|
The nonsense of the finish provided a postscript to the result. England would almost certainly have lost had the match gone its distance, but India weren't entirely settled at 198 for 5. Those lost nine overs could still have made the difference between a
November 20, 2008
![]()
| |||
Beneath their public displays of frustration, England's cricketers were perhaps secretly quite pleased that the third ODI in Kanpur ended in yet another of those light-related farces that the ICC - like moths around a candle - seem inexplicably obliged to singe themselves upon time and time again. The nonsense of the finish provided a postscript to the result. England would almost certainly have lost had the match gone its distance, but India weren't entirely settled at 198 for 5. Those lost nine overs could still have made the difference between a thumping 3-0 scoreline, and a cliffhanging 2-1.
"It is frustrating," said Kevin Pietersen after the match. "It was getting dark at 4.30. But the umpires made their decision, and that's the way it is - so we come out on bottom again." Several minutes of animated discussion took place out in the middle, as England railed against the injustice of their situation, but in the end Pietersen accepted the ruling with a shrug and a handshake. He knew that the gloom was settling in and the umpires' hands were tied, although why that should be the case is one of the eternal mysteries of cricket.
You'd have thought that a global-scale embarrassment at last year's World Cup final might have persuaded the powers-that-be to tidy up their regulations, but no. Here instead was a lower-profile repeat of the exact same mistakes that cropped up in Barbados 18 months ago. Fog isn't exactly an unexpected phenomenon in Kanpur, yet the 45-minute delay while the morning mists evaporated ended up playing havoc with the day's timings. A total of two overs were shaved off the match - insufficient in the circumstances of the city, where night falls quickly, early and predictably, but permissible according to the playing conditions, which currently allow for play to be extended at the end of the day.
The playing conditions may allow for it, but the conditions in which the game is actually played most certainly do not. Without the use of Kanpur's floodlights, which loom mysteriously over the ground but have never yet been used for a day-night fixture, there was no quibbling with nature. And the caterers clearly rely on timings as precise as the rising and the setting of the sun, because the game was still interrupted by a 35-minute innings break.
A ten-minute turnaround might have been sufficient to give the match a natural ending, but absurdly, a reduction can only be made if at least an hour of playing time is lost. To be fair to the ICC, they are a more reactive organisation these days, because that change, however flawed, was instigated after the last farcical finish involving an England team - the ODI at Edgbaston in June, when New Zealand were denied, two runs short of victory, by Paul Collingwood's go-slow tactics. Today's scenes were poetic justice, you might argue, but that doesn't excuse them for cropping up in the first place.
All of the above will be forgotten within days - such is the disposable way of the one-day international - but the 35,000 fans who piled into Green Park deserved more for their money. Still, on this occasion, at least they weren't robbed blind, as India were the dominant force throughout the match.
"We were ahead at every stage," said their captain, Mahendra Singh Dhoni. "In the morning when I went out for the toss I knew that D/L method could be applied as we know light fades away very fast at this venue after 4pm. So we were prepared, I had a chit of D/L calculations, and once we knew D/L method would be applied we decided to preserve wickets as we knew we were ahead." It begs the question, if Dhoni was prepared for such a chaotic ending, why on earth weren't the match authorities prepared to prevent it in the first place?
And so, the teams head off for Bangalore for Sunday's fourth encounter with India's series lead growing with every match, but England's competitiveness gaining some sort of belated momentum. "There are definitely areas we improved on, we are getting closer," said Pietersen with a monotony that is at least borne out by the facts. Margins of 158 runs, 54 runs and now 16 runs tell the tale of a team coming to terms with the opposition, the conditions and, perhaps most importantly, themselves. If their margins are tumbling with anything like the consistency of the British economy, they might still be able to dream of a thrilling victory in the next game, a thumping win in the last, and a miraculous 4-3 turnaround overall.
Before that can happen, however, England will need to obliterate the errors that are undermining their best-laid plans. They made three positive moves in their team selection today - promoting Ravi Bopara to open was an undoubted improvement on the jittery displays that Matt Prior has shown in the role all series, while Graeme Swann's genuine ability to turn the ball gave India's batsmen a much-needed challenge in those lackadaisical middle overs. As for Pietersen at No. 3, this was not his day, but at least he has shown willing to step into the breach.
But they were guilty of naivety with the bat once again, as they squandered a rollicking (by their recent standards) opening stand of 79 in 15 overs and allowed India's spinners to whittle away for the rest of the innings. Claiming only 21 runs in the four batting Powerplay overs was a crass misuse of resources, while the failure to steal a single boundary in the final three overs cost them dear as well. Most of those faults will be lost in the Kanpur gloom, but if they reoccur for the remainder of the series, England might not have an alibi to disguise them every time.
| ||||||
| Comments have now been closed for this article |
||||||
Andrew Miller was saved from a life of drudgery in the City when his car caught fire on the way to an interview. He took this as a sign and fled to Pakistan where he witnessed England's historic victory in the twilight at Karachi (or thought he did, at any rate - it was too dark to tell). He then joined Wisden Online in 2001, and soon graduated from put-upon photocopier to a writer with a penchant for comment and cricket on the subcontinent. In addition to Pakistan, he has covered England tours in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, as well as the World Cup in the Caribbean in 2007
Watch Bollywood movies for free
Citibank NRI Account, Fast Reliable & Secure Way to
Transfer Money. Apply Online Now!
Access your Indian Rupee earnings from anywhere in the world.
ICICI Bank Money2India brings " locked exchange rate" and a free gift
on registering and transfer of USD 250 and above.
BUY England 2012 official Test & ODI kit
Available now at Cricshop
Don't compare this game to Edgbaston and talk about poetic justice. New Zealand were robbed blind at Edgbaston. England were not robbed here.
Posted by Mahendra_Chandrasekhar on (November 22 2008, 12:08 PM GMT)The game could have been better planned. For one, losing 45 mins and reducing just one over didn't make sense. I wonder what is going to happen at Guwhati where it gets dark around 4:00 at this time of the year. Wouldn't it make sense to have just 45 overs a side and have a full game of cricket. I don't think teams can plan for D/L. Dhoni was lucky this time around, but it could go against him as well.
Posted by howzatstew on (November 21 2008, 13:49 PM GMT)This was a totally avoidable farce which ought to have been sorted out by the countries cricket boards before the tour began. It could perhaphs have been excused if it was through the fault of the players or unusual weather conditions, but it was not.
Posted by AvidCricFan on (November 21 2008, 13:38 PM GMT)The game was not all England's to take. It was a balanced game which India could also have won with 5 wickets and 40 runs required in 9 overs.
Posted by hoLLa on (November 21 2008, 13:25 PM GMT)Stoppage can happen any which way. You have to plan to win at any moment of the game(After the stipulated 25? overs) if the match stops. That is what Dhoni Did. Every team has access to DL par score Print out. They have to try to be ahead of the opposition as per DL table. That is the rule and that is how you win. Yesterday "India won" because statistically, teams who were in similar situations have won. Stats and Facts apart, India of olden days may have choked in these situations. But not this team. D/L Does not take into account the choke quotient. If it did, if WI were in India's position, DL would have given the match to the other team. :-)
Posted by CricWhizz on (November 21 2008, 10:33 AM GMT)As an England fan I'm frustrated at how the selectors fail to take their strongest team to the sub-continent. The ECB felt it was a great idea to send Monty to India to learn and feel the art of spin on Indian soil, and yet they fail to select him for the ODI's. Arguably the best spin bowler in the UK, a match winner as proven against Australia and Pakistan, and someone who can spin the ball better than Yuvraj and Sehwag (who have taken many English scalps so far in the 3 ODI's). In the 2nd ODI, 8 wickets were taken by the Indian spinners. Everyone in the country is aware of the boost Monty brings to the squad, especially when he takes a wicket. Before most of you come back about Monty's batting and fielding -he has proved to have made significant improvements in both of these areas and I can name a number of current players in the squad who have made significant errors (more than Monty) in the field and failed to score with the bat. However, select Monty for his wicket taking prowess.
Posted by StJohn on (November 21 2008, 10:02 AM GMT)Some of the comments below seem to miss the point of the article. I can't see excuses being made anywhere. KP and the England team seem to have been refershingly frank about being outplayed by India and nobody doubts that, on balance, India would probably have won this game had it gone the distance. And that's the point - the rules need to be changed to allow games to go the distance. It is deeply unsatisfying when games are determined in this way. The rules should have provided for more overs to be shaved off each team's innings and for a shorter innings break. With, say, 48 or 47 overs per side instead of 49, plus an innings break of just 15-20 mins instead of 35 mins, we could have got a full innings in for each team. Also, if there are floodlights, then why not use them? The rules should also stop captains cynically using the weather and the D/L method to win games by slowing them down, like Collingwood did against NZ. But past injustices do not justify present incompetence.
Posted by JaySarkar on (November 21 2008, 07:15 AM GMT)England fans and their cricketers have benefitted from the light situation before. Colly stooped to slowing the game down against the Kiwis earlier this year and one didnt hear the players or media protest as they are doing now. Engalnd benefitted from poor light against Pakistan a few years ago - they didnt protest then.Its as though England were on the brink of a victory in this game which they were not-9 over for 40 odd runs is all that India needed with 5 wickets including two regular bats at the crease - Freddie and Broad had only 1 over left.It just shows how rattled this team has become - they have been unable to adapt quickly and offering mere excuses. I liked KPs answers- he did not blame the umpires and light or anything else. The team ought to introspect for such poor performances rather than project the blame elsewhere - one day game is not about clear roles but roles that change with changing circumstances - unless they realise this quickly, they will play it like tests.