Castrol Harsha Blog

sri lanka's progress in this tournament is a great advertisement for bowlers in t20 cricket. with a slightly shaky batting line up that is over-reliant at the moment on the top 4 they have marched into the final without losing a game. but now they will come up against a side to whom their bowling isn't a great mystery and who possess a well rounded bowling side themselves.

sri lanka are riding a wave of confidence but will be a bit worried about the fact that they have been propped up by the great form of tillekaratne dilshan. sanath jayasuriya isn't looking in great form but he is one of the finest big game players and if he plays with freedom in the final, he could give sri lanka the runs they need for their bowlers.

both sides like to bat first and while the toss isn't that important in t20 normally (it was at trent bridge where, quite frankly the wickets weren't suitable for a tournament of this nature), on the big day you want to score runs first. it means a great deal for both sides to win this and there will be the extra, difficult to account for, factor of pressure. if sri lanka have to bat second and lose a couple of early wickets pakistan will fancy their chances.

but then you just can't tell with pakistan. afridi might fire a quick 50 or pop the first ball up in the air. that is why the return of razzak is so important for them. it allows them to bat till no 8 and absorb a few early losses. i have also noticed that shoaib malik is playing a lot of shots early on and maybe the mandate is that younus and misbah will handle a crisis if it arises and that the top three, especially akmal and afridi, will be given the licence to play the big shots.

there has been much criticism of mahendra singh dhoni's tactics in this world t20. i am not trying to stand up for him or absolve him of misjudgement, he has admitted to most things anyway, but i think we need to take a step back and look at things dispassionately sometimes.

dhoni's instincts were lauded when he threw the ball to joginder sharma for the last over at the 2007 world t20. he could have asked harbhajan to bowl but his instinct told him that joginder was a better option. and instinct is something a leader must follow in a crunch situation. now if misbah's paddle sweep had got a couple of more yards on it, dhoni would have been roasted. we would have used the great boon of hindsight and told him what he should have done and everyone would have called for his head.

agreed the decision to send jadeja at no 4 wasn't the greatest, or using an out of sorts ishant for an extra over, but think about this. if stuart broad had been three inches shorter, jadeja’s shot might have cleared the boundary and the game might have turned. again dhoni went with his instinct and fell marginally short. often it is the little things that determine which way the big verdict goes.

personally i am delighted that the west indies and sri lanka have got so far. sri lanka are again showing, like delhi daredevils did, that if you have a fine bowling line up and a couple of batsmen in form you can go far in this format. the return to form of jayawardene could well be the clincher for sri lanka because they have seemed a bit short of ideas when the openers have failed. i think the best time to attack sri lanka is in the first six overs when they bat and in the first four when they bowl because they are a bit uncertain of when to begin using malinga.

this is not the time to burn effigies since showing disappointment doesn't mean demeaning yourself. india got it wrong tactically and that happens even to the most hardened, analytical business heads. dhoni made mistakes and i am sure he knows he made them and who knows he might emerge a better captain after this.

if there is one aspect that stood out for me it was that india played cautious cricket. this is not a format that allows such an attitude and maybe india were uncomfortable with their new reputation and felt the need to play to it. it is an interesting evolution that has many parallels.

teams that are not expected to win play fearlessly and surprise people, even win sometimes. then the expectations around them rise and they feel the need to play differently to live up to those expectations. but that is something they are neither comfortable with nor experienced at. the trick (and as i write this i am acutely aware, as i have often stated, that the game is easier from 100 yards away!) is to stay as close to your natural style as possible.

you could sense the caution in the thought behind sending jadeja at no 4. it was a situation that was crying out for yuvraj. people rise in the eyes of the world when they take on the opposition and play a match winning innings. this had to be yuvraj's moment. i am sure as a senior player he could have made a strong case for batting himself and hopefully he did.

india might still turn things around but they have been disappointing. i have often talked about this new generation being fearless but twice in two games (an under strength ireland side isn't the right laboratory for observation) india have played cautious cricket and that is inexplicable. and on each occasion they have needed yuvraj singh to bail them out. against bangladesh india looked headed for 150 when gambhir and dhoni were limiting their vision with singles and against the west indies india were 66-4 in the 13th over. the young men who were the cream of their ipl franchises are leaving their supporters a bit worried.

against the west indies, india's dot ball percentage was 48 and that is unpardonable. you can get away with it if there are a lot of boundaries but letting ones and twos go means you are letting go the opportunity of scoring risk free runs.

in particular i have been a bit puzzled by dhoni’s batting. for a long time we have tried to explain it by saying he likes to control the innings and brings a sense of calm to a side that seems to play in fourth gear all the time. but i have begun to suspect that batting for so long in one style has made this his instinctive style. it can happen. an off spinner who only bowls doosras loses his offbreak. a serious writer in search of parody loses his sense of gravity. maybe the way out is to rediscover his old, destructive style of batting in the nets. one hopes that in adjusting his style to balance what the others are doing, he hasn't lost his own.

if india play with freedom they will beat england. but if they look weary (there are too few fielders in this side who allow use of the word brilliant alongside their name) they might get some rest they don't need. india's future is in their mind and in their speed on the field.

whichever way you look at it the ipl has been a fantastic success. it has had its detractors, not everyone was convinced about the move to south africa and some countries are still in denial over the t20 format. they are entitled to their view, that's perfectly acceptable, but the evidence after this year's ipl is that more people are in the aye camp, less in the nay.

south africa has been magnificent. the decision to keep ticket prices low was a very good one. as i have always maintained it was the crowds that made ipl1 and this year they have not let us down either. it helps that watching cricket in south africa is easy, things happen as they are meant to, hardly ever has there been chaos and almost everybody has been happy.

but most important, the move has been a blessing in disguise. the ipl has taken first steps towards becoming a global brand. when we were kids, we thought of wimbledon, the ashes, the all england...and in course of time the nba, the epl, augusta masters. it had been a dream that a big global sports brand should come out of india and even though this is a work in progress (this is only year 2), it is what the cricket world is talking about. indian initiative, indian finance, indian ownership, for my generation this is huge.

and the competition itself has been good. in more demanding conditions the better players have come out on top, leadership has emerged as a quality factor in a team's chances and we have had unforgettable performances. it's been good so far.

just to give you an idea of how quickly perceptions change in t20! last year the royal challengers were dubbed a test side, the captain was ridiculed, wholesale changes were sought to be made and when some were indeed made it was suggested that this was now a side that could compete against anyone in t20. well, they have but as always you need to look beyond perception and apparent consequence.

let's look at the new players who came in. kevin pietersen, jesse ryder, robin uthappa, dillon du preez, roelof van der merwe and, slipping completely under the radar since he had made fleeting appearances for mumbai indians as a necessary, but not always desired, under 19 player, manish pandey. it would be interesting to see how the first five, the "specialists" fared against the others, the "test players". the castrol index might be a good way to begin.

pietersen did very little other than opening the bowling and once taking a wicket, ryder had a moment or two, uthappa (who i still maintain can become a fine player) had one significant innings, du preez had two fine overs and only van der merwe has genuinely added to the side. so who is performing? jacques kallis, mark boucher, rahul dravid, virat kohli, ross taylor and a certain retired player called anil kumble. so was the second auction right and the first one wrong (remember zaheer was in the first one too!)? or was it the other way around? or did something else happen.

my belief is that as the conditions grew a little more demanding, the pedigreed players appeared on stage. it is always like that. when the going gets tough, remember, the tough.......also, these players had another year to assess themselves, to make corrections, to regard this new upstart as a friend.

somebody asked me yesterday if adam gilchrist's blitzkrieg was among the best limited overs innings i had seen. i think reducing the scope actually does the innings a disservice. it was the finest displays of clinical batsmanship i have ever seen. apart from one or two slogs, no more, there was purity of shotmaking and the kind of self-belief that only the greatest can be blessed with. he has played many great innings but if i restrict myself to those i have seen this would rank with the century he scored against india at mumbai in 2001. it was that good.

to be frank, i would have remembered the game even without this epochal innings. the delhi daredevils' counterattack from 0-2 was thrilling and a great example again of how to back yourself and make the most of a situation. other teams might have tried to keep wickets and finished 25-2 in 6 overs but sehwag and dilshan were excellent and except for a little slump between overs 10 and 15 they actually batted well. as it turned out it didn't matter and though the daredevils lost again in a semi-final they can go back without any regrets. because one man created magic. that is what t20 is all about. you cannot plan beyond a point.

i have also believed that on the big day, the big guns must stand up and be counted. you can coax, cajole, encourage your younger, less experienced players to over-perform some days but in a big game they will be nervous. suman and bilakhia and harmeet were bound to be overawed (though suman has been a minor discovery of the tournament) and this is the time the giants carry the others on their shoulders. gilchrist was leading from the front and that alone is inspirational. when it comes off it is thrilling but often it comes off because you give yourself the best possible chance of it coming off.

if i had to script a commercial for t20 cricket, this match would be it.

three matches to go as i write this. so who is the most valuable player of the tournament. the castrol index will throw up its choice and it would be interesting to compare that against perception. so all you lovers of numbers and cricket, put down your choices and then look at the castrol index to see how your choice stacks up against numbers. in an ideal world the two should be identical except of course that you could include the captaincy factor which is virtually impossible to quantify.

the popular choice at this stage should, i guess, be a toss up between mathew hayden and suresh raina. the big aussie has been awesome and has scored many runs very quickly. but he has done something else. he has made all other teams spend a lot of time thinking of how to bowl to him and in doing so has constantly played on their minds. 'what if hayden gets away?' would be the fear in the opposition camp and if he has a couple of good overs teams very quickly start thinking of plan b. so for his aura, hayden gets a few more in the qualitative analysis.

raina, stockily but much smaller built, seems to hit the ball as long; certainly he hits it long enough (it doesn't really matter whether a six is 80 meters long or 100! and in any case i am not sure how those distances are measured!!) and unlike hayden has emerged as a valuable bowler for dhoni and the chennai super kings. in test cricket it is unlikely he would bowl,in 50 overs he might turn his arm over occasionally but in t20 it very often comes down to a ball-to-ball contest. and raina has succeeded because he seems to be very cool and balanced at the time of delivery. he is a shrewd young fellow, occasionally just stops fleetingly in his arm swing to get an idea of the batsman's footwork, and then pings the ball where he wants it to. he has bowled valuably in the death and catches well.

many others would make the cut; ab de villiers, rohit sharma, dirk nannes, anil kumble. that is like a wimbledon seeding list. let's see who wins. currently i am tied between raina and hayden. if it were an sms poll in a reality show, both would lose because the chennai vote would get split!!!

i'm delighted that the knight riders won a game. after all that has happened around their team, some self-inflicted some uncalled for, they must have enjoyed the winning feeling. i suspect the arrival of david hussey would have played a big role. at t20 level he is a genuine match winner and apart from the runs he will score he can deliver at least two overs a game and like almost all aussies is an excellent fielder-perfect combination for a top order batsman.

batting in the ipl seems to have fallen into some kind of rhythm which is so unlike what t20 cricket is all about.t20 is about following your instinct, catching your opponent unawares, it is more like a guerrilla strategy than a military campaign which is what test cricket and now, even 50 overs cricket feels like. and hence the surprise at the manner in which teams are going slow, protecting wickets and leaving things for the end over melee. isn't that the plan with long distance running? or the way 50 overs cricket used to be played?

i can understand that teams do not want to lose too many wickets and with the conditions helping bowlers somewhat there are bound to be casualties in a run chase. but it is quite apparent by now that once the asking rate touches 9 an over with about 10 overs to play you are asking for an extraordinary performance to help you win the game. and far too many games are being lost in the overs 10-15; or for that matter between 8 and 14.