Cricket articles from Rediff.com

The good, the bad and the ugly

by Prem Panicker

December 24, 2001

I must confess I am slightly disappointed in Sourav Ganguly (The fact that my disappointment is "slight" should make it clear that what follows is not about his exploits with the bat).

My disappointment stems from that joint press conference the Indian and English captains addressed, and what Hussain said during its course.

Here is a direct quote from Hussain: "I bowled the Indian team out for scores of 291 and 238 in the two Tests. Australia came here this year and was taken for 570-odd runs with Laxman getting a huge 281. So you be the judge now, and tell me what’s wrong with our gameplan?"

It was at this point that Ganguly missed a half-volley outside his off stump. I found myself wishing that the Indian skipper had turned to his counterpart and asked: "You've been making a big fuss about the dismissal of Michael Vaughan, handled the ball. Well, the bottomline is, we got him out for 64 didn't we? So what is wrong with that?"

I would have dearly loved to have seen Hussain's face, and heard his answer, to that one.

It never ceases to amaze me, this ability of modern cricketers to see things one way one day, another way the next. Hussain is the latest, but by no means the only, example.

In a signed column on Wisden dated December 19, Hussain while discussing the Vaughan dismissal says, "It’s a question of whether certain actions are in the spirit of the game, and that’s purely a judgment call. It’s not a question of right or wrong. If the Indians felt that the appeal was in the spirit of the game, then that’s their call. I know what my gut feeling and Michael’s gut feeling is about it all, and I really don’t want to say any more than that."

With due respect to the England captain, he shouldn't even have said as much.

Just wondering: How is it that the Indians appealing when Vaughan grabbed at the ball is not in the spirit of the game, whereas Andrew Flintoff bowling so persistently down leg side to Sachin Tendulkar that he had to be spoken to by the umpire, or Ashley Giles from over the wicket sending down an astonishing 58 per cent of all his deliveries down the line wide of leg stump, is justifiable because it got results?

Sorry, Mr Hussain, you can't have it both ways -- either there is something called the "spirit of the game", in which case your tactics were cynical, crass and completely against said spirit, or there is no such thing, in which case your angst over the fate of Michael Vaughan is hypocritical at best.

On the other hand, Ganguly deserved unstinted praise for having spoken out in no uncertain terms -- rarely, in fact, have I heard terms as uncertain as those used by the Indian captain -- on this issue of coach John Wright.

Remember? "There is no question of Wright losing his job" -- that was the Indian captain, speaking just before the Bangalore Test and, more crucially, before BCCI president Jagmohan Dalmiya was due to decide the fate of Wright, and physio Andrew Leipus.

It took courage to make that statement, at a time when his own batting form is suspect -- suspect, hell, for a long time now, it has been non-existent -- and his captaincy skills are in question. Indian cricket history records very few instances of players standing up for what is right. And every single time someone has done that -- the names of Krish Srikkanth, Ravi Shastri, Sunil Gavaskar, Bishen Bedi and ever Sachin Tendulkar (vide the selection, or lack thereof, of off spinners for the last tour of the West Indies) come to mind -- the board's busybodies have immediately closed ranks and ensured that the rebel came to a sticky end. Against this background, for Ganguly to be as outspoken as he was took some doing.

Ganguly and Wright have had their differences -- sometimes, in public. And yet, the Indian skipper decided to speak out -- and that is the most eloquent testimony you would want of the value of Wright to the side.

Sachin Tendulkar also pitched in, with his public defence of Wright on the occasion of a promo event at the Adidas showroom in Bangalore on the eve of the third Test. Meanwhile, Anil Kumble weighed in with unstinted encomiums for physio Andrew Leipus. Speaking on television after becoming the second Indian to join the 300 club, Kumble said that Leipus was primarily responsible in ensuring that he could get back to the cricket field after his shoulder surgery.

Players coming out openly, in this fashion, to support their coach and physio is unparalleled, especially in Indian cricket. And there is no denying that the stance taken by the senior players, led by the captain, forced Dalmiya to back down and not go through with the sacking of Wright and Leipus.

To my mind, that support, that statement of Ganguly's, is worth a big hundred. On any wicket, against any opposition.

The return of Sachin and India

by Avinash Subramaniam

August 18, 2001

So we lost the tour to Sri Lanka. (We will.) Our batsmen failed. Srinath made a lacklustre return, yet again, to the Indian attack. As usual. (Come day 1 of the series, a day when most spearhead's would be licking their lips, example McGrath, we got an almost spearhead. But then, Srinath has always been a bit of an almost McGrath.) Maybe it's time we stopped expecting him to be a spearhead. Maybe he's too nice a man to tell us. Maybe most of us will agree we need a spearhead with just a bit more. Maybe, just maybe, we need to think about it.

One thing we needn't think much about is handing Prasad his retirement papers. Come on guys, how much longer are you going to make Mohanty, Harvinder and gang wait? Agarkar, though, can wait a bit longer. We've waited really long for the all-rounder in him to appear. And nothing of that sort has happened. To sum up this thoughtlet, reduce the pressure on the reluctant spearhead Srinath, drop Prasad, force Agarkar to spend more time with himself and some sensible thoughts and end the injustice being meted out to the Mohantys and Harvinders of the world. (And I haven't even mentioned a rejuvenated Nehra.)

What if we will get pummeled in Sri Lanka, all is not lost. (Even if it looks like, for now, in Sri Lanka.) It's okay that just when we were hoping it would be business as unusual, that the cup was half full, that it was a time for continuity, that Sourav would come good and... nothing of that sort has happened. We'll just do what we're so good at. We'll turn to God. Our God. My God. Our Superhero. Our Captain Invincible. Our... everything. Our Sachin.

Welcome back Sachin. The 'Gang of four' that tormented you the last time is gone. The team is more united than ever. The think tank is in place. The team has a physio. (A real one.) The coach is on your side. Sourav is an intelligent, gracious and a deliciously, emotionally, patriotic man. (Most of all he is intelligent. Intelligent enough to know his second coming will come. Every good man has a second coming and does a better job of it. Sunny did. Kapil did. Azza did. Sachin will. And so will Sourav. His highness, the Maharajah will willingly step aside for the Boss of this big moment.)

Sachin, the brief is clear. As always, we expect the world from you. We expect you to make the transition to the next level. We expect you to relish the prospect of scaling yet another seemingly insurmountable mountain. We expect you to take India to the top. We expect you to right a few wrongs. We know you have grown since those difficult years. We believe you will grab the moment. We believe. Surely you know what's around the corner. Why not Dravid? Because Dravid might die of a heart gone mad from pressure. Please don't mess with a man who's finally got his head in the aggressive place. He's doing too much right. And makes a brilliant vice-captain. And don't forget, he's aggressive, aggressive and aggressive. Nothing must take the last three away from him. Back to Sachin.

First things first, sack the captain. No, don't sack him. Sourav deserves better. He's been an outstanding captain. Ask the players, and they're the ones that matter... the only ones, they'll tell you. Then it's agreed, Sourav's been super emotional, surely, and a super captain, definitely. Thus, he must to be rewarded for one of the two jobs, well done. By taking the job away from him. This is the time to shield him. Give him space. Acknowledge the contribution he has made, in the short time he has been at the helm, to Indian cricket. And if it sounds like a retirement speech, it's anything but that. You just got to look at how much good the break has done for Sachin. (You will.)

Once again, with feeling, welcome back Sachin for captain. (Hold those bullets! Please.) Again!? We know what it did to him. You know what it did to him. You're the one who so beautifully articulated the installing of Sourav in the hot seat. And now this? You're just like the others.

Not if you make Sachin open the innings. Now you're mad. (Yawn, tell me something new.)

Remember what happened when Sachin opened in one-dayers? (In case you don't, he broke all records.) But they will say Test cricket is different. Like Sachin doesn't know that. Like Sourav, Sachin will do anything for India. Like Sourav, his heart also spells I-N-D-I-A. And unlike Sourav, Sachin has the ammunition to deal with anything the bowlers can throw at him. He did it when he was stuck leading the wrong men, he'll do it even better in the changed circumstances. Sachin, the batting genius, will make it happen as Sachin the opening batsman and captain. (Incidentally, he is the only Indian whose batting form was among the best of the best in the side even when he was leading the side.)

Consider this, if you haven't already, among the many targets Sachin sets... wants, it's another shot at the captaincy. Let's do one better. Let's give him an opportunity to go for those huge scores. A stronger reason to bring the increased focus and tighter game-play his batting could do with. And an open road to the next level of insane greatness that's so within his grasp. (In the role of the man born out of a Sachin-meets-Sunny. What a perfect batsman that would make! Can you see Sachin? We can.)

The same something that always tells me things tells me this is it. The challenge of a second coming, Das, Laxman, Dravid, Sourav -- his form will return - in the top five, five genuine bowlers - Kumble, Bajju, Zaheer, Nehra, Srinath... now that's a bowling attack - and a keeper he can count on are just some of things right about this time. (Well, ok, the keeper is still not much of a batsman. At least he's earnest and patriotic.) Thank you Sourav. (You'll be back.) And hello Sachin, welcome back.

Ladies and gentlemen, also welcome the 15 for the Tests in South Africa, assuming the unfit ones are fit: Sachin, Das, Rahul, Laxman, Sourav, Dahiya, Kumble, Bajju, Srinath, Zaheer, Nehra, Sehwag, Yuvi, Mohanty, Harvinder or maybe Ajit. (Sachin the, new, improved, recharged and hungrier-than-ever, ever captain-cum-opening batsman should be given that prerogative. Let's not strangle the man the way we did the last time we gave him the job.)

What say? (I thought you'd say that.)

PS: Names like loose cannon, agent provocateur and other unmentionable ones welcomed at s.avi@mailcity.com .

Lloyd's Windies or Waugh's Aussies?

by Harsha Bhogle

December 12, 2000

A world record inevitably draws comparisons across eras and so must Australia’s dream run in Test cricket. Whatever standards you choose to judge them by, they are an outstanding team. Unlike teams from the sub-continent, they travel well, unlike the West Indies they are organised and have a very strong team feeling and unlike the South Africans, they add flair to their efficiency. Without any doubt, they are the best team in the world, but before we shower the thoroughly well-deserved praise on them, we need to place their performance in the context of the kind of cricket the world is playing.

When we were in Nairobi, Ian Chappell was telling us a story that is relevant to this issue. There is no better narrator of cricket in the world at the moment, and none as colourful, so I will try and get by without the actual quotes but the core of the story is just as significant.

Apparently Chris Cairns, in the middle of a great run of success with bat and ball, asked Chappell if he was among those who thought that the only good cricket played was in his era.

No, said Chappell, but asked by way of comparison, how often someone like Glenn McGrath would be pasted for three hours or more by the opposition with not a hope of getting a wicket. When you bowled to the likes of Gary Sobers and Rohan Kanhai, Chappell said, that was a very real possibility and so you needed to add patience and great tactical thinking to your armoury.

I remembered that story when I saw McGrath get 10 for 27 at Brisbane against the worst West Indies team in living memory. It made me wonder, and to be honest Chappell was making that point as well, whether Australia's success coincides with one of the bleakest batting phases in the history of the game.

Let us leave out Australia's batsmen because their bowlers do not have to bowl to them. And so, apart from Sachin Tendulkar, there is not a single batsman in world cricket today that bowlers need to lose sleep over; certainly not in the kind of conditions you experience in Australia.

In the twelve matches that Australia won, all they came up against were Andy Flower, Saeed Anwar and Inzamam ul Huq, Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly. With the exception of Dravid, who was in dreadful form in Australia, none of the others have a reputation for travelling well. Invariably Australia’s new ball bowlers were picking up wickets against very poor opening combinations and exposing the middle order to a bouncy, seaming ball. It could be argued, and with great merit, that this had as much to do with the ability of McGrath and Brett Lee. But with great respect to their skill, taking the new ball against Mohammad Wasim, Wajahatullah Wasti, Devang Gandhi, VVS Laxman, MSK Prasad, Craig Spearman and anybody from Zimbabwe wasn’t the most daunting international assignment !

In fact, apart from Saeed Anwar and Sanath Jayasuriya, both of whom have a distinct preference for Asian conditions, and to a lesser extent Gary Kirsten and Michael Atherton who is in the evening of his career (and averages under 40) there isn't a single world class opening batsman in the game today.

Does that explain why more and more Tests are finishing in three or four days?

So while freely admitting that Australia are by far the best cricket team in the world at the moment, and that they are among the best there has been, I would suggest a little word of caution. To be fair to them, it is not Australia’s fault that the rest of the world is playing such poor cricket but to be classified as the greatest ever, they need to stack up against Clive Lloyd’s West Indies team of the late seventies and the early eighties and that, I suspect, would be a bit unrealistic.

The two teams have a lot in common. A strong top order, a wicketkeeper who was an outstanding batsman, very high quality fast bowling and resilient lower order batting. They were both brilliant fielding sides as well, a factor that sometimes tends to get lost amidst the other skills on display. Australia might seem to have an additional quality with the presence of a great leg spinner in Shane Warne but I suspect the extraordinary fast bowling ability of the West Indies might have overcome that; indeed it did overcome just about everything!

So here is how they stack up. The West Indies with Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Gomes, Logie, Lloyd, Dujon, Marshall, Holding, Garner and Roberts. Australia with Slater, Blewett or Hayden, Langer, the two Waughs, Ponting, Gilchrist, Warne, Lee, McGrath and Kasprowicz or Gillespie or Miller or Fleming.

There is no comparison with the first three. Slater has had flashes of brilliance and Blewett soldiered for a while but they would be the first to give way to Greenidge and Haynes. Langer has done very good duty for Australia, the kind Gomes did for the West Indies, but up against Richards, anyone would suffer. The two Waughs would earn the Australians valuable points against Gomes and Logie and given that Lloyd was struggling a bit, Ponting might earn a draw for Australia there. Dujon was brilliant and acrobatic, a very classy batsman but Gilchrist averages 56 in his first eleven Tests and is a match winner with the bat so another point to Australia, but only just.

The West Indies did not have a weak link in their bowling with four all-time great fast bowlers in one side and when they were on, the surface did not seem to matter too much. With Warne, McGrath and Lee, Australia have a very good trio but the fourth has at best been a decent support bowler and it is only the poor quality of the opposition batting that has prevented that from being shown up.

I would go for the greater all-round strength of the West Indies but I wouldn't engage Steve Waugh in a debate on it !!

The legislation of character

by Ashwin Mahesh

July 9, 2001

This past week, West Indian wicket-keeper Ridley Jacobs received a three-game suspension after investigations into an incident during the final qualifying ODI game against India in Zimbabwe, namely the dismissal of Virender Shewag. Television replays showed that Jacobs had stumped Shewag with the ball clearly not in the hand he used to break the wickets. International Cricket Council match referee Denis Lindsay, after consultations with the West Indian captain and manager as well as the Zimbabwe Cricket Union chief David Ellman-Brown, announced the suspension that will force the wicket-keeper batsman to sit out the next three internationals immediately following the tournament.

According to the announcement, the match referee found Jacobs guilty of breach of the Players and Team Officials Code C2, namely: Players and/or Team Officials shall at no time engage in conduct unbecoming to their status which could bring them or the game of cricket into disrepute. In addition, the referee found Jacobs guilty of transgressing the Spirit of Cricket [Point #5 of the Official ICC Laws of Cricket 2000 Code], namely: It is against the Spirit of the Game to indulge in cheating or any sharp practice. The match referee noted that whilst Jacobs did not claim the stumping, he had more than ample opportunity to recall batsman Shewag which he failed to do.

There is little doubt that stunning revelations of match-fixing around the world have brought us the administrative crackdown on un-gentlemanlike conduct. The legislation of character, however, shows little understanding of its nature, or even the sequence of on-field events.

Of this incident, note the complete absence of "proper" conduct on the part of many others who had every opportunity to observe Jacobs on television immediately after the fall of the wicket. The referee insists that it is plain to see that the batsman is not fairly dismissed. Yet, rather than permit him to carry on by overruling the umpire's verdict, he instead hauls up the hapless player on the charge of behaving in an unbecoming manner! The simplistic notion that Jacobs knew Shewag was not out doesn't fly - the match referee knew this just as well if not more reliably so, watching on TV! The administrative sleight of hand in disciplining players is silly; what might have passed for simple error in judgement is decried as un-gentlemanlike!

And what of the status referred to in handing down Jacobs's suspension? How exalted is this? And how real? Today's cricketer, after all, is not the idle gentleman of times past who derived his social standing quite independent of the sport. After a turn of his arm and a couple of good knocks down the field, his mates and opponents on the field do not retire to comfortable evenings at the theater with wives in tow. In bygone England, with its many professed virtues imprinted on the game, the average bloke on the field today would be regarded as a talented lad, even if a bit dull. And most importantly, his sporting talents alone would not secure him a status unavailable through other means.

The economic fortunes of today's athlete are not typically obtained at birth, either; his acceptance into cliques of the haves isn't automatic. His choices are often not his alone, and must reflect the aspirations of family as well. His education and training do not attempt to provide coats of propriety in already secure lives. Instead they offer windows of opportunity where little else might exist. His ascension to prominence reflects the value our societies place on fierce competition. When reward for victory is the unyielding benchmark for glory in sport at every stage of development, can the highest expression of the game alone demand a different standard of behavior?

Moreover, an imposed standard of judging deviance is necessarily fraught with some cultural dangers. If cheating at stumping rates a three-match ban, how much of a ban does telling your opponent to f*** off rate? How serious a penalty should one receive for calling his opponent a bas***d? After all, gentleman do not shove smaller-made opponents, they do not indulge in profanity that suggests players of opposing sides indulge in intercourse with their mothers. They do not hurl abuse at their opponents and pretend it is mere competitiveness. Nonetheless, there is a culture of tolerance for this nonchalant dismissiveness of an opponent that reflects only the western understanding of gentlemanlike conduct, and even this limited notion is pretense!

Without a proper examination of cultural context, this assertiveness from a bygone colonial time will collapse under the weight of its contradictions. The reference to acceptable conduct sounds admirable, but someone must judge where the bar lies, and yet to the satisfaction of all. Unlike a widely accepted standard for proper conduct that reflects reality, an imposed benchmark must not only be fair, it must appear so as well.

In short order, we will see allegations of cultural insensitivity - or even worse, racism - in these judgements, in much the same way we now regard decisions relating to sledging and dissent

Culture isn't the only tricky turn on the road to meaningful reform, either. Indeed, even we concede that there is such a thing as a universal standard of proper behavior, the administrators must additionally recognize the individual nature of conduct in ways that this week's decision does not suggest they do.

Once before on these pages, we looked at the game and its reputation as a battleground of gentlemen, and in many respects, found this assessment to be wanting. Cricket is no more an honorable game than any other competitive sport, and the pretense that its traditions reflect a higher standard of human behavior is essentially self-adulation among the administrators, many of whom could not stand the scrutiny they subject the players to! Would the gentlemanly Lord Maclaurin, for example, care to present the full details of his investigations into Chris Lewis's allegations?

The truth is, as in other arenas of life, sometimes the competitive thing to do isn't the decent thing to do. Ultimately, any reference to gentlemanlike conduct hinges on recognizing this important difference, whereby those who see value in making competitive choices nonetheless find virtue in forsaking the advantage they would derive from it. In their zeal to enforce minimum standards of acceptable behaviour, however, the administrators appear to forget that without the opportunity to act in unbecoming ways the claim to gentlemanlike conduct is unsubstantiated at best.

Perhaps these premonitions of discord are unwarranted. The future of cricket may well be exemplary, with every competitor upholding the highest standards of ethical conduct at every level of the game. Admittedly, a little administrative arm-twisting that moves the sport down the road to that desirable end cannot harm the sport. But enforcement isn't the essence of character. A bit like Henry Higgins, we are wont to school the instinct of the naturally gifted into casts that appear presentable. The contrived facade of such attempts, however, ignores the inherent virtues of Eliza Doolittle and recognizes only the morality of authority. Measured only by orderly outcomes, even prison will seem gentlemanlike!

In an ideal world, the stumper would recall the dismissed opponent, not from fear of a three-match ban, but from the simple knowledge of the truth. Batsman would walk when given out, and fielders would make legitimate appeals that do not harass the umpire. And character would seem splendid in cricketers who made these choices, knowing fully the benefits of doing otherwise. The legislation of conduct, however well-intended, rates a poor second to honest sportsmanship.

Cricket articles from Cricinfo.com

Sri Lanka crush Zimbabwe but sterner tests lie ahead

by Charlie Austin

7 January 2002

Sri Lanka completed their third consecutive Test series win on Monday when they crushed a poor Zimbabwean side by an innings and 94 runs at Asgiriya International Stadium in Kandy.

It was a predictable outcome with the standard of Zimbabwe's cricket having plummeted to such depressingly low levels. The visitors could not compete with a rejuvenated Sri Lankan side in tailor-made conditions for Muttiah Muralitharan.

So, although the hosts deserve credit for having now one seven Tests in a row, setting new standards for the subcontinent, it was achieved against the weakest Test nations - Bangladesh, India, West Indies. Thus, it is of dubious relevance to a team whose cricket board aspires to a place in the top three.

In the coming year sterner tests lie ahead, with tours to England in early summer, South Africa and Australia. Only then can the true quality of Sanath Jayasuriya's side be accurately gauged.

Zimbabwean captain, Stuart Carlisle, was impressed with Sri Lanka but was not convinced that they can yet compete with the big boys abroad: "They are a really good unit and have a balanced young side. But it's not easy to place them because all seven wins have been at home, where they are extremely hard to beat - all teams struggle here."

He added: "The big test will be when they go overseas. In England and Australia where the ball moves around a bit off the seam I think they could be in a bit of trouble."

Sri Lankan coach Dav Whatmore's pleasure at winning was also brushed with realism: "Life is good at the moment but tougher examinations lie ahead and our feet are firmly on the ground."

"Nevertheless, it's reassuring that we are putting some consistent performances together. In the past we had the ability to be as good as anyone but on certain days we would throw it away and lose the Test match."

Zimbabwe threatened a brave fightback in the morning when Gavin Rennie (68) played boldly, hitting man of the match Muttiah Muralitharan out of the attack and cruising to his seventh Test fifty.

But on the brink of the first drinks break fast bowler Charitha Fernando, who fully justified his controversial inclusion against the wishes of the selectors with a four-wicket haul, found some reverse swing and trapped Andy Flower lbw for 11, ending a 58 run partnership for the fourth wicket (109 for four).

Fernando followed up with the wicket of the Rennie with a yorker-length delivery that swung back painfully onto the left-hander's boot.

Muralitharan, recalled into the attack from the other end, quickly disposed of Craig Wishart (3) who top-edged a sweep and was caught at short fine leg to leave Zimbabwe on 149 for six at lunch.

Again, after the interval, Zimbabwe briefly resisted before the reintroduction of Fernando precipitated the final collapse during which the last four wickets fell for 15 runs.

Grant Flower (21) gloved a catch behind as he tried to take evasive action, Douglas Marillier (9) was forced onto the back foot and trapped lbw by Muralitharan, Travis Friend was clean bowled for a duck and Henry Olonga (1) holed out at square leg.

Muralitharan was the deserved man of the match after picking up 13 for 115 in the game, which takes him to 395 Test victims in just 71 games with the prospect of him becoming the seventh man to the 400 mark in the final Test starting Saturday.

Clearly still hampered with his injured finger, he wore a protective casing whilst fielding, but is expected to play in Galle. Whatmore certainly thought so: "Knowing him, he would still play if he only had one leg."

Other changes to the Sri Lankan side are possible, to give exposure to the reserves, but skipper Jayasuriya appeared reluctant to make wholesale changes.

"We need back-up players but we can't make a big change because there is only one Test at home and it is important to give our regular players as much confidence as possible before we travel overseas," he said.

Pakistan tour opener ends in tame draw

Shahryar Khan

7 January 2002

The three-day match in BKSP between Bangladesh A and Pakistan ended in a draw today. With an overnight lead of 159 runs, the Pakistanis batted for two more sessions in the third and the final day. As a result the match finished without any sort of excitement.

The left-handed Shahdab Kabir and Taufeeq Umar batted slowly on a foggy morning to add 90 runs before lunch. To everyone's surprise Pakistan batted on instead of declaring. Tareq Aziz trapped Umar lbw for 36 when the total was 194.

Wicket-keeper Rashid Latif made 29 before retiring; Razzaq joined Shahdab and hit three fours and three massive sixes to delight the crowd. Finally Enamul Haque removed him by shattering his off-stump. The all-rounder made a rapid 41 off 54 balls.

Shahdab was deprived of his hundred as he lost patience and tried to lift Fahim Muntasir over the long-on fielder who held the catch firmly.

Surprisingly Waqar Younis decided to promote his lower order for batting practice, abandoning the idea of declaring and taking a chance to win the match. He, Saqlain, Shoaib and Danish Kaneria batted for hours, letting the crowd watch their defensive technique. When Pakistan finally declared at tea on 242 for seven, there was nothing left to enjoy.

Shoaib Akhtar uprooted the off-stump of Mehrab Hosaain for a duck when Bangladesh had made just two runs after tea. At 13 they lost Nafiz Iqbal, who edged a Razzaq delivery to Rashid Latif. Sensible batting from Hannan Sarkar and Tushar Imran eased the pressure and Bangladesh ended on 53 for three. Hannan's wicket was taken by burly Inzamam-ul-Haq, who is very much an occasional bowler.

Indian eves begin series with comprehensive victory

by Anand Vasu

6 January 2002

In a low-scoring affair, the Indian women began their five-match series against England with a thumping eight-wicket win at the India Cements-Guru Nanak College Grounds at Chennai. As predicted, it was a test of England's skill on the field against India's batting prowess. The former was rendered impotent by England's inability to put enough runs on the board on a flat batting track. On being put in to bat, the visitors were knocked over for 106, a total that was never likely to stretch the Indians.

It all began with a lively opening spell from seamers Jhulan Goswami and Suneeta Singh (born Suneeta Kanojia). With conditions being overcast, the ball moved around in the air just enough for Jhulan to find the edge of Caroline Atkins' (10) bat. After the fall of the first wicket with the score on 20, England lost wickets at regular intervals. The seamers gave way to the tantalising spin of Neetu David. The left-arm spinner, thought by many to be of the highest pedigree, strolled in effortlessly, bowled an impeccable line and length, coupled with teasing flight, to scalp 4/14 from nine overs. The effort, the fourth-best by an Indian woman in limited-overs games, earned her the Hero Honda player of the match award.

Mandie Godliman (9), Laura Newton (20), Kate Lowe (5) and Clare Connor, who top-scored with 22, found David too hot to handle. As England coach John Harmer summarised so aptly after the game, "Neetu David has caused problems for batsmen for ages now. She bowls very accurately and has the ability to turn the ball. You have to be on guard against her every ball. Even then, she will eventually get one to jag away and surprise you. She is a fine bowler," he said, with genuine admiration.

At the end, England managed just 106 all out from 44.4 overs. Coach Harmer realises that this was never going to be enough and that the team needed to work out a few things before the next game. "It is an attitude thing really. The players need to settle down and start to hit the ball well. A positive approach is the only one that will work, most of the time," he said. The former Aussie coach explained that much of it was in the mind. "I think they were a bit overawed by the whole situation. It is a mental thing rather than anything technical. That part of their game is fine. What they need to do is release all that energy when they are at the wicket," he said.

With the Indians, however, there were no such problems. Required to score at a sedate pace of 2.14 runs an over, openers Anju Jain and Jaya Sharma got off to a slow start. As a ploy to change things around, England opened the bowling with left-arm spinner Dawn Holden. The tactic appeared to work as Sharma (2) was out caught off the accurate Holden.

In company of skipper Anjum Chopra, Jain began to play a few strokes, tucking the ball neatly off her pads on more than one occasion. After making 21 and looking good for more, Jain was trapped lbw by Arran Thompson. India were almost halfway to their target at 51/2 at this stage. The fall of Jain's wicket brought Mithali Raj and her dazzling array of strokes to the wicket.

The middle-order bat, who showed tremendous promise in the CricInfo Women's World Cup before being laid low by illness, timed the ball impeccably from very first ball, opening her account with a classic straight drive for four. Raising the excitement level considerably, Mithali flicked and drove through the off side at will. Striking an unbeaten 36 off just 33 balls, Mithali found the fence on seven occasions - more times than all the other batsmen in the match put together. What set Mithali apart from the others was the amount of time she had to play her strokes, and with it, an ability to find gaps at will.

Chopra remained unbeaten on a well-compiled 26 (64 balls) when the winning runs were scored with more than 20 overs to spare.

In all this, one cannot ignore the fact that England gave away 25 extras - something a team can ill-afford when defending any kind of score, leave alone a small one.

In all the carnage, however, one must spare a thought for young Sarah Clarke. The 19-year-old leggie had a forgettable debut, making a duck with the bat and following it up with figures of 0/28 from 3.4 overs. This series, for players like Clarke, is very much a step in the learning process. It must also be remembered that Charlotte Edwards pulled out with a knee injury before the start of the tour. More recently, Claire Taylor ruled herself out by injuring herself in a practice session. Without two of their top batsmen, England will need some of the youngsters to come good. For Clarke, that wasn't to be today.

Sanath Jayasuriya warns of tougher assignments ahead

by Charlie Austin

7 January 2002

As a rampant Sri Lankan side romped to a predictable series win against Zimbabwe, captain Sanath Jayasuriya warned of tougher challenges ahead in 2002.

"Performing overseas is very important for us and we now have some tough series coming up against England and South Africa," he warned. "There is now a big responsibility on all of us to continue are success there."

"You never know when the side will have a bad day but at the moment the team is on the way up, heading in the right direction and performing well," he added.

Coach Dav Whatmore was delighted with the team's newly found consistency: "We have always had the ability to be as good as anyone in the world, but in the past we would throw away Test matches with bad sessions and days.

"It's reassuring, for the players and the Sri Lankan public, that we are now putting together consistent performances," he said.

"Admittedly, all seven wins have been made at home, but you can only beat the opposition put in front of you.

"Life is good at the moment and the players have the right to enjoy this victory."

"Nevertheless, the players now that there are some greater examinations to come and their feet are firmly on the ground.

"We have set the objective of being in the top three Test teams and by an large we have achieved that – we now need to maintain it."

Muttiah Muralitharan, the man of the match after his 13 for 115 match-haul, believes that the side can now be successful overseas.

"At home I think we are second only to Australia now, but we have to prove ourselves in England and South Africa," he said.

"I think we can seriously think of winning overseas because the side is playing as a team and a number of good fast bowlers are now coming through."

Stuart Carlisle was also impressed by Sri Lanka, though he had reservations as to how they will fare overseas.

"They are a really good unit and have a balanced young side," said Carlisle. "However, it's not easy to place them because all seven wins have been at home, where they are extremely hard to beat.

"The big test will be when they go overseas. In England and Australia where the ball moves around a bit off the seam I think they could be in a bit of trouble."

He wished he had someone of the caliber of Muralitharan in his side.

"Murali is a world-class bowler," he said. "There are plenty of strategies about how to counter him, but at the end of the day he is very hard to play.

"I wonder what would have been the result if we had him in our side. He is a real asset for Sri Lanka and they should be really proud of him."

Carlisle admitted it was difficult captaining a losing side and didn't hide his disappointment with the team's performance.

"It was very disappointing. There were a couple of careless shots but on the whole I think we were a bit too tentative and sometimes negative.

"In the bowling department we have got to learn from Sri Lanka. They bowled to a plan, were tight and got the ball to reverse swing. In contrast, we bowled far too many four balls.

"But I do think the talent is there. We have the players but not the self-belief.

"We now have to use the final Test as preparation for our tour to India and try to put together a decent first innings score."

Jayasuriya appeared reluctant to make changes for the final Test.

"We need back-up players but we cant make any big changes because there is only one Test match left at home and we need to give the players as much confidence of possible," he said.

He expects Muralitharan to be fit: "Murali didn't have any problems in the second innings. In fact, he was troubled more with his spinning finger than the dislocated one. He now has a chance to take 400 in Galle and he will play."

Clare Connor - Captain, above all else

Anand Vasu

3 January 2002

She is 25 years old and is already on her third tour of India. Clare Connor is in Chennai leading England against India in a five one-day and one-off Test series that will do much to promote the women's game, a fact that the left-arm spinner knows only too well. Despite being mobbed constantly, she took time off after a lengthy practice session to talk to CricInfo.

"The attention has been brilliant. We knew it would be exciting to come to India. The cricket would be really appreciated," she began. "We get a fair bit of publicity, and that makes us feel that we are here to do something important, which we are. It is good to know that the profile of women's cricket is being raised." As a captain of an international team, Connor is doing all she can to raise public interest in the game, not something that can be said about all captains.

For Connor, who has seven Tests and 50 one-dayers to her credit already, it was not a case of being earmarked for captaincy from an early age. "I didn't think I would be leading England till it happened, really!" she said, in all modesty. "I suppose I started thinking I had a chance when I was made vice-captain in 1999. I took over the captaincy just six months later, so I didn't have a long bedding in period or anything. I love captaincy. My personal performance has improved, and the team performances are improving."

While appearing confident, Connor realised that her English team are not exactly world-beaters. "We know we are a young squad and have quite a way to go. With the help of our new coach, John Harmer from Australia, I hope I am leading them in the right direction. We have got good support, and I just hope that some of the girls get confidence from this tour and that we have some good results." If Harmer's record is anything to go by - he has coached Australia to three World Cup finals - then England will learn more, quicker than ever now.

Personally, however, Connor's biggest moments have been clouded by the team's failure to win. When she scalped 5/49, including a hat-trick, against India at Northampton in 1999, Anjum Chopra made a century and India won by 86 runs. After that, it was the turn of debutante Australian Michelle Goszko (204) to ruin the party when Connor mopped up 5/65 at Shenley in 2001, where England lost by an innings and 140 runs. "It is all right that I did well and the team lost; it is the team performance that matters at the end of the day. Michelle Goszko batted brilliantly at Shenley to get a double hundred, and so did Chopra at Northampton. But I admit that it was strange to get 5/49, including a hat-trick, and not end up on the winning side. There you go, that's cricket for you."

Sudha Shah, former captain of the Indian team, once said in an interview to CricInfo, "We don't want to be compared to the men." It is a recurring theme with many women cricketers, but one that Connor does not subscribe to. "The comparisons to the men's game do not really irritate me. I think it is a natural question to ask why women's cricket isn't supported as much and that kind of thing," she said. "We are amateurs, while the men are professionals. Even that is changing, with sponsorship from the national lottery coming in. That lets us train more and maybe even go part-time with our jobs. Those comparisons don't get me agitated at all."

When she is not turning her arm over for England, Connor teaches English at Brighton College. "I love teaching English. The massive advantage is that they developed my cricket themselves, so they are totally supportive of me going away on tour. I owe them a huge amount, really, both for the fact that they coached me at cricket from the age of eight and for letting me come out on tours like this."

Teaching English apart, it is obvious, from watching the enthusiasm with which Connor practices, that cricket gives her a great deal of joy. "Being a cricketer means everything to me. Pulling on an England shirt means the world. It is something not everyone has the opportunity to do," she said. "It is something I am very proud of. I am also keen to pass it on to some of my teammates, who are making their debuts; I hope it means as much to them as well."

Turning her attention to the current tour of India, Connor was quick to state that she has not set any specific targets for herself. "My first priority is the team. If I lead the side well, maybe it will earn the side a few wickets in the field. If I bowl well and pick up two or three wickets a game, that would be great," she explained. "My captaincy is the most important thing to me, and I know that my performance will come if I am leading the team well," she said, with a confidence difficult to doubt.

Not too long ago, another England captain, Nasser Hussain, came under severe criticism for employing "negative" tactics against the Indians. Indian legend Sunil Gavaskar went as far as saying, in a newspaper column, "Without the slightest doubt, England are the most unattractive and boring side to have played cricket in India." The little master would almost certainly reconsider his stance if he had a chat with Connor. "We have got two left-arm spinners - myself and Dawn Holden. She is a big turner of the ball and will bowl over the wicket. I do not know if we will need to bowl a leg-side line this tour," said Connor. "I bowl around the wicket," she added, with a smile that some might describe as mischievous. If Clare Joanne Connor is anything to go by, this tour will be anything but "unattractive and boring."