AV/BRB has left a couple of probing questions on my blog concerning SRT's role in "saving" the first India-Sri Lanka Test match at Ahmedabad. He says that giving SRT credit for a match-saving century is ridiculous considering that the match was decided 9 overs before the century came.
Let's analyze that:
At the end of 120 overs, India was at 397/4, Laxman on 51* (134 balls) and SRT on 87* (183balls). The Indian lead was 64 runs. At this point the match could be called off by mutual consent if the two captains believed that a result was not possible. India could not win at this stage whereas Sri Lanka had a very remote chance of doing so. SRT-Laxman had put on a 122 runs in exactly 40 overs so it was highly unlikely they would not be able to continue on for another 15 overs. However, India continued to bat to let SRT get another 13 runs for a century.
When SRT came in to bat, India trailed by 125 runs with 79 overs still to go. He stayed not out till the end ensuring that Sri Lanka did not make any further inroads from his side, at least.
Don't forget, it was the fact that SRT and VVS looked solid and impregnable that made the last 15 overs moot for the purposes of the match. So, in that context it was a match-saving innings. If AV/BRB's quibble is that it was a match-saving innings and not a match-saving century, let's parse it a little further with some historical perspective and some conjecture.
Let's say SRT get out on 87 trying to add to his total. If I am Sangakkara, I continue to bowl just to see if I can get another wicket or two - Yuvraj is not the best player of spin and pressure can do some wonderful things (Sydney 2008 comes readily to mind). In that sense, it was a risky move to make. But balance that with the fact that the smallest partnership an Indian duo put on in the second innings was 66 runs and it featured the #10 batsman which also tells the tale of the pitch and the field placements.
In the next 9 overs, SRT got to his century without giving Sri Lanka even a whiff of a chance. It was a match-saving innings and it featured him scoring a century, so why can't it be called that?
If you want to say that he batted slowly, let's compare his play with that of all the other batsmen on the basis of that day (the 5th day).
Gambhir: 40 runs in 110 balls. (Overnight 74 (120)).
Mishra: 12 runs in 26 balls (overnight 12 (25))
SRT: 100 runs in 211 balls (87 (183 balls)).
VVS: 51 runs in 160 balls (51 (134 balls)).
Gambhir's strike rate: 36.4 (overnight 61.7)
Mishra's strike rate: 48.0 (overnight 46.2)
SRT's strike rate: 47.4 (47.54 at 120 overs)
VVS's strike rate: 31.9 (38.1 at 120 overs)
SRT batted with more enterprise than the other two top order batsmen did on the day. Even with the negative fielding set for him he got 13 runs in 28 balls at a strike rate of 46.4 to get to his 100.
It was a match-saving inning and it was also a match-saving century. Gambhir did a lot of the work the previous day when Sehwag was going hammer and tongs and he swam along in the slipstream. SRT came into a situation that needed solid batting for 4 hours, at least 3. He did just that.
Express your displeasure about the ignoble way in which he approached his personal landmark but do give the man his due for the yeomen work he did overall.
13 comments:
Thanks for your article.
I agree it is a match saving innings (and an important one too) but not a match saving century. As per your argument, ST did not get out, so it was an important knock. If that is true, VVS innings is not that special to be mentioned as he does that every time even when his career is under the axe (let me assume it that way).
Also I wonder, someone who has 42 centuries to his credit, must have walked the next over once he knew that KS is asking his bowlers to bowl wide (wide wide) outside the off stump. I felt that his century was like a soldier fighting hard to kill someone by cutting his legs who was already beheaded (thats my opinion).
For his century to be counted, then everyone should be treated like him (for eg: SG scoring centuries against Kenya).
I know your reply, so don't waste time on it. Continue with your other articles.
Now to MSD
How do you support the selection of Mishra in the team
Was sending Mishra as a night watchman, a gamble taken to support your claim for his selection.
Now, as MSD, will you change your team for the next game, if yes who will be out. Answer this as MSD, not as Captain of the Indian team.
(I know Azhar would prefer Raju over other spinners, was that something similar to your actions)
One last thing from the previous test
Rank the centuries:
ST saving the game
GG saving the game
MSD partnership to build a total
RD building a first innings total (5 wkts went down from the other end)
and also justify if possible.
AV/BRB, about your first comment. I choose not to distinguish between a match-saving innings and a match-winning century if we are talking about the same inning. So, let's agree to disagree on that. As you said, enough of that point.
AV/BRB, coming from a state where any little thing that Rajanikant does is highlighted to the skies, it seems a little strange that you find it odd that SRT is treated to a demi-god status and other players, often more deserving, are not.
Some people are able to have a more passionate fan following than others. It is just the way of life. I bet you a 100 stars that if it was Surya in "Sivaji" doing everything EXACTLY the same as Rajanikanth the movie would not have been that big a hit. That difference in success is attributable to the support that Rajani gets from his supporters who will root for him no matter. Same here with Sachin.
Someone told me recently which is applicable in terms of context here: Expecting the world to treat you kindly because you are a nice person is like expecting a bull to not charge at you because you are a vegetarian.
Ranking the centuries? Simple.
Dravid #1
Gambhir #2
MSD #3
SRT #4
The evidence speaks for itself.
AV/BRB: About Mishra.
Amit Mishra is in the team for the first Test because he is the second spinner in the side. He was the second spinner since Kumble's retirement (with a debut Test when Kumble was injured) and was in the squad for the first Test. Where does MSD's nepotism come into play here? If anything he is more blindly a believer of Harbhajan Singh than Mishra.
Also, the decision of a nightwatchman is taken by the incoming batsman (in this case SRT). It's the incoming batsman's wish whether he wants one or not, so that decision is not in MSD's hand. The choice of the batsman to send is MSD's and Mishra is the better batsman between him, Ishant and ZAK. So there is nothing secret or underhand about sending Mishra.
For the next Test, Mishra will be dropped if a spinner is going to be dropped. Harbhajan Singh is still MSD's (and more, improtantly the selectors') #1 spinner.
By the way, the only guy who could force Ojha into the squad is the chairman of the selectors but his main attention is diverted to making sure Badri and Vijay are in the 15.
So MSD never debated about Mishra or Ojha for the first test even the latter was in the squad.
AV/BRB: I don't have any inside information so I don't know whether MSD debated including Ojha or not.
And neither do you.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. If you have read my blog you know I believe Ojha to be the #1 spinner ahead of even Harbhajan, but the selectors (BCCI and team) do not seem to agree with me.
With so many other centurions in the side, and that ignominous four he scored in the first innings, handing the saving-role to Tendulkar in this instance seems a little ... eh.
This was not a Hyderabad where only Tendulkar fired. Indeed, if he had fired at all in the opening innings, the scorecard would have looked very different.
By no means do I mean to imply his second innings was not a good knock, not exactly what the doctor ordered at the time.
But to take that one knock and say it was the match-winner seems a bit too ... sentimental.
N, by that token, GG failed in the first innings as well. Actually, so did VS and VVS. The real match-saver was Dravid. He scored in both innings and was instrumental in even making the draw a remote possibility with his batting, aided by MSD.
In the past I have been very vocal about SRT costing us Tests, and he almost went into a shell in this one, too.
I was simply in a debating war with AV/BRB, a favorite hobby horse of the two of us. We have been at it for almost a decade about SRT's importance and this was just the 7,756th installment in that ongoing debate! :-)
In the Indian team, in terms of personal preference this is my order of rooting interest: VVS, VVS, VVS, VVS, VVS, Dhoni, Sehwag, Dravid, SRT, Gambhir.
In spite of that, note that not once did I wax eloquent about VVS's role or MSD's role in "saving" the Test. I was speaking very prosaically with only the second innings as a frame of reference. So, in that sense, SRT was part of the match-saving effort, and he scored a century, hence match-saving-century. Simple as that, nothing more. No sentiment. :-)
so there are people other than me following ur blog :-) congrats.
Yes, Rajani, after all these years it is slowly finding new followers and I am happy about that! Thanks for sticking around.
I followed the progress of the Punters closely this season. Quite a see-saw battle there. I like the PCA site, it has so much information in the scorecards. Also, it looks like the pCA is picking up steam with the number of teams and activities. Good stuff. I miss playing there.
Post a Comment