In 1984, India beat Pakistan in an astonishing match at Sharjah. After Imran Khan bowled unchanged at the start to register scarcely believable figures of 10-2-14-6, India were in dire straits. But with every bowler chipping in, India won by a huge margin of 38 runs.
That day the Indian team scored 125 runs. The entire match produced 212 runs in about 76 overs. If that represented the mother of all low-scoring ODI's, the grandmother of all high-scoring ODI's was played today between Australia and South Africa. The match has left grown men flabbergasted, unable to put words to the mayhem they watched. In exactly 99.5 overs, 872 runs were scored. Eight hundred and seventy-two runs in 599 balls!
In 2003, I watched Ricky Ponting lace the Indian attack in the World Cup final to the tune of 140 imperious runs, an innings I thought was a once-in-a lifetime feat. On the very same ground, the next innings played by Ponting was a brutal 164 off just 105 balls. And he was overshadowed by Herschelle Gibbs, who scored 175 off 111 balls.
If 434 is not a safe ODI total any more, what is? I know this is probably one of those freak occurances that may never happen again (like a bowler taking 10 wickets in an innings twice in a single season against the same team as Laker did, or a batsman batting 60 overs in an ODI and scoring 36 runs as Sunny did) but an unhealthy precedent has been set. All across the globe ODI's are becoming a one-dimensional event. Batsmen come and plunder; then mercifully, due to an over limit, they make way only for other batsmen to come and plunder even more. It is boring, boring cricket.
With each passing year the pitches become more and more batsmen friendly. A pitch that has grass must be mowed, a pitch that is crumbly must be pounded into a concrete-like state. Any hint of moisture on the pitch is room for a "weather delay". I prefer the nuances of Test cricket as it gives more time for plotting and testing the concentration and other skills that are being robbed from cricket. Everytime a captain complains about a pitch being difficut to bat on, I get mad at the wimpiness of these players, whose cricketing ego's cannot stand to be tested by the fact that a pitch may be aiding a bowler more than them.
Dig up the pitch at the Wanderers. Let teams win games at the famed Bullring because of their bowling, fielding and batting, and not only because batsmen can launch balls into the stratosphere. But from the reaction of most people who I spoke to today, this was just the tip of the iceberg. Suddenly scoring 500 in an ODI seems doable. And an inordinately large number of people want to be there or see it when it happens. Incredible.
I personally want to once again watch a match where a low total is defended (the recent Under-19 World Cup final was one such match). I fear that my wait for a repeat match of this nature shall be a very, very long one.
4 comments:
i seriously think this is a one off incident and i dont think too much should be made into it.
but i do see a future wherein cricket is going to be ruled by media moghuls and the game is going to be played (and decided!) more off the field than on it (nagesh kukunoor is a genious isnt he?!! he brought out such subtle nuances very beautifully in Iqbal)
I think three factors worked - the inexperience/lack of quality of both the bowling lineups, an astonishing case of blinding bludgeoning being sustained for 50 overs (twice in the same game), and most importantly the short boundaries square of the wicket at the modified Wanderers ground.
I cannot see how this would have occurred if either of McGrath or Warne had played the game for Australia, or if a thinking bowler of the caliber of a Kumble was around...
Not having seen the match, my only frame of reference is the World Cup final played at the same ground. I recall that I felt 360 was eminently gettable. Only Sehwag seemed to believe it could be done easily. Sachin went into a pre-determined short-arm jab that nearly got him out, and then proceeded to get it right the next ball by getting out.
That day I felt Ganguly erred twice when it came to the bowlers (and I stated this as it was happening and not based on hindsight, mind you). 1) Srinath should have bowled that first over, not Zaheer Khan. 2) Superstition be dammed, Anil Kumble should have played instead of Mongia.
(Another point that irks me is that Mongia should not have been in the party to begin with, Laxman should have been there. Now that we know what we know, it does not seem that surprising that Laxman was dropped).
But overall, regarding the SA-Aus match, it is indeed amazing that TWO teams were able to sustain slam-bang batting for 50 overs each. Like a perfect storm aligning, it appears the batting gods all came to watch that day.
Also, what was Ponting doing giving Lewis 10 overs, while Lee ended up bowling just 8 overs???!!! I wonder how well Ponting would do if he were captaining the English side that is currently in India. Not as well as Flintoff, I think.
...methinks the Aussie cricket machine is just working overtime ...they get under the skins of their rivals and have journeymen like Stuart Clarke come good...Ponting is along for the ride - India is one team that can take the Aussies at will; but do they have the will to do so?
Post a Comment