Ind-Eng first test - Me as a selector.

Writing a blog means that I too can be a selector. So here are my thoughts about the selection issues and finally the team as I would select.

In my earlier post, I had written that Yuvraj being injured had made life a lot easier for the selectors and that Ganguly would play in the first test. The unpredictable selectors surprised everyone and gave a firm indication that this is the end for Ganguly. One of my thoughts is that they were actually nervous of the possibility that Ganguly, who after being dropped from the one day team has been batting extremely confidently and positively, may finally get a big score. Chappel and the selectors would then find it extremely difficult to justify dropping him.

Of the eleven places, the certainties - Sehwag, Jaffer, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Dhoni,Pathan,Harbhajan, Kumble take up 9 spots leaving 2 spots. These two spots can be filled in two ways -

1) Fill the two spots with two bowlers - a spinner and a fast bowler.

The selection of the third spinner is simple as Piyush Chawla is the only other spinner in the 16. I have heard that in addition to being a very good leg spinner, he is a good lower order batsman. Given the english batsmen's weakness in playing leg spin Chawla is a very attractive option. Only issue is if it is a bit too early to push him into the deep end. However since everyone expects Kumble and Harbhajan to do the job, it would reduce the pressure on the youngster.

The second fast bowler is a bit more difficult to pick. From what I have seen, Sreesunth will be a good pick. On the other hand, a case can be made for VRV Singh, reputedly the fastest fast bowler in India. I would pick VRV Singh very slightly ahead of Sreesunth just because of reputed pace.

2) Fill the two spots with a middle order batsman and a fast bowler.

The middle order batsman choice is a direct fight between Kaif and Raina. At this moment, with Kaif in poor form, I would pick Raina. The one innings of his that I saw, his 30 odd against Pakistan was superb reminding me of Ganguly in his glory days. He also has a very good defence and seemed more compact and safe than Ganguly.

The fast bowler would be VRV Singh as argued above.

I am ambivalent about which of the two options we should follow. I believe that with Dhoni at 6 and Pathan at 7, we can afford the luxury of 5 bowlers. With Chawla reputed to be a good lower order batsman, I believe we should go with the 5+1+5 option for the first test. Hence my team for the first test would be

1) Jaffer

2) Sehwag

3) Dravid

4) Tendulkar

5) Laxman

6) Dhoni

7) Pathan

8) Chawla

9) Harbhajan

10) Kumble

11) VRV Singh

Whatever the team, I believe that the Indian team should beat the English rather easily. But as the cliche says - Cricket is a funny game...

Yuvraj doubtful for first Test against England - Blessing in disguise?

It is being reported that Yuvraj may not be available for the first test against England. This may actually be a blessing in disguise for Sauvrav Ganguly, Rahul Dravid and the selectors.

With Yuvraj being injured Saurav is sure to be included in the side and Rahul does not have to be a makeshift opener. It would mean that India would go into the test series with proper openers thus giving them a very good chance of winning.

I believe (though simplistically) that our defeat in Karachi, which most people may have already forgotten, was due to two main factors. One - The absense of proper openers and two - lack of a right arm pacer.

The absense of a proper opener was forced upon the team by one - the selectors who probably insisted on Ganguly being in the team and two - Greg Chappel who probably insisted on Yuvraj being in the team, leaving no option but to go in without an opener. Dravid being the "lead by example" kind of captain took it upon himself to open as against Ganguly who when faced with a similar dilemma made scapegoats of the wicketkeeper, Laxman, Dravid, Sehwag, etc. (It has to be admitted that this reluctance of Ganguly to open led to the discovery of Virender Sehwag as an opener.). Even though Dravid got centuries in the first two tests, it is clear that he is not very comfortable as opener. I think he has a psychological block which he is finding quite difficult to overcome. He is most comfortable at no 3 and as the best batsman of the team deserves the right to be comfortable. Invariably when Dravid makes runs at no 3, India win. I also think that with Dravid opening, the batting order seemed disturbed. Taking all these into consideration, I believe we should have a proper opener - Gambir or Jaffer, open the innings.

If we recall the last series, Balaji was one of the major performers in that series. Balaji swung the ball quite prodigiously and accounted for quite a few batsmen with beautiful deliveries. He is a ideal partner to Pathan. In the Karachi test, if we had Balaji instead of Zaheer or RP Singh, it might have been the case that Pakistan would have been bowled out for under a 100 in the first innings from which it would have been impossible to comeback. For some reason Balaji seems to have gone missing. If he is unavailable, I think Sreesanth would be an equivalently effective partner to Irfan. (I hope we do look beyond Agarkar, at least for the tests). A right armer pacer, taking the ball away from the batsman - like Balaji or Sreesanth, would be very dangerous on a pitch like Karachi. In addition, it would also add to the variety of the attack. I hope that we select a new right arm pace bowler - either Sreesanth, VRV Singh, Munaf Patel or Balaji and solve this issue.

Yuvraj being injured would certainly mean that his middle order spot would be taken by Ganguly. It should be made clear to Ganguly that this would be last chance he would get. With the issue of Ganguly settled and with Dravid now coming at no 3, we can solve the problem no 1 by having Gambir or Jaffer open with Sehwag. Before the one day series, I was of the opinion that Gambir should be given one more chance. However, with his performance in the one days where his total lack of sense showed up, my mind has been changed and now think that maybe Jaffer should be given a chance.

Either way, we will get back our most potent weapon, Dravid at 3 giving the batting order a settled look. This is why I state that Yuvraj being injured would be a huge blessing in disguise for all people concerned.

Future captain of India.

Virender Sehwag is currently the best matchwinner of the Indian side. He is a really positive person who always thinks about winning. Even on a last day chase of 400+, Virender Sehwag would think about winning and not about drawing the test match.

The innings of 155 against Australia in Chennai, as described in this article, is a classic. In a team total of 376, Sehwag made 155 and when he was dismissed, the team score was 233. This alone demonstrates the dominance and positiveness of Sehwag in comparision to our other celebrated batsmen.

We probably think of Sehwag as an impetous person who does not think about his shots, the situation, etc. In this article, he comes across as a very shrewd character who knows exactly what he is doing and what he is supposed to be doing.

Before Dravid was given the captaincy, I was of the belief that captaincy would adversely affect Dravids batting. Keeping that in mind and the fact that India needed Dravids batting more than his captaincy, I thought that Sehwag should be made the captain of India. Reading this article only strengthens my belief. However seeing that Dravid is doing a great job as captain and is so far not letting captaincy affect his batting, I would like to change my view on Dravid being captain. At the same time, it does not change my mind about Sehwag and I am certain that he should and will be captain of India.

Read more at content-usa.cricinfo.co...

Using technology to noball chucking.

Harsha says that Shoaib should get tested. In addition he says that some other bowlers like Murali, etc look quite suspicious. He also makes a comment similar to my earlier post about hyperextension. I believe that people getting tested after the match, in net conditions, at the University of Western Australia or wherever and getting their names cleared there does not make them fair bowlers.


We have the ultra slow motion technology, which can without doubt conclude one way or the other about every delivery. I believe that this technology can and should be used and used to call the ball a no-ball. The ICC should forget about banning the bowler. Banning the bowler makes no sense. A bowler getting 5 wickets by chucking still gets to keep those wickets and the results still stands. In addition, the bowler may have perfected the art of getting tested. He may have various actions for each of his deliveries for use in match conditions and test conditions. In the case of young bowlers like Shabbir Ahmed it also severely affects their careers. The solution I believe is using the slow motion cameras and calling the ball as a no ball there and then itself and closing the matter.


You may now question and say that analysing each ball would take a lot of time and disrupt the flow of the game. This is where, I believe, technology can help. As a software developer, I know it is quite simple to measure the angles between lines using a software. The ultra motion could be taken and fed into a software. The software would measure the angle before the arm raises above the shoulder level. This would be the base angle. Regardless of hyperextension or any other deformity. The angle measured would be the angle at the elbow. Then the software would measure the angle at each frame. I in any frame after the base frame, the angle is more than 15 degrees or whatever the ICC decides, a nobal can be indicated.The process may seem like an involved process and seems like it would take quite a lot of time. But I can assure that the computer can calculate this and spew out the result before the bowler can finish his follow through. There could be another light similar to the red and green ones(big one if needed) to indicate no balls. A no ball is indicated and the game moves on.


I believe that the above is a fair solution. But, do I think that the ICC would be bold enough to even think about it? For an answer one need only look at how ICC has used Hawkeye.

Inzamam and his claim of unsportsing appeal.

Inzamam has made a great big furore about how Dravid and the Indian team were unsporting to appeal for the obstruction. Now Dravid says that he thinks that it was not unsporting. I have to admit, regrardless of me being Indian, that I agree with Dravid.

I havent actually seen the incident. All reports that I have read and heard about the dismissal say that Inzamam casually hit the ball as if he was defending the ball. But he did this outside the crease. From the reports I also get the impression that the ball most probably was going to hit the stumps dismissing Inzamam. Coming from this position, I don't see how Inzamam can claim that it was unsporting. He would have been out if he had not defended the ball. The indians rightfully appealed and got him out. Plain and simple dont you think?

Tim de Lisle makes a case for extending Indo-Pak encounters beyond three Tests.

Tim de Lisle makes a case for extending Indo-Pak encounters beyond three Tests. I totally agree with Tim here. However, if the tests are played on flat pitches with four of the tests being boring draws and a throw of the dice in the last one, there is no point. On the other hand, If the series ends 3-2, it could be the best thing to happen to cricket.

On a related note, I believe that all test series, especially Ind-Aus and Ind-Eng should be 5 test series. It provides the best entertainment to the people and also gives the away team more chance of winning.

Read more at sightscreen.rediffiland...

Shoaibs action.

Shoaibs action sure looks dodgy. In the match review, Michael Holding was supposed to analyse and show the action fully. However, they refrained from showing the action in ultra slow motion which, I believe, would have conclusively shown one way or the other. Instead, Holding went on to show us the details about hyperextension.

Hyperextension is when the elbow can be bent the other way beyond 180 degrees. However, there is no mention about how hyperextension affects the 15 degree rule. Am I right in assuming that regardless of a person having hyperextension, the fact that the flex is beyond 15 degrees constitutes an illegal delivery? Would like any clarifications regarding this.

The fact that the tv production houses deemed it fit not to broadcast Shoaibs action in ultra slow motion shows that there is something wrong.

Read more at http://sightscreen.rediffiland.com/scripts/xanadu_diary_view.php?postId=1139341969