasting individuals accomplished two big achievements in their careers. Rohit Sharma, who played only 294 balls in the Ranji Trophy last season, became only the sixth to hit two hundreds in a Ranji Trophy final, while wicketkeeper Vinayak Samant, pushed into opening by Amre in the final league game, scored his maiden ton to allow Mumbai have a firm grasp on their 38th title.No one doubted Rohit’s talent but a few had questioned his commitment to play big knocks in the longer version. No one doubted the 36-year-old Samant’s commitment – he comes across as your typical hardened domestic cricketer – but questions over whether he had necessary the talent to open remained.And as it turned out Samant’s innings was much better than Rohit’s. While Samant had to face a lovely, probing marathon spell of swing bowling from Praveen Kumar, Rohit didn’t face a single ball from Praveen or RP Singh, who didn’t bowl today due to a shoulder niggle, and played only 20 balls from the first-innings hero Bhuvneshwar Kumar – that too after he had gone past 70. However, Rohit’s test was not of his skills but that of his concentration levels and he passed with flying colours. Even in the first innings, where he was repeatedly beaten throughout, Rohit showed he was willing to look ugly. For a batsman who is so easy on the eye, it is no small thing. It’s a sign he is maturing from the days of attractive 40s and 50s.Samant too has walked through his test of fire. While Rohit’s story from Borivili (a suburban area in north-west Mumbai) to the Indian team is well documented, the obscure Samant’s struggles in domestic cricket don’t often make it to the sports pages.Unable to break into the Mumbai side, he plied his trade with Assam for his first five years in first-class cricket. He even played the Duleep Trophy for East Zone but felt he never got the required push that would help his career. And he ran into troubles with the management. “There was a lot of politics. The captain would send me to open or at No. 3 when there was a green track and would demote me very low in the order on a good batting wicket,” he says. “I had enough of it and moved back to Mumbai in 2001. I had to wait for one more year to get a break in the Mumbai side and I immediately shone with a few half-centuries that season.”He rates that season with Mumbai as really special, having developed a reputation of saving the side in crisis situations. He also cherishes the times he has spent with Sachin Tendulkar in the team. “We went to the same school [Shardashram Vidyamandir] and now I feel very lucky and honoured to share the same dressing room with such a great player.”And if you believe Amol Muzumdar, Samant does a great impersonation of Tendulkar. “He is a funny character, a live wire on the field. And he mimics all the stars brilliantly. He is very hard-working guy and a focused individual. Some one you want in your team.” And a very good sledger too.There are stories, some apocryphal, abound in domestic circuit of how Samant would create the sound of an edge while keeping to the spinners and deceive umpires. Though he vehemently denies such incidents, he says he has got under many a batsman’s nose. Gautam Gambhir was one such prized victim. “I kept irritating him with this and that and shouts of oohs and aahs even when he perfectly left deliveries. It got to him and we exchanged words. Just two balls later, he got out,” he says with a mischievous laugh. “Sledging is an art and I love it.”You’ve got to plan, you know. Just a few words here and there, like shouting to the bowler not to allow this batsmen to flick through the on-side gap – left deliberately to force the batsman play across the line – or say don’t flight too much as he can step down the wicket and hit you …”Samant kept dreaming of the India cap till the days of Parthiv Patel. “Patel kept and also, [Deep Das] Dasgupta and MSK Prasad [got chances]. Then I knew, they wanted some one who is more a batsman-keeper than the other way around.”However, his biggest test came when the team asked him to open. Amre had sounded him pre-season that such a situation could arise and both had worked very hard in improving his technique. “I had problems in leaving balls outside off and we worked on correcting it.” Amre later suggested to the captain Wasim Jaffer about promoting Samant. Jaffer wasn’t keen initially but Amre told him to sleep over the decision. Later, Jaffer agreed and so, Samant opened. “I didn’t think he would do it this successfully,” Ramesh Powar said yesterday.”This [opening] was a big challenge for me,” says Samant, “And I am very happy I have done well.” His amazing fitness level has helped him to take the load of keeping and opening the batting. In his younger days, he used to skip 10,000 times in one and half-hours, a practice that he discontinued after a doctor told him it could hurt his knees in the long run. But his devotion to fitness remained. “It’s only due to my fitness that I am still playing for Mumbai at this age. It feels great to score your first hundred as an opener and that too in the Ranji Trophy final.”The sparse but spirited crowd chanted, “Samant … Samant” as he neared his ton, TV cameras showered him with arc lights later and his voice sank into tape-recorders of the reporters. All these don’t happen often in a life of a domestic cricketer. And Mumbai would bethrilled that it came when they needed it.

Stats preview of the four-Test series between India and Australia

S Rajesh07-Oct-2008Over the last seven years, there’s been little to separate India and Australia in Tests. In four series since 2001, India have won one and lost two, but each team has won at least one Test in all series. Australia achieved a comprehensive victory the last time they toured, and the 2-1 result ensures they maintain a slight edge in terms of their win-loss record in India. The other aspect which stands out is that in seven Tests between the two teams in India since 2001, only one has been drawn, and even that was due to the inclement Chennai weather, which washed out the entire last day and ruined a match which would surely have ended decisively otherwise.

On paper, India start as favourites, thanks primarily to their batsmen and spinners. Of the five specialist batsmen who have played more than one home Test against Australia, only Sourav Ganguly has a sub-40 average. Similarly, Anil Kumble and Harbhajan Singh have fantastic home records against Australia: Kumble’s 59 wickets have cost him 20.86 runs each with six five-wicket hauls in eight Tests, while Harbhajan has taken 55 in seven Tests at 21.54

Among the Australian batsmen, Matthew Hayden and Michael Clarke have tackled Indian conditions superbly, but the same can’t be said of their captain. For Ricky Ponting, this will be a huge opportunity to set right a gaping hole in his career stats – 172 runs in eight Tests, at an average of 12.28.

Head-to-head battlesAustralia’s wafer-thin spin attack puts the onus of wicket-taking on the fast bowlers, and how the Indians tackle the pace and swing of Brett Lee will probably be a huge factor in the outcome of the series. While Lee has a pretty good record against India – 45 wickets at 26.71 – the Indian top order has handled him pretty well. Virender Sehwag averages nearly 80 against him, while Dravid has good numbers against him too. The only specialist batsman who has struggled is VVS Laxman, who has fallen to him five times in 231 deliveries. (All head-to-head numbers are only since 2002.)

Australia’s batsmen will be up against the twin threat of Kumble and Harbhajan, and while most of them have impressive numbers against both, those runs were mostly scored in the last two series in Australia. (Remember, these stats don’t include the 2001 series, when Harbhajan took 32 wickets.) In conditions more favourable to spin, both bowlers are likely to be a much bigger force.

The toss factorOver the two most recent series, the toss has been a vital aspect: the last six decisive results have all gone in favour of the team winning the toss. Australia called correctly in Bangalore and Nagpur on their previous tour, and in Melbourne and Sydney last season, while India won the toss in Mumbai and Perth. The last time a team won the toss and lost the Test was in the Boxing Day Test of 2003, when India won the toss and batted, but lost by nine wickets.