Samir Chopra
Working title
Ignoring the headline and looking at the text with the expectation that the author did not believe in a culture of failure, it reads to me as a fine debunking of the idea which has begun circulating among the backwoodsmen and newspapers of the Little
Mike Holmans
25-Feb-2013
|
| "Monty's problem, actually, is that he isn't Indian enough and is only an English spinner" © Getty Images |
I don't know what headline has attracted you to read this piece: I don't do headlines. I occasionally suggest a title, but always with the understanding that the excellent Cricinfo sub-editors will substitute their own if they can think of something better, which they invariably can. Occasionally, it has to be said, their headline strikes a note slightly out of tune with the text, after which I can expect to receive a number of comments arguing more with the headline than the words for which I was responsible.
After reading Samir Chopra's response to it, I suspect something similar has happened with Mike Atherton's Times article about British Asian cricketers. Atherton has never given me the impression that he has some kind of downer on Asian cricketers, and the phrase to which Samir objected, "culture of failure", appears nowhere in the text. On the other hand, the Times is not notably foreigner-friendly, and perhaps the sub-editor was putting his own spin on things.
Ignoring the headline and looking at the text with the expectation that the author did not believe in a culture of failure, it reads to me as a fine debunking of the idea which has begun circulating among the backwoodsmen and newspapers of the Little Englander persuasion and to which this article is mostly replying, though he also attempts to deal with the counter-view proposed by the odd Asian advocacy group that they have been dropped because the English establishment wishes the Asians would go away.
Full postWalking in an umpire's shoes
An international cricketer could do with a little apprenticeship in umpiring as part of his graduation to the highest form the game
Samir Chopra
25-Feb-2013
|
| How tough is it to deal with the stress of giving a decision under stress? © Associated Press |
Like every single cricket fan on this planet, I've cursed umpires and given the finger to the gentlemen who give my heroes the digital salute. But I like to think I've grown (just a little bit) out of my previously immature reactions to them. For willy-nilly, I took Atticus Finch's advice, and walked around in an umpire's shoes. And from then on, I never viewed umpiring in the same light.
In my university days, I played a bit of casual cricket with my mates at college. Nothing too serious; our talents were limited. But Hindu College, my alma mater, was a cricketing powerhouse in the Delhi cricket scene, and there were plenty of stars to watch up close and admire. The concentration of cricketing talent in our institution meant the inter-departmental competition often afforded some of the best cricket viewing of the year. We could get close to the action, and we could see players that were Ranji, and possibly India, aspirants. The strongest departments (History, Political Science, Economics, General Arts) were packed with members from the college team. (Unsurprisingly, the sciences were left to fight for the scraps).
One fine morning, a group of us gathered to watch Political Science take on General Arts (Indian folks will know the latter better as "the BA (Pass) boys"). The games were 40-overs a side and approximately ten players from the college side were out there in the middle, playing for the two departments.
Full postWhose culture? Whose failure?
British Asians are not a monolithic bloc
Samir Chopra
25-Feb-2013
|
| "Is Monty Panesar too deferential toward the people who are giving him bad advice?" © Getty Images |
Yesterday, I read Mike Atherton's article on the 'failure' of British Asian cricketers with mixed feelings. Mixed because in the course of a worthwhile investigation, Atherton offers an analysis that goes hither and thither, travelling some well-worn and predictably non-informative grooves and ends up going nowhere. (One hint of the problem in his analysis lies in the choice of headline "Depressing culture of failure" (my italics)).
It has been evident that despite the greater visibility of Asian players on the English cricket scene, few have managed to stake out a firm regular spot in the English side. That includes Bopara, Rashid, Ramprakash, Solanki, Panesar, Patel(s), Mahmood, Shah, Chopra et al. Some have shone briefly, others not at all. Monty Panesar enjoyed the longest honeymoon in recent times but even his star seems to have described its arc and is now in decline. (Incidentally, why does Atherton not consider Nasser Hussain in his list? Is Hussain "too English" to be counted here? Is that because of his mixed parentage, or is it because Hussain has somehow transcended "Asianess"?)
So what's the problem? After all-too briefly wondering, and not really entertaining as a live hypothesis, whether English cricket has been welcoming enough, Atherton considers cricketing reasons: Mahmood is not good enough, Patel is not fit enough and Rashid has been over-promoted (perhaps in a rush to find an English Warne or a spin replacement for Panesar). These three form part of a brief denying of any charges against English cricket. Their putative counterexamples apparently suggest any facile generalised charge against the management of English cricket is unlikely to stick.
Full postThe unsurprising double-centurion
Samir Chopra
25-Feb-2013
| ||
I tend to be a bit obsessed about cricket statistics. And given my vintage, it's entirely understandable that Test statistics tend to reign supreme. Indeed, to this day, one of the reasons that I don't get so hung up on the results of one-day internationals is that I started off thinking of them as unofficial games. But official they are, and their statistics are recorded faithfully. And there was one one-day statistic that I did spend some time thinking about: would a batsman ever make a double-ton in a one-day game?
I first entertained this thought not because of Viv Richards' 189 against England in 1984 but because of a glorious innings that preceded it: David Gower's 158 off 118 balls against New Zealand at Brisbane during the 1982-83 WSC triangular. For the time, Gower's innings was a true paradigm subverter; that rate of scoring was unprecedented, his domination complete. Indeed, that innings stood out even more than Richards' did, because, well, Viv was Viv, and you expected him to do that sort of thing. But Gower amping it up at a strike rate of 133, hitting four sixes, and all of the rest made me think that perhaps someday, someone could pull it off. (For the record, Viv's strike rate was 111 so Gower had one over the great Viv in that regard!)
When the modern era of one-day internationals got underway, the 200 became a real possibility. Of the ten 180-plus scores in one-day internationals, there are only two from the 1980s. And yes, both of them are by the great Viv. All hail the King! Folks like Anwar, Hayden, Jayasuriya, Kirsten, Ganguly, Dhoni, Tendulkar, and, er, Charles Coventry, racked up the rest. I did think for a while that the 200 would come in a World Cup game against one of the minnows.
Full postModi's sensible plainspeak
There are other reasons why Modi's comments make sense for they raise an interesting point about the very nature of the IPL, about whether it is a domestic tournament or an international league
Samir Chopra
25-Feb-2013
|
| "Just like even a broken clock can tell the time correctly twice a day, even Lalit Modi can get it right at times" © Getty Images |
I'm not a huge fan of Lalit Modi. One reason why I am reluctant to watch IPL games is there is always the chance that I might stumble across the latest Modi photo-op; I have described him as a zamindar in the past (when his ICL crackdown was in full swing); and when Modi acolytes have shown up on Eye-on-Cricket and demanded I respect his organisational skills and financial acumen, I have politely declined (I similarly find myself reluctant to sing hosannas in praise of Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, gentlemen who have plenty of fans but whose achievements I find strangely uninspiring).
But respect must be shown where it is due. Just like even a broken clock can tell the time correctly twice a day, even Lalit Modi can get it right at times. And Modi's response to the release of the independent report commissioned by players' unions in England, Australia and South Africa that has led to talk of shifting the 2010 IPL to another country is a good example of that.
First, Modi correctly notes that "Nobody in the world can safeguard the safety of the players in any tournament. All we have to do is ensure we are putting on the best security". Indeed, there might be disagreements over what constitutes the best security for the visiting players but there can be no guarantees about the player's ultimate safety (perhaps El Al, the Israeli airline, might be able to provide one but I doubt even those formidable folks would go so far). And while the 'threat' to the international players is possibly 'credible', all that can be done is to hunker down and make sure that as many angles as possible are covered. Fleeing to another country isn't really a viable solution. Last year's move to South Africa took place because no security apparatus could be in place.
Full postSmall mercies: Cricket in the time of war
War remains a bloodthirsty pursuit
Samir Chopra
25-Feb-2013
|
| Australian cricketers recreate the famous image from the 1915 game at Shell Green on a visit to Gallipoli in 2001 © Getty Images |
Sports, war, what's the difference? Not much, or so it would seem, if one were to go by the language of sports-writing: crushing defeats, campaigns, humiliations, pitched battles, offensives, assaults, and so on. And of course, defeats in sporting contests can take on the significance that normally afforded to a besting on a military battlefield (depending on the insecurity of the concerned parties); witness the obsession over India-Pakistan cricketing games.
But cricket and war can be run together even more directly. The most famous instance of this came during the Gallipoli campaign, when on 17 December 1915, a game of cricket was played on Shell Green by ANZAC troops. In the now legendary photograph of this game, Major George Macarthur Onslow of the Light Horse is batting (and rather unfortunately, for the major, is in the process of being dismissed). The game, played while artillery fire continued overhead, was an attempt to distract the watching Turkish troops from the departure of allied troops.
(The Australian Light Horse also featured in another less-known cricket game during war, that between English and Australian soldiers on 25 October 2006 in Basra, Iraq. The match was put together to commemorate the soon-to-be-played Ashes series and in a sign of things to come, England made 109 for 9 off their 30 overs, and then watched as the Aussies ran up 113 runs off 27.5 overs.)
Full postA pair of knockouts - the India-SA Tests
Despite the lopsided nature of the games (at least far as the margins went), these were both very good Tests, just because there was so much outstanding cricket on display
Samir Chopra
25-Feb-2013
|
| Two Tests did not do justice for the rivalry between the teams © AFP |
Let me get in the obligatory quick slam against the BCCI before saying anything else about this India-South Africa 'series'. Two Tests? Are you for real?
Now, on to the series itself. This putative world championship of cricket featured two big, lopsided wins; both by an innings. If one were to cast about for sporting metaphors this would be a pair of boxing matches where each boxer knocked the other one out once (Schmeling-Louis anyone?) India looked outclassed in the first Test, and South Africa, despite the closeness of the finish, were severely outgunned in the second (to think they were 218-1 on the first day and ended up batting 347 runs behind in the second innings!).
Despite the lopsided nature of the games (at least far as the margins went), these were both very good Tests, just because there was so much outstanding cricket on display: high-quality swing bowling, determined, gritty, stylish, pugnacious batting, and some very good spin bowling at times.
Full postNightwatchmen? We don't need 'em
It is internally incoherent, is poor cricketing strategy, and when the captain does it to protect his wicket, it looks especially pusillanimous
Samir Chopra
25-Feb-2013
| ||
I don't like night watchmen. I've got nothing against those poor souls that are sent out by their timid captains to weather the storm, but I do have a principled objection to the very idea. It is internally incoherent, is poor cricketing strategy, and when the captain does it to protect his wicket, it looks especially pusillanimous.
The first time I encountered the concept of a night watchman was when Srinivas Venkataraghavan went out in the fading Delhi light on the second day of the first Test of the 1976-77 series against the touring MCC. The score read 49 for 3, and India were tottering. Anshuman Gaekwad, Mohinder Amarnath and Gundappa Viswanath had all gone lbw to Lever. A deadly spell of swing bowling was in effect. Two balls later, Venkat joined the procession, bowled for a duck by the same bowler. Brijesh Patel had to come out and bat for time.
I thought the idea was silly then, despite its 'rationale' being explained to me by my ever-patient father. Why was Patel not batting? If Lever could blow away that illustrious bunch that had preceded Venkat, why not Venkat?
Full postThe mystery of the missing close-in fielder
Why don't Indian captains of recent years set more attacking fields for their spinners?
Samir Chopra
25-Feb-2013
| ||
Puzzlement (or glee, or anger, take your pick) is often expressed these days over the supposed cricketing demise of Harbhajan Singh. But I'm perplexed by something else altogether: why don't Indian captains of recent years set more attacking fields for their spinners? If it was Australian captains like Bobbie Simpson who pioneered the umbrella slip field for their quicks, then I'm inclined to think (with little more than a vague memory) that Indian and Pakistani captains pioneered truly aggressive fields for spinners. And even if they didn't, they certainly exploited them the most fruitfully.
But in recent years, the most aggressive fields for spinners that I've seen have been set by Ricky Ponting for Nathan Hauritz, Graeme Smith for Paul Harris, and Andrew Strauss for Graeme Swann. (No cracks about any of the bowlers on that list; they've managed to inspire faith in their captains).
For many years now, if there is one feature of Indian outcricket that stands out (in my mind at least), it is that we don't seem to have enough men close to the bat. Harbhajan most commonly bowls with a slip and a forward short-leg. Forget the absence of a silly point, which would seem like a no-brainer for a bowler who is supposedly an exponent of the doosra, Harbhajan often doesn't even employ a backward short-leg. When Mishra bowls, he will often not employ the backward and forward-short-leg. It is almost as if these men are supposed to only be bowling their stock-balls and not their wrong 'uns, and as if the psychological value of having a close-in man has been completely discounted.
Full postLegalise it - The case for ball-tampering
At a time when cricket has increasingly become a batsman dominated game, when the single biggest threat to Test cricket is not the IPL or T20 but the roads that are routinely produced by groundsmen the world over, what precisely is the case against
Samir Chopra
25-Feb-2013
I tend to classify my political views into two categories: those where I can understand my opponent's point-of-view and am willing to entertain it seriously, and those where no matter how hard I try, my brain doesn't seem to understand why anyone would hold a contrary view. Matters of economic management tend to fall into the first category and lifestyle choices fall into the second.
Similarly, when it comes to cricket. An example of a view where I don't understand the case for the opposition is the business of legalising ball tampering. I would ask someone to explain to me why ball-tampering is still illegal, but since I don't get it, I'll stick to expressing my bewilderment. At a time when cricket has increasingly become a batsman dominated game, when the single biggest threat to Test cricket is not the IPL or T20 but the roads that are routinely produced by groundsmen the world over, what precisely is the case against ball-tampering?
The great Wasim Akram, arguably the finest exponent of the arts of swing in recent years, has argued that it is pointless. But with all due respect to Akram, there is very little chance he would have come out in favor of ball-tampering. Given the steady stream of allegations against Pakistan bowlers over the years, it would have been highly problematic on his part to have come out in favor of ball-tampering; plenty of people would have regarded it as a tacit admission of guilt and simply said, "About time the Pakistanis 'fessed up. The Pakistanis must have been doing it in 1992 and Pakistani cricketers and journalists have been lying since then." No, not really a satisfactory state of affairs.
But Akram's comments then prompt a further question: if he doesn't think tampering is going to help bowlers swing the ball, then why not simply make tampering legal? Let bowlers do their worst; at the very least, we won't have any of these silly allegations made against fast bowlers. Indeed, Akram seems to have missed a trick on this one. It is the illegality of ball tampering which has criminalised so much behavior and led to so much rancor.
Full postMost Read
Writers