10 Points to ponder

1) In my report at the end of the 4th day, I had said:

P.S. Ishant Sharma, can you move your bowling mark back by about 6 inches such that your front foot lands inside the crease and not on it? I swear that if you get another batsman out off a no-ball, I will catch the next flight to South Africa, shave half the hair off your head, and catch the next flight back. Runs are precious, Laxman fought and fought to get you most of those, don't go and gift the SAffers some free ones with your irresponsible no-balls.

Well, wouldn't you know it? Ishant Sharma went and did just that when he got Morne Morkel caught at gully off a no-ball. Virender Sehwag's reaction - flinging the ball on the ground, said it all for me. (Since apparently no one reads my blog closely enough to call me on it, I have decided to ignore my threat and will not travel to South Africa to meet Ishant Sharma).

Old wine, meet new bottle

In 2006, Greg Chappell and Rahul Dravid were at the helm of Indian cricket. The Indian team was gearing up for a run at the upcoming 2007 World Cup. There was a great deal of hue and cry over the fact that India did not have a settled #3 batsman.

On February 12th, 2006, on my blog I wrote:

The IndianOil Cup in Sri Lanka was the first time Rahul Dravid was made the captain for an entire series, under the aegis of Greg Chappell. Since that time the following players have batted at #3 - Mohammad Kaif, Irfan Pathan, MS Dhoni, JP Yadav, Yuvraj Singh, Virender Sehwag, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, SK Raina, and VVS Laxman.

The criticism that was being leveled at that time was that the oh-so-easily-insecure batsmen were unsure who was batting where, and that it was ruining the player's confidence. In searching for a method behind the seeming madness, I thought I found one.

I searched for a pattern and I think I am beginning to see one. The Indian think-tank (Chappell, Dravid and Tendulkar) appear to have broken up the batsmen into two categories - the accelerators (Sehwag, Yuvraj, Pathan, Dhoni) and the anchors (Tendulkar, Dravid, Kaif). These 7 form the central core of their batting lineup.

The manipulation of the batting line-up is based on pairing an accelerator with an anchor as much as possible. Which role-players will go in to bat depends upon the state of the match:

The generic formula: Sehwag and Tendulkar will open. Sehwag's mandate is to accelerate, while Tendulkar's is to consolidate. If Sehwag gets out early - either Pathan or Yuvraj or Dhoni will go in. If Tendulkar gets out first - either Kaif or Dravid will go in.

The plan did not quite work out in the World Cup because of factors not completely in their control.

Unfortunately for the think-tank, the worst possible thing happened. Sehwag's ODI form hit rock bottom and, soon, Pathan joined him there. Yuvraj Singh hit a purple patch of form and India rode the crest of his, Dhoni's, and (for some time) Pathan's feats to the tune of 18 straight successful chases (oh, how easily the media forgets this astounding feat).

But then Yuvraj, a vital cog in the scheme, was rendered hors de combat, and Raina/Mongia could not fill his void. Eventually the scheme was adjusted to try to fit the personnel available and this coincided with the clamouring for all experimentation to stop. (Ironically, this is the time when they needed to experiment the most to find the pieces to replace the cogs that had begun to malfunction).

The end result was that Chappell was eased out, Dravid eventually resigned, and serendipitously, India discovered that MS Dhoni was a brilliant captain, in spite of a total lack of experience in that role.

Fast forward to today. Once again, the Indian batting line-up is in a flux. Stop the presses!! Sidharth Monga (there he is once more!) picks up the thesis, as if it is a new concept, again.

So who is India's No. 3 for ODIs? Gautam Gambhir? Only when Sachin Tendulkar plays. But wait a minute, didn't Mahendra Singh Dhoni feature at one-down in the Napier ODI with Tendulkar opening with Virender Sehwag? Gambhir didn't even get to bat then.

Suresh Raina would be a close guess, but he has done it only five times out of his past 11 matches, and on 15 occasions during his 61-match career.

How about Yuvraj Singh? Not really, having batted at No. 3 14 times in his 228 games. But he can make a surprise appearance every now and then.

Dhoni attempts to clarify this (seemingly) bewildering state of affairs when he says:

Dhoni took the uncertainty game one step ahead after India won the previous match. That involved the roles the different batsmen were supposed to play. One of the keys is for one batsman to provide stability from one end so that the likes of Sehwag, Yuvraj, Raina and Yusuf can play their natural game.

"We have Sachin, Gautam and lower down the order, myself, who can do this job," Dhoni said. "But in between we change that also, so the opposition can't really be sure that the batsmen will play their innings in a certain way. At times he is given the responsibility to play aggressive cricket too, because the opposition keeps thinking he will look to take the innings through."

Hmmm, sounds familiar, doesn't it? Before we get too ahead of ourselves we must let some old demons rise up one more time.

But there is a fine line between a clever, better shuffle and a muddle. If the ploy surprises the opposition, it must also leave the batsmen themselves a touch unsure. By the time the captain-coach combine of Rahul Dravid and Greg Chappell was done, a major criticism was that with so many shuffles no batsman was certain of what his role in the side was.

My take has always been simple. If the captain (and coach) of the team clearly explains to each player what the overall strategy is and how their play fits in the big scheme of things, I don't see anyone having problems with that. The only concern (and this is a big one) is that the selectors need to be aware of this before they take a knee-jerk approach and discard someone for a lean spell while simply following team orders. It has happened before (most noticeably with Aakash Chopra in the recent past) and nothing convinces me that it will not happen in the near future. 

I just hope that the 2011 World Cup does not get sacrificed at the altar of public perception, like the 2007 edition was.

Speaking his mind

Greg Chappell has probably never met a microphone he did not like. One of his best qualities is also his worst one - the man likes to talk about what he does and why he wants to do it. Consequently, he is everyone's favourite whipping horse these days.

He talks in great detail in this interview on a variety of issues (the interview is on three pages so click on the links at the bottom of the page to get to the other two pages). He has this interesting tidbit to share about Suresh Raina:

He is a complete package, for god's sake. You guys didn't do him a good turn by comparing him with Sachin Tendulkar after he had played one or two brilliant knocks. However, if you look at Sachin's record in his first 30-35 ODIs and compare it with Raina's you will not find much difference.

So is that true, you ask?

Well, I did some research and found that after 30 and then 36 ODI's (which is how many Raina has played so far) this is how the two stack up:

After 30 matches:
29 innings, 825 runs, 77 highest score, 31.73 average, 7 50's.
23 innings, 553 runs, 81* highest score, 30.72 average, 3 50's.

After 36 matches:
34 innings, 1075 runs, 81 highest score, 35.83 average, 10 50's.
28 innings, 612 runs, 81* highest score, 26.60 average 3 50's.

We do know that Raina slumped towards the end of his tenure with the Indian team, but otherwise his stats do seem to match Chappell's claims.

The Mumbai monologue

Opinion about Greg Chappell is sharply divided. Some, like me, believe he is doing a good job with the Indian cricket team. Others, like many persons in my immediate family, believe he should be shunted back to Australia as soon as possible.

One of the many reasons I like him is that he is articulate enough to explain what his vision for the team is (without giving away the exact strategies in place). In an unusually conducted interview, by Rediff.com, Chappell discusses his views on this vision, uninterrupted by any questions. Harsha Bhogle uses this interview as the starting point for his take on the World Cup just before it commences.

(Prem Panicker, who conducted the interview, explains in some depth about the thinking behind this unusual questioning format).

The crumbling edifice

Greg Chappell and Rahul Dravid had a plan when they got together. Accordingly, they worked on systems to identify the best personnel for their plan, thereby jettisoning some established veterans and placing faith in upcoming players.

I first wrote about it early this year (you can see it here).

A brief synopsis of what I think is their base strategy is reproduced below:

The batting line-up is divided into the accelerators (Sehwag, Yuvraj, Pathan, Dhoni) and the anchors (Tendulkar, Dravid, Kaif). These 7 form the central core of their batting lineup.

The manipulation of the batting line-up is based on pairing an accelerator with an anchor as much as possible. Which role-players will go in to bat depends upon the state of the match:

The generic formula:
Sehwag and Tendulkar will open. Sehwag's mandate is to accelerate, while Tendulkar's is to consolidate. If Sehwag gets out early - either Pathan/Yuvraj/Dhoni will go in. If Tendulkar gets out first - either Kaif/Dravid will go in.

I also added:

Naturally, the personnel will change due to injury/selectorial whims but I think the basic principles are in place.

Unfortunately for the think-tank, the worst possible thing happened. Sehwag's ODI form hit rock bottom and, soon, Pathan joined him there. Yuvraj Singh hit a purple patch of form and India rode the crest of his, Dhoni's, and (for some time) Pathan's feats to the tune of 18 straight successful chases (oh, how easily the media forgets this astounding feat). But then Yuvraj, a vital cog in the scheme, was rendered hors de combat, and Raina/Mongia could not fill his void. Eventually the scheme was adjusted to try to fit the personnel available and this coincided with the clamouring for all experimentation to stop. (Ironically, this is the time when they needed to experiment the most to find the pieces to replace the cogs that had begun to malfunction).

Anyway, with 8 ODI's to go before the World Cup it is back to the drawing board. Though with the off-field pressures showing no signs of abating and the controversy-hungry media waiting for the chosen ones to falter, I fear that we may be in for some more strife.

An instant response (on a plate tectonic timescale)

On Monday, December 26, 2005, in a post titled "The clock stops" I had mentioned that I was going to stop following up on two promises made by the BCCI:

(a) finding out who leaked the Greg Chappell email (September 27, 2005)
(b) Organizing a charity match to aid earthquake victims (October 18, 2005)

On April 18th, 2006, exactly 6 months after the promise was made, the BCCI and PCB conducted the promised Indo-Pak match, raising Rs 12.28 crores.

Unsurprisingly, there is no news yet on the leaked email front.

Two sides of the coin

Amit Verma (who helms the award-winning blog - India Uncut) also writes for newspapers and was part of a discussion in the Pioneer on the pros and cons of having Greg Chappell as the coach. Here is his side of the debate/discussion.

Contrast that with the other side, all innuendo and intrigue-speak, provided by Debraj Mookerjee.

I am obviously biased towards Amit Verma, as I frequently read his work, but I feel that he did a much better job of supporting his side of the equation. I would like to know what an unbiased reader (if there is one on this topic) feels about the merit/demerits of both the articles. (I am talking just about the articles, not the issue itself).

Occam's razor

Greg Chappell and Rahul Dravid have been experimenting with the ODI batting order, seemingly randomly, and have left not just the opposition but also the fans guessing as to who would bat where. In particular they have targeted the #3 spot as one of the most flexible ones.

The IndianOil Cup in Sri Lanka was the first time Rahul Dravid was made the captain for an entire series, under the aegis of Greg Chappell. Since that time the following players have batted at #3 - Mohammad Kaif, Irfan Pathan, MS Dhoni, JP Yadav, Yuvraj Singh, Virender Sehwag, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, SK Raina, and VVS Laxman.

The critics have been crying hoarse that such instability in the batting order is not good for the team's "chemistry". Chappell-Dravid repeatedly tell reporters that they are not experimenting but rather are indulging in "strategic planning". They insist that there is a rhyme and a reason for sending whomsoever they send in at #3 on a particular day. So, if indeed there is some method to who goes to bat where, what is the pattern? How do they decide whose turn it is to bat?

I searched for a pattern and I think I am beginning to see one. The Indian think-tank (Chappell, Dravid and Tendulkar) appear to have broken up the batsmen into two categories - the accelerators (Sehwag, Yuvraj, Pathan, Dhoni) and the anchors (Tendulkar, Dravid, Kaif). These 7 form the central core of their batting lineup.

The manipulation of the batting line-up is based on pairing an accelerator with an anchor as much as possible. Which role-players will go in to bat depends upon the state of the match:

The generic formula: Sehwag and Tendulkar will open. Sehwag's mandate is to accelerate, while Tendulkar's is to consolidate. If Sehwag gets out early - either Pathan or Yuvraj or Dhoni will go in. If Tendulkar gets out first - either Kaif or Dravid will go in.

Scenario 1: Batting first

• Corollary 1a: If India is batting first, and a wicket falls with a major portion of the PowerPlays still available to exploit, two accelerators will be paired up.
• Corollary 1b: If India is batting first, and a wicket falls with most of the PowerPlays having been consumed, the replacement batsmen shall be of the same category as the dismissed one.
  

Scenario 2: Batting second

• Corollary 2a: If India is batting second, and a wicket falls with a major portion of the PowerPlays still available to exploit, the replacement batsmen shall be of the same category as the dismissed one.
• Corollary 2b: If India is batting second, and a wicket falls with most of the PowerPlays having been consumed, the replacement batsmen shall be an accelerator if the asking rate is high or the replacement player will be an anchor if the asking rate is manageable.

(Naturally, the personnel will change due to injury/selectorial whims but I think the basic principles are in place. As time goes by, it will be interesting to see if I have correctly gauged the think-tank's intentions. I shall keep you posted on it.)

Now, the less obvious strategy appears to be in terms of marshalling the bowling resources. I admit that I have not really paid attention to that side of the equation. With the pitches being the way they are in most of the Indian subcontinent, I wonder if a strategy, other than to bowl a good line and bowl more slowly as the pitch wears down ,will even be necessary.

The clock stops

I have very closely been following a couple of promises made by the BCCI.

a) That the source that leaked Greg Chappell's email shall be identified by a probe.

On September 27, 2005: The BCCI President, Ranbir Singh Mahendra, condemned the action (leaking of Greg Chappell's email to the media) and promised to find out the source of the leak. He announced various times over the next few days that an internal "probe" of the matter was being conducted by the BCCI.

b) That the ACC shall announce a charity match to benefit the victims of the recent earthquake.

On October 18th, 2005: Shaharyar Khan, chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB), said: "During a recent conversation with Jagmohan Dalmiya [ACC president], an ACC-sponsored relief match was considered. We agreed to examine possible dates for an international match in the next few days."

A couple of things have happened in the interim - Jagmohan Dalmiya is no longer the ACC President and Ranbir Singh Mahendra is no longer the BCCI President. Consequently, the above two promises appear to have died a natural (but unsurprising) death. Expecting the latest edition of the BCCI to follow up on these promises is not a great idea, especially since their primary focus seems to be in getting endorsement deals for anything even remotely connected with Indian cricket.

And with that, my solitary vigil on these two issues ends.

The curious incident

When Greg Chappell's email was leaked to the media, the BCCI President condemned the action and promised to find out the source of the leak. He announced various times over the next few days that an internal "probe" of the matter was being conducted by the BCCI. The first time he mentioned this was on September 27, 2005. It is December 26th today and, as yet, no news on what the probers found. I have no illusions that the BCCI will ever announce who leaked the email as it reminds me of this exhange between Sherlock Holmes and Inspector Gregory in Silver Blaze.

Inspector Gregory: “Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
Sherlock Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
Inspector Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
Sherlock Holmes: “That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.

(If you haven't read Silver Blaze, you should! Sherlock Holmes solves a case primarily based on the above information).