Since Alec Stewart retired five years ago England have dropped keepers almost as often as the keepers have dropped catches or flopped with the bat

Lawrence Booth29-Jul-2008

“Wicketkeepers,” wrote Ray Robinson, “are like office-boys in at least one way – few people take notice of them until something gets in a mess, a folder or a chance is lost, an ink pot or a catch spilt, a mail or a stumping missed.” Robinson came from Australia, where Adam Gilchrist would lend the office-boy phenomenon a seminal twist half a century later: these days keepers have to perform like an extension of the top six as well as be ballerinas behind the stumps. And nowhere is this dual imperative more obsessively applied than in England, where the selectors have picked an average of a frontline keeper a year since 2001 as they seek a permanent replacement for the ever more fabled Alec Stewart. If, for the time being, Tim Ambrose has wedged his gloves in the revolving door, it is a door that only ever seems a bungled catch, a fluffed stumping or a few single-figure scores away from moving once more.Yes, times have changed since the days when Ranjitsinhji could write in his without too much fear of contradiction that “one thing is quite certain – it pays to select the
best wicketkeeper quite irrespective of his batting ability”. Back in Ranji’s day it was not unheard of for a keeper to bat at No. 11. Now he is in trouble if he does not average 35. And, as Matt Prior discovered, he may be in trouble even if he averages 40: since none of the 20 regular candidates on the county circuit averages that many over a first-class career – Prior and Hampshire’s Nic Pothas come closest – the decision to drop him after the tour of Sri Lanka struck some as harsh. Yet that is the fate of the 21st-century gloveman. “Since Stewart and Gilchrist came on the scene, the benchmark has changed,” says Jon Batty of Surrey. “You have to score runs as well as take catches. The game can never be the same again and those two have accelerated its evolution.”In fact, English cricket has been mulling over the cultured keeper v batsman-with-gauntlets debate for longer than that. When Len Hutton chose his World XI in his 1956 book he went for Les Ames ahead of Godfrey Evans “because of his superior batting”, despite the fact that “as a wicketkeeper Les Ames was safe without being brilliant in the Godfrey Evans manner”. Two years earlier Jim Parks had embarked on a 46-Test career that he admits was based primarily on his ability in front of the stumps. And there is plenty of sympathy for Jack Russell in the autobiography of Alec Stewart, Russell’s replacement whenever England desperately needed to win a Test, which in the 1990s was quite often. “I felt so sorry for Jack,” wrote Stewart after Russell was rewarded for an electric leg-side stumping to dismiss Dean Jones off Gladstone Small in 1990-91 by being left out of the next Test at Adelaide. “I did have doubts about taking over from such a wonderful performer.”

.

On a larger scale the doubts have intensified: as the search for a new Stewart threatens to rival the hunt for a new Botham, a whole generation of English keepers has felt the selectorial pinch. “Since he retired the spotlight has been magnified on us,” says Essex’s James Foster, who stepped in briefly when
Stewart opted out of the India tour in 2001-02 but has not added to his seven Test caps since
December 2002. “Everyone has expected an easy replacement but that was never going to be the case. He was a wonderful player.”Even though Stewart’s Test average while playing as a keeper was a fraction under 35, compared with more than 46 as a batsman only, his impact – to say nothing of Gilchrist, Andy Flower, Kumar Sangakkara, Mark Boucher, Brendon McCullum and Mahendra Singh Dhoni – is clear: no keeper in England currently has a lower first-class average than Phil Mustard’s 25.97. To put that in context: even in the summer of 1990, one of the most run-laden seasons in English history, seven of the regular county keepers fell short of Mustard’s stat. Glamorgan’s Colin Metson, so gifted behind the stumps, averaged 13 that year, which these days would be a dropping offence; only eight keepers averaged over 30. As the table at the end of this article shows, Mustard is one of only four keepers on the circuit today who averages below 30.

So has the post-Stewart hangover created a circuit of batsmen/keepers rather than keeper/batsmen, one in which an inevitable repercussion is the kind of behind-the-stumps uncertainty that cost Prior his place? Chris Read, widely regarded as the best out-and-out keeper in England at the moment, thinks the “standard of glovework isn’t as high as when I first started [in 1998]”. Parks, who believes Ambrose deserves his crack at international cricket, says the lack of quality offspinners has made the modern keeper less adept at standing up. “In all my Tests we generally had two offspinners – from David Allen, Fred Titmus, Ray Illingworth and John Mortimore – but I’ve noticed keepers recently taking two movements to get the ball back to the stumps, so they miss stumping chances. They take a pace
back as they take the ball. I was always taught you work in a half-circle around the stumps.”Keith Piper, once Warwickshire’s keeper and now their 2nd XI coach, has a different view. “I think the next generation will be more in the Metson/Piper/Russell mould,” he says, tacitly acknowledging
his own batting average of a smidgen under 20. “These things go in cycles, like fast bowlers. There are a lot of keepers coming through now in the 16-18 age bracket who are more keeper/batsmen than
the other way round. Ben Brown at Sussex is very talented and so is Richard Johnson at Warwickshire. I think he’ll play for England one day and I’m not just saying that because I’m involved with the club.”If Johnson does one day play for England, one only hopes he gets an extended run, because the selectorial chopping and changing has hardly bred confidence among the current crop. Though Geraint
Jones was given 31 successive Tests between 2003-04 and 2006, most of that time was spent in the spotlight mentioned by Foster, and other stints have been much shorter: to the disgust of Rod Marsh,
Jones replaced Read in the Caribbean in 2003-04 after Read had been given the job for eight games; Jones then lost the gloves to Read for two Tests against Pakistan in 2006, reclaimed them for the first three Tests in Australia, only to lose them at Melbourne and Sydney. One of Peter Moores’ first acts as England coach was to pass them straight to Prior, who was duly dropped ten Tests later for his former Sussex team-mate Ambrose. And we have not even mentioned the one-day roles played by Paul Nixon, Mustard, and during the World Twenty20 a year ago, Vikram Solanki.”The selectors are looking for something and they haven’t necessarily found it,” says Read, whose 15-Test career has been divided into four chunks spanning almost eight years. “The press have picked up on that and it’s become a bit of a vicious circle. The confusing thing from the outside is that it isn’t obvious what the selectors are actually looking for. What do they want? Do they want someone who averages 40-plus and smashes it around or someone to take all the catches? I appreciate there’s a middle ground but where do their priorities lie? I think the message has become blurred.”The difficulty of quantifying a wicketkeeper’s contribution to the team effort has not helped. Yet the table above shows it is possible. If you subtract from a wicketkeeper’s Test average the number of byes he concedes per game as well as runs cost per match in dropped catches and missed stumpings, it emerges that Read – who averaged a negligible three runs in errors per Test – has the best net contribution (18.21) of any of Stewart’s potential replacements. Prior, not helped by dropping Mahela Jayawardene twice on his way to 213 in Galle last December, the match that finally did for him, has a negative overall contribution of 22.56 per game. Of course, the extent to which a batsman
cashes in on a reprieve may be the fault of the bowlers as well as the keeper, but the best keepers
inspire their bowlers by taking most things that come their way. For all Prior’s runs, there must
have been a confidence-sapping suspicion, as Ryan Sidebottom may testify, that he was going to
undo his good batting work with the gloves. “Bowlers want the best keeper behind the stumps, the guy
who takes the half-chance to turn a match,” says Piper. “Because you do win games in the field.”

Read’s dilemma – not helped by being what Duncan Fletcher called “a very quiet lad” – has been different from Prior’s. “When I’ve been picked I know it’s not just to keep wicket,” he says. “But I
haven’t scored runs consistently. My record with the bat for England is pretty poor [360 Test runs at less than 19] so I can understand the times when I’ve been dropped. The one thing I regret, though, is
that I never had an extended period to prove myself. I was always in and out of the side and the whole Ashes experience [in 2006-07] was pretty grim, to be honest. I’d had one first-class innings in
four months and then I was thrown into the Melbourne Test on Boxing Day when we were already 3-0 down. I felt pretty out of my depth. If I had been given an extended run and I’d failed, I’d have
put my hand up and said I wasn’t good enough. But I was always filling in for two games and never got a run. It’s a hard environment to come into.”He has a point, especially as keepers seem doomed to play the role of their footballing counterparts: ignored when they do their job, fingered when they make a mistake. But Batty, who was told by
Moores last winter that he came close to selection for the tour of Sri Lanka, is not one for excuses. “It’s difficult to say whether we’re too hard on our keepers in this country,” he says. “The problem is
that when people have been getting the opportunity they haven’t just been making the odd slip-up: there have been several mistakes. Whether they feel under pressure from the start and think they
haven’t got as long as batsmen or bowlers to make an impression, I don’t know. Maybe they feel they’re under the microscope and can’t relax. But good wicketkeepers are ones who don’t make mistakes.
That’s still the most important part of the job.”Robinson, who reckoned the wicketkeeper is “the most important of them all, the cricket field’s VIP”, would be purring at the sound of that, but Batty’s implication is clear: the England job is still up for grabs. And anyone who noticed the little digs at Ambrose during the recent one-dayers against New Zealand – one broadsheet writer lambasted the “folly of not picking Matthew Prior” – might be
persuaded to agree. “There are no stand-out candidates,” says Batty. “No one’s really made the position their own. Tim Ambrose has kept nicely but I still don’t think it is a closed shop. There’s a group of
about five or six of us who could do it.”Read, who says he is “not prepared to give up just yet” on England, argues that it’s “hard to measure people’s success because no one’s really had enough time”, although that modestly ignores his own
strong showing in Table 1. For that reason he feels sorry for Prior, who he says is the best batsmen of all the county keepers but who “needs more belief in his own [wicketkeeping] technique”. Asked
to nominate the two best glovemen in England – without choosing himself – he says: “There are two fellas: James Foster, whose improvement since he was first picked in 2001 has been fantastic; and Ben Scott at Middlesex is a very natural keeper, especially up to the stumps. But he’s got his own little battle with David Nash.”Table 2, which uses batting averages and number of dismissals per match to determine a keeper’s overall standing in the county game, actually places Foster 10th and Scott 16th. Joint-top are Pothas,
who turns 35 in November – not that age prevented a late call-up for Nixon – and Steven Davies, Worcestershire’s 22-year-old England academician. But there is a suspicion that his eggs are currently
placed in the batting basket. “Personally, he doesn’t float my boat,” says Piper. “He gets his runs, but he’s not up there with the best as a keeper.” One experienced county keeper, asked what he thinks of
Davies, replies: “Not a lot.” Batty says: “There aren’t an awful lot of youngsters around.”Of course the table tells only half the story. Batty points out that he has spent the last few seasons opening for Surrey and averaging in the low 40s. The overall positions of Prior (ninth) and Ambrose (13th) are affected by the fact that they had to share the gloves for several seasons at Sussex, thus lowering their average dismissals-per-match figure. Niall O’Brien at Northants, Craig Kieswetter at Somerset, and Steve Snell at Gloucestershire have not been in the game for long enough, while Davies’s stats may be helped by pouching all those outside edges at the traditionally seam-friendly New Road.The truth is that the perfect keeper does not exist: even Gilchrist dropped catches. “People forget that wicketkeepers are human and miss chances,” says Foster. And the nature of the post-Stewart debate is that the focus is often on the new incumbent’s weaker suit anyway. Perhaps the perfect England keeper would have Prior’s batting ability, Read’s glovework, Nixon’s attitude, Batty’s fitness, Foster’s capacity for improvement, with a bit of Mustard’s pinch-hitting and Ambrose’s unflappability thrown in. But until that magical hybrid arrives, we are left with a reminder from Ray Robinson that not a lot changes. “All the mistakes of the wicketkeeper,” he wrote, “and some not perpetrated by him, are mercilessly chalked up against him by the recording angels of the press box.” Expect the debate to run and run.

When a nation came together to view a miracle

Mukul Kesavan25-Jun-2008I watched India win the 1983 World Cup in black and white. I also watched it in colour. Colour television had arrived in 1982 with the Asian Games in Delhi, but my parents weren’t early adopters. So the Indian innings, which I watched at home (including Krishnamachari Srikkanth’s stirring cameo), lives in my mind in period monochrome – 183 in 1983.Srikkanth, who opened, pulled Andy Roberts for four, and I can still, a quarter of a century later, hear that knowing commentator tell us that Roberts had two bouncers: the quick one and the quicker one. The one that Srikkanth had hammered had been the former. He knew, this commentating genius, that Roberts was setting him up. And he was … right. Roberts bowled the faster bouncer and Srikkanth was so surprised that he pulled it for six.But when India collapsed for under 200, the fairy tale seemed over. You have to understand that none of us really thought we could win. This was West Indies, twice champions of the world already. Just to list their bowlers was to finger a rosary of scary modern greats: Roberts, Michael Holding, Malcolm Marshall, Joel Garner. And we were one-day minnows; that we were in the final was a miracle. In the first two World Cup competitions, we had won once, against a minor team.In the break between innings, I did what Indian fans have always done: I consoled myself with individual performances amid the collective wreckage. Individual performance, actually, in the singular: Srikkanth top-scored with 38. Reading the scorecard now, it’s odd to notice that it took him 57 balls to make, because I remember it as a berserker innings.Anyway, after the team folded, we drove to a friend’s house because it seemed too depressing to sit indoors waiting for West Indies to begin killing us. Venkat, who lived a few miles away, had a new colour television. I watched Desmond Haynes and Gordon Greenidge take guard in colour.West Indies didn’t just have the four greatest fast bowlers in cricket, they also had an invincible top order. Haynes and Greenidge had been the best opening partnership in the game for years. No. 3 was Viv Richards, whose on-field aura was more menacing than that of most fast bowlers. No. 4 was the captain, Clive Lloyd, who had been giving Indians a hard time from the time I was 12. And they batted all the way to No. 8.

This perfectly timed, nationally televised victory created a massive captive audience for any company that had the sense to advertise its wares during the course of a cricket match. India hadn’t yet emerged from the days of austerity and high tariff barriers, so this was an untapped ocean of consumers

But colour worked for us. Balwinder Singh Sandhu, the gentlest swing bowler in the history of cricket, got Greenidge to shoulder arms to a slow-motion in-dipper, and that was the end of Greenidge. There was a nasty passage when Richards was cruel to Madan Lal, hitting him for lots of unnecessarily emphatic boundaries, but that ended in colour too, with Kapil Dev in whites bounding across green turf to catch in his brown hands a red ball dropping over his shoulder.We tore ourselves away from that magic box because we had to get home for dinner. By the time we got back, Lloyd, Larry Gomes, and Faoud Bacchus were gone too, consumed, presumably, by the corrosive colour of Venkat’s television. Mohinder Amarnath didn’t let the handicap of my mother’s old black-and-white set get to him: bowling even slower than Sandhu, he winkled out Jeffrey Dujon and Marshall, who were threatening a lower-order resurgence, and then, suddenly, the thing was done.There were people screaming, and little explosions in my corner of Delhi. All the accounts I’ve read of that famous victory have firecrackers going off. And they’re all true, because for once, the phrase “India rejoiced” wasn’t a metaphorical flourish – it was literally true. The World Cup of 1983 was the first cricket event that had a national television audience in India. Indians had watched live cricket on television for years before 1983, but never as a networked national audience. Calcutta, Delhi, Bombay, Madras didn’t watch the same programmes. Only with the Asian Games of 1982 did the National Programme come into being, which linked all of Doordarshan’s broadcasting nodes for the same telecast. The result was that India’s incredible win in 1983 was watched by a single pan-Indian audience, dozens of millions of eyeballs transfixed by a single event.This coincidence of national telecasting and World Cup victory transformed cricket in three ways.It cemented cricket’s primacy in India. This newly consolidated television nation wanted winners, and the Indian cricket team had delivered glory on cue. Two years later our one-day heroes delivered again, when captained by Sunil Gavaskar, they won the World Championship of Cricket, a one-off one-day tournament in Australia, this time in blue costumes (in 1983 the teams wore white). These two victories won cricket a new mass audience that was as interested in savouring the unfamiliar taste of international glory as it was in watching cricket.This perfectly timed, nationally televised victory created a massive captive audience for any company that had the sense to advertise its wares during the course of a cricket match. India hadn’t yet emerged from the days of austerity and high tariff barriers (the Maruti 800 was launched the year we won), so this was an untapped ocean of consumers. Unsurprisingly Dhirubhai Ambani saw the opportunity first and staged the Reliance Cup in 1987. Pepsi moved into India at the end of the decade and began recruiting actors and cricketers for its campaigns because they were the keys to India’s consuming classes. First Kapil, then Mohammad Azharuddin, then Sachin Tendulkar and his generation became rich, and the BCCI became powerful. By the time India began to open up its economy at the start of the 1990s, cricket owned the national audience and was perfectly positioned to milk a subcontinental market.And once it became clear that India owned the world’s largest and most lucrative audience for cricket, the balance of power within world cricket changed decisively. For good and ill, India became the pivot of the ICC, of world cricket. The consequences of this shift in power are still working themselves out.And all of this began that long ago summer evening in 1983, when spectators like me, individually clapping for India, found ourselves part of a national communion.

India’s plan was extremely defensive, but not negative. By persisting withthe wide line, they were relying on a lapse in concentration from thebatsmen for a wicket

Cricinfo staff08-Nov-2008
Simon Katich was forced to play to India’s off-side field © AFP
The third day of the final Test produced only 166 runs in 86.4 overs andyet the contest was absorbing. India showed their hand early by deployingoutrageously lop-sided fields which made it clear that if Australia wantedto score, their batsmen would have to reach out for deliveries wideoutside the off stump. Were India overtly defensive? Or was their tactic anecessary measure? The arguments for both cases are strong. The bottomline, however, is that the strategy worked.Zaheer Khan and Ishant Sharma bowled to the left-handers – Michael Husseyand Simon Katich – with eight fielders on the off side. The only man on theleg side was at mid-on. They complemented their field by bowling a linewide outside off stump. Katich chased and edged one in the second over but thecatch was dropped. Thereafter he chose to be extremely cautious. Bothbatsmen were wary of the two slips in place and left numerous deliveries.Their cut shots were blocked by a fielder at point who had a third manand a sweeper as back-up. The drives were stopped by short cover and those that got past failed to beat extra cover and mid-off.The suffocating effect was enhanced by the discipline with which Zaheer and Ishant operated. Had they dropped short, the batsmen would have had enough time to cut with power; had they over-pitched, they would have been able to drive straight. But they so rarely wavered in length that you could easily count the number of deliveries that weren’t outside off stump. It was like a stuck record: the bowler delivered outside off, the batsman shouldered arms, and Mahendra Singh Dhoni collected.India’s plan was extremely defensive, but not negative. By persisting withthe wide line, they were relying on a lapse in concentration from thebatsmen for a wicket. Zaheer bowled closer to off stump than Ishant did but the left-armer usually dismisses left-handers with the ball that swings in towards the stumps. The field, however, demanded Zaheer’s aim not to be at middle stump. Unless the batsmen played on, they would not be bowled. Lbws were out of the question.The plan was understandable. India should have shut Australia out of the game by the end of day two but they had not. They should have scored 600 after winning the toss instead of 441. They took Jason Krejza lightly and lost wickets to unnecessarily aggressive strokesagainst him. Sachin Tendulkar had said losing five for 311 on the first day was too many. They lost their next five for 19 on the second. Australia were still in the game and even more so after India’s bowlers bowled without direction last evening. Runs flowed at four an over and Australia reached 189 for 2 at stumps.”We tried to attack yesterday but ended up conceding some runs,” Ishant said after the third day. “So our plan for today was to be defensive because this was the only way we could have come back in the game. We just stuck to our plans as our captain told us to do. We were assigneddifferent roles, and we all bowled according to our roles.”This morning’s ploy was India’s attempt to regain control over the matchby delaying Australia’s rate of progress. It might have even been seen asan attempt to draw the game and protect a 1-0 lead. The onus was onAustralia to force the pace for they need the victory to draw theseries. But they didn’t.Katich and Hussey didn’t even try to force a field change by improvising to hit on the leg side or by lofting over the infield. They didn’t attempt to alter lengths by stepping out of the crease like Matthew Hayden or Gautam Gambhir might have done. Insteadthey left deliveries, blocked, and left some more. Their approach was not one of a team that needed to set the pace.Australia were so shackled by the off-side plan that the first attempt to hit the ball on the leg side was in the 12th over of the day: Hussey tried to pull Ishant but missed. The first time the ball was hit to the leg side was in the 18th over: Hussey pushed towards Ishant at mid-on. The first run on the leg side finally came in the 21st over when Hussey swept Harbhajan Singh to long leg. By the end of the first session India had conceded only 42 runs off 24 overs. They had also dismissed Katich who kept moving across his stumps to play the wide line and was eventually struck in front by an inswinger from Zaheer. Katich scored only 10 runs off 69 balls today compared to 92 of 120 last evening.There were large-scale field changes whenever the right-hander – Michael Clarke – was on strike. Two fielders would cross over and form a 6-3 off-side field. The two extra men on the leg side – midwicket and long leg in addition to the mid-on – allowed Zaheer and Ishant to target the stumps. Clarke scored only 8 off 44 balls (a four came from a mis-field) and he fell by edging a delivery from Ishant that seamed away from him.Katich and Hussey didn’t even try to force a field change by improvising to hit on the leg side or by lofting over the infield. They didn’t attempt to alter lengths by stepping out of the crease like Matthew Hayden or Gautam Gambhir might have done. Instead they left deliveries, blocked, and left some more. Their approach was not one of a team that needed to set the pace The modus operandi changed when Harbhajan began bowling but the intent was the same. He went over the wicket to the left-hander and bowled a leg-stump line with a 6-3 leg-side field. The absence of a fielder at point ensured that Harbhajan would not be pitching anywhere close to off stump. Hussey tried to counter by sweeping and once by reverse-sweeping but he failed to raise the run-rate.It was staggering that Australia did not make a concerted effort to thwart India after lunch. Their run-rate during the second session was lower than the first – 49 runs in 29 overs – and they had lost three wickets. Australia had begun the day trailing by 252 runs with eight wickets inhand and a run-rate of 3.85. They added only another 166 in 85.4 overs before being bowled out with an over remaining in the day. India’s tactics were neither attractive nor in the best interests of Test cricket when spectator-numbers are thinning. The bottom line, however, isthe end justified India’s means.

Yuvraj Singh is going through possibly the worst patch of his career. Injuries and his inability to adapt his game aren’t helping any either

Sriram Veera10-Sep-2008

It’s déjà vu. Yuvraj Singh’s shortcomings are not new: we’ve heard about his vulnerability against spin and the moving ball, and his faulty foot movement. Add to those the perennial murmurs about his attitude and how he likes to party. We will hear it all again, now that he has been not selected for the Irani Trophy – which suggests he might not be considered for the Australia series.Yuvraj dazzles your senses with those peachy on-the-up drives, those lunging slog-sweeps, and those gorgeous punches through the on side. When it comes off, it looks great, as it did against Pakistan in the Bangalore Test. But when the bowling and the wicket are more testing, he doesn’t seem to have a plan B. Sometimes your strengths can be your weaknesses.You don’t see Yuvraj grind his way out of tough situations. Mahendra Singh Dhoni has changed from a warrior to a foot soldier, from a murderous batsman to an accumulator, to survive. Not Yuvraj. Death by aggression, by the so-called “natural game”, seems his preferred route.In the recent past you were able almost to predict what would happen to Yuvraj on wickets that offered something to the bowlers. He would make a tiny half-prod forward, misread the length and push the bat tentatively away from the body a few times before breaking free with a clip through the on side. Emboldened, he would then go for the on-the-up flash and perhaps connect once or twice before eventually edging. If he lasted that phase, the spinners would swallow him.In Australia in the Test series, Yuvraj got out in various ways, caught out by his faulty foot movement: poking outside off to Stuart Clark, going back to a flipper from Brad Hogg, and stabbing at a wide one from Andrew Symonds when India were struggling to get a draw. Only the dismissal in the first innings in Sydney – to a full, swinging delivery from Brett Lee – was against a good ball. In the recent series in Sri Lanka, Yuvraj was even troubled by medium-pacers like Nuwan Kulasekara, caught on the forward prod, before he would be put out of his misery by his nemesis, Ajantha Mendis.Then there is his party-hearty image, which has led to the public perception – a touch unfair – of him as a player who is not too serious about improving his game. Reports came in during the Asia Cup that the management was not too happy when Yuvraj went out partying with a couple of team-mates.”I love to party and I have no problems in saying this,” Yuvraj said in a recent interview. “As long as it doesn’t affect my cricket, I am going to keep doing what I’m doing.” Since he is not the only sportsman who likes to have a good time, it’s only fair that we take his word for it. In any case, the experts blame his travails on his technical faults and recurring injuries.

“He is a talent, no doubt, that’s why we have persisted with him, but has he managed to change his game over the years?” a national selector wonders. “Previously if he had already got in and played pace for some time, he wouldn’t struggle too much against spin. But now even if he has batted in the middle for some time, he has problems against spin. For that matter, against pace as well, on tracks that do something. He just needs to go back and work hard, rectify the technical faults and get much fitter. The selectors will obviously pick him. He is too talented to be wasted.”Zubin Bharucha, the former Mumbai player who runs the World Cricket Academy in Mumbai, where Test players such as Mark Butcher, Andrew Strauss, and Mark Ramprakash have come to work on their games, worked very briefly with Yuvraj prior to the Sri Lanka series. “Look, Yuvraj takes his right foot out a touch late, and if the ball is slightly shorter than he thinks it will be, the trouble starts,” Bharucha says. “The back foot stays on the leg stump, and since he has misread the length he immediately pushes his front foot back towards the leg-stump line to hold balance. In the meanwhile the bat is already starting to come down from the high, loose back-lift and he has no option but to follow the ball, away from the body.”Perhaps not being selected is a blessing in disguise that will give Yuvraj time to work on his problem areas. Simon Katich, the Australian batsman, recently revealed how frustrating – and in hindsight how much of a hindrance – it was when he continued to be in the ODI team when he had problems with his batting. There was no time for him to work out the flaws and he feared that if he relinquished his spot he perhaps would not get it back. Once he was dropped he went back to the drawing board and came back a much better player.Yuvraj’s other major problem is his fitness, especially his dodgy knees. The selector quoted above said Yuvraj wasn’t picked because they were not convinced he was fully fit and ready for the challenges ahead. Not just his knees, his shoulder seems to be giving way too. He doesn’t throw much from the outfield, and his fielding has lost its sharpness. One even saw him field at mid-on in recent games.Yuvraj tore the ligament in his left knee during a training session in Mohali during the 2006 Champions Trophy while playing , but refused to undergo surgery. Some feel he possibly fears that taking time off for surgery and recuperation would be too costly – that other cricketers will rush past him. If that is the case, perhaps the time has now come for him to rethink that position.But if his father Yograj Singh’s thinking is any indication, Yuvraj might not go under the knife in the near future. “He can do his surgery years later, after his career is over,” Yograj said. “There is no urgency now. Everyone goes through bad form.

“He will be back. Believe me, he is working very hard. He works eight hours every day, doing gymming, swimming and batting practice. Yes, he has some problem with his front foot movement and also the bat is coming down at an angle, but everything will be sorted out soon.”VB Chandrasekhar, the former selector, sees it as a tale of two batsmen. Mohammad Kaif was Yuvraj’s captain when India won the Under-19 World Cup in 2000. Kaif made his Test debut that year and Yuvraj played his first ODI game. While Kaif had to wait for two more years to get into the ODI team, Yuvraj had to wait till 2003 to get into the Test team. Both didn’t last long in Tests, but Yuvraj surged ahead in ODIs, playing 217 to Kaif’s 125.”Yuvraj was given many chances but he has not latched on to them,” Chandrasekhar believes. “He is a talented batsman and I hope he comes back for Test cricket. But it’s nice to see Kaif storming back. Perhaps he was given a bit of raw treatment, but he has gone back, worked on his game and is now once again pushing the selectors to pick him.” Kaif was recently seen putting in the hard yards at the National Cricket Academy in Bangalore, working on the position of his front shoulder to help his driving through the off side. It seems to be working for him, as his superb 94 against Australia A bore out.Yograj is confident that his son, too, will bounce back in style. “It’s his destiny that he will play and do well in Test cricket. (The son of a lion doesn’t eat grass).”

Stats preview to the Champions Trophy semi-final between New Zealand and Pakistan in Johannesburg

S Rajesh02-Oct-2009New Zealand topped their group while Pakistan finished second in theirs, but Pakistan will go in as favourites in their semi-final clash in Johannesburg on Saturday. A couple of factors make New Zealand the underdogs – the loss of key players (Jesse Ryder, Jacob Oram and Daryl Tuffey are all out), and their poor record against Pakistan, especially in semi-finals.Overall, Pakistan have a comfortable 47-29 advantage in ODIs, which increases to 18-6 when they’ve clashed in neutral venues (in South Africa, Pakistan have a 2-0 lead, though they’ve not met in this country since December 1994). Of the nine occasions when Pakistan have played New Zealand in world events (World Cup and Champions Trophy), they’ve won six. Moreover, no team has stopped New Zealand in the semi-finals as often as Pakistan have: of the 12 semis that New Zealand have contested in ODI tournaments, they’ve played Pakistan in half of those matches, and lost on all occasions except one.That one victory, though, came in the 2000 edition of the Champions Trophy, when New Zealand beat Pakistan in the semi-finals and then went on to win the final as well. In fact, their Champions Trophy record against Pakistan should cheer Daniel Vettori and Co: the two teams have met twice, and New Zealand have won both games.

Pakistan’s varied bowling attack has troubled all the teams in the tournament so far. They’ve taken 28 wickets, the most by any team till the end of the group stage of the tournament. Their bowling average (20.96) and economy rate (4.53) are the best in the tournament too, which suggests that Ross Taylor and Co will have quite a job on their hands.New Zealand have pretty impressive stats too, though – they’ve taken 25 wickets at less than five per over, and their pace attack has enjoyed the conditions in Johannesburg.

Where New Zealand have done much better than Pakistan so far is in utilising the Powerplay overs when they’ve batted. In the first ten overs they’ve averaged nearly a run a ball, and have lost only one wicket in three matches (they scored 76 and 66 without losing a wicket in the first ten overs against Sri Lanka and England). Brendon McCullum, with scores of 44, 46 and 48,has led the charge each time, while Martin Guptill has been in fine form as well.Pakistan have started far more slowly, and they’ve also lost plenty of wickets in the batting Powerplay (eight in ten overs in two games – they didn’t take it against West Indies).

During the bowling Powerplays, though, Pakistan have come into their own, stopping the batting team with a slew of wickets – five in the mandatory and batting Powerplays, and six in the bowling one. New Zealand have had most of their success during the mandatory Powerplay, taking six wickets; during the batting one they haven’t taken any.

New Zealand have also had more experience of playing in Johannesburg. They’ve won both their games there – against Sri Lanka and England – while Pakistan won the only time they played at the venue, against West Indies. All four day-night games there have been won by the team fielding first, and each match has been punctuated by early wickets – the 10-over scores of the team batting first in these matches were 31 for 3 (West Indies v Pakistan), 43 for 4 (Sri Lanka v England), 23 for 3 (England v New Zealand) and 30 for 3 (West Indies v India). Going by these numbers, the toss could have a huge role in deciding which team makes the final.

Tendulkar’s single-minded dedication to run-scoring is something they identify with Down Under

Christian Ryan14-Nov-2009From the beginning, the relationship was about something bigger than admiration and affection. When Sachin Tendulkar set foot in Australia he brought with him rain.Lismore, a place of board shorts and stubby coolers, on the far north hippie trail of New South Wales, was the strange location for Tendulkar’s maiden first-class innings in Australia. Lismore hadn’t seen rain – the kind of rain that wet your shirt – in months. The Indians arrived on a Friday, November 1991, and all that morning it poured, drowning out the net session they’d scheduled. They moved indoors and it poured some more.Local politician Reg Baxter used a homemade super-sopper to get play started. Conditions were grey overhead and green underfoot, which made predicting the ball’s flight path tricky. The bowling was top-shelf – Whitney, Lawson, Holdsworth, Matthews, Waugh, Waugh – and the batting a little gormless, all except for the one who was 18. Under the Oakes Oval pines he took careful guard, his head still, his footsteps like tiny, precise pinpricks, going backwards mostly, unless the bowler overpitched. Fifteen hundred people saw this, the great Alan Davidson among them. Davo was dumbfounded: “It’s just not possible… such maturity.”Tendulkar hit 82 that afternoon, when no one else passed 24, then 59 out of 147 in the second innings. When Australians hear Indians grouch about their hero going missing in an emergency and having no appetite for a scrap, it always comes as a shock.The Tendulkar Australians got to know, the one with the baby footsteps, had played cricket in six countries already. Still he looked like his team-mates’ little brother. He ran faster than them all, a gammy-legged bunch, and as he ran, his eyes would be wide and round, and darting, as if alert to the danger that his team-mates’ barely muzzled huffiness might distract him from important things. And what was important to Tendulkar – and here Australians saw in him something rare and precious, a single-mindedness they fancied they recognised in themselves – was run-getting.Every bolt and screw in the Tendulkar technique seemed put there to aid the getting of runs. Tendulkar was a run-getting machine, except no machine could also be so graceful – or instinctive, for that’s what it was, instinct, which told him that the way to bat was to attack. He didn’t learn this. He knew it, inside himself. Runs were what counted. So nothing outlandish would be tried for the sake of outlandishness. Those footsteps were only as big as they had to be, for footwork was simply the thing that moved your body from its starting position to its ideal hitting position. Once you got there, you kept out the good ones and hit the loose ones hard. And when you hit hard, you did so along the ground – because you cannot get caught and get runs.This is the way of Bradman, the way of Hill, Trumper, Harvey, the Chappells and the rest. Give him a pair of bushy mutton chops and paint a weathered furrow or two on his brow, and Tendulkar could pose for the cover of How to Play Cricket Australian Style.Tacky facial add-ons, or some bleach-blond spikes, say, have never been Tendulkar’s go, and Australians like that about him too. Australia takes its cricket seriously. Your after hours are for sombre reflection and practising your forward-defensive, not for phone-chasey with sheilas or motel-room hijinks in your Playboy undies. You occasionally hear it said wistfully that Tendulkar is the Australian Shane Warne could have been. It is a neat line but it undersells what they have in common. For if any two modern cricketers might be soul mates, it is Warne and Tendulkar, grandmasters of their arts. Bowling legspin comes as naturally to Warne as batting does to Tendulkar, which is to say, as naturally as the rest of us find breathing.

Tendulkar was a run-getting machine, except no machine could also be so graceful – or instinctive, for that’s what it was, instinct, which told him that the way to bat was to attack

Two sublime Tendulkar hundreds lit up his first trip: one, in Sydney, as serene as a stroll through rhododendrons; the other, in Perth, more pugnacious, less repeatable. He didn’t tour Australia again for eight years. But he visited. He went, with Warne, the two of them in beige suits, to see Sir Donald on his 90th birthday. Tendulkar got as excited as any Australian boy – “I consider myself one of the luckiest guys on earth” – and he asked Bradman the questions any Australian boy would ask, stuff about his stance and his grip and his bats.When next he came to play cricket he was captain of India, and perhaps that did distract him from the really important things. But it lost him no admirers. Asked his views on sledging, he replied: “One should expect that at this level. You are playing Test cricket, not club cricket.”Always when he went to the wicket, Tendulkar’s was the scalp on which the afternoon’s destiny hung. Fieldsmen dived further, getting hands to quarter-chances that would normally have eluded fingertips. Umpires concentrated harder – too hard probably, if you tally up the bat-pad rulings that never got a feather, the creative licence applied to some leg-before-wicket interpretations. One never-to-be-forgotten day in Adelaide, Tendulkar was adjudged shoulder-before-wicket. “You almost want him to get a few runs,” Mark Waugh once remarked, “just to see him.” Odd how a cricketer so Australian as Tendulkar could provoke such un-Australian sentimentality.He has toured Australia on four occasions, as many times as Bradman toured England. Like Bradman, he has never gone home without a Test hundred to his name.One particular hundred – Sydney, 2003-04 – might outlive the others. When someone bats for 613 minutes, strung across three sweltering January days, the mind can wander, and as Tendulkar trudged on, making do without the cover drive, for it had caused his downfall too many times already, this mind wandered to Leichhardt and Giles and the famous explorers, who made do without company, without water, surviving on single-mindedness and instinct. He could do things to your imagination, this boy who knew how to make it rain.

Use your bowlers well, pick the best batting line-up, and keep an eye on the time-outs and over rates

Aakash Chopra08-Apr-2010Adam Gilchrist said earlier this week that as the game gets shorter, the role of the captain is getting bigger. Nothing could describe the Twenty20 situation better.Why is leading a Twenty20 side different and more difficult than leading in other formats? Cricket played over five days or spread over two 50-overs innings should logically be far more taxing than the slam-bang three-hour Twenty20. Well, Twenty20 defies logic time and again, for it isn’t a thinking man’s game; which is not to say that you don’t need to be smart to play it.Not too long ago, just as this format was beginning to gain popularity, players tended to treat Twenty20s like ODIs. In the 50-over format the best bowlers are kept for the Powerplay and the death overs, under the assumption that batsmen are most aggressive during these periods. The other bowlers are reserved for the middle overs, when the batsmen are expected to go a little easy. But when applied to Twenty20, this strategy failed. With eight an over considered par, and the luxury of being able to lose 10 wickets over 20 overs, batsmen remain on the offensive all through.Bowling changes
It’s no longer mandatory to give your best bowler the first over. In fact, it’s often smart to start with a part-time bowler, since most batsmen take at least a couple of deliveries to gauge the pace and bounce of the track. But you must know the batsmen’s strengths and pick the bowlers accordingly. It wouldn’t be a bad idea to start with a spinner against David Warner, who is usually more comfortable against pace.Also, you need to not get carried away by an economical first over, because the same bowler can go for plenty in his next. Batsmen tend to size up the bowler in his first few deliveries and mark their scoring areas for the next over. More often than not, the second over is more important than the first, so that should be bowled by your best medium-pacer.Rotating your bowlers in the first six overs will work if your bowlers are comfortable bowling one- or two-over spells. Shane Warne does it successfully, often using up to five different bowlers in the first seven overs without letting the batsmen get away. Gautam Gambhir used Daniel Vettori and Amit Mishra to counter Bangalore’s overseas openers in the first six overs. It’s like a game of chess, where you try to preempt the opposition’s moves. At times you let the opposition score in the first six overs because you think it will be easier to pull things back once the ball gets old, and on other occasions you stifle the batsmen at the top to create pressure.There are no foolproof methods to succeed, so you have to go with hunches. One wrong choice can change the momentum of the game. Brett Lee went for 25 in an over against Bangalore and Cameron White 19 in his solitary over against Delhi. A captain makes more bowling changes in a Twenty20 than he would in a 50-over game. You can always recover from a bad over in an ODI, but in a Twenty20 it is 5% of the innings and can cost you the game.In terms of bowling, captains also have to keep in mind the hefty fines they can be slapped with for slow over-rates.Batting line-up
Deciding the batting order isn’t easy in Twenty20s. When do you send in your best striker? Warne uses Yusuf Pathan according to the demands of the situation and Tendulkar has done the same with Kieron Pollard. It’s tempting to give the big hitters the chance to get the most strike, but it may not always be the wise option. Bangalore have assigned Kallis the sheet-anchor’s role, and given the rest the licence to go berserk around him. Most other teams haven’t done the same. Kings XI Punjab tried to give Ravi Bopara the same role but he never had in-form hitters around him.

A captain makes more bowling changes in a Twenty20 than he would in a 50-over game. You can always recover from a bad over in an ODI, but in a Twenty20 it is 5% of the innings and can cost you the game

The captain also has to pick the right overseas players for every game. He’s usually spoilt for choice and it must be tempting to want players like Tillakaratne Dilshan or Sanath Jayasuriya in the XI even when they aren’t in form, and difficult to leave out someone like Dale Steyn.Changing the field
The captain and the bowlers need to work out the fielding positions for every delivery: get third man inside the circle for a slower one, have mid-off in the circle for a bouncer. Bowlers need to assume leadership and the wicketkeeper and the fielders must chip in too, because it’s hard for the captain to keep tabs on everything. The keeper is often assigned the role of getting the fielders in the right positions. In the match against Bangalore, Gambhir didn’t notice there were only three fielders inside the circle, but the keeper, Dinesh Karthik, stopped the game to get a player in.But there is still more to leading a Twenty2O side, particularly in the IPL. You have to know and remember the strengths of all your players, understand their temperaments, and how they will react to different situations in the middle.The time-outs
We have seen teams lose momentum and falter after the breaks. Fielding captains can use the time-outs to their advantage – as the batsmen tend to take a few deliveries to get back into the groove – and slip in an over from a part-time bowler.The teams that try to continue playing the way they did before the break often pay dearly. Mumbai lost two wickets against Deccan in the over after the break.I wonder if Yuvraj Singh and Brendon McCullum will really complain about having lost the captaincy of their sides. It’s certainly not an enviable job. Most captains will have aged a bit by the time the IPL ends.

It was plain from the start of the ODI series that, for some reason, West Indies’ spirit of the Tests had evaporated in the interim. It reflected a general problem of attitude – the one common factor in their desperate decline of the past 15 years or so

Tony Cozier21-Feb-2010Much like his batting, Chris Gayle’s reputation has gone through several phases these past few months. He arrived in Australia in November for the series of three Tests castigated by the Australian media as a villain, a reinstated captain who had openly dissed Test cricket in favour of Twenty20 and a pivotal figure in the disruptive players’ strike that preceded the tour.By the end, he was being widely hailed as a champion, Man of the Series for leading a spirited West Indies revival with two high quality hundreds in the last two Tests and his general leadership.”Gayle has brought some muscle and pride back to West Indies cricket,” Peter Lalor, a previous doubter, wrote in the .Now, just over a month on, at the end of an ill-starred return series of ODIs, Gayle finds himself the butt of the kind of derision usually reserved for clairvoyants who prophesise the end of the world every other Friday.Never shy of expressing an opinion, he proclaimed that his team, even though hamstrung by injuries to several key players, would somehow defeat the most powerful exponents of the 50-overs game–and by 4-to-1, no less.It might just have been another of Gayle’s casual lines to wind up the media. Perhaps he felt it would have given comfort to the new players in his patched-up outfit.Surely he could not have believed his forecast for, through strained backs, damaged fingers, pulled hamstrings and wonky knees, he was without his two most experienced batsmen Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Ramnaresh Sarwan, his vice-captain and key allrounder Dwayne Bravo, left-arm spinner Sulieman Benn, fast bowler Jerome Taylor and the talented young opener Adrian Barath.Possibly, Gayle expected that the same unity and commitment that was obvious in the last two Tests in December would carry them through, in spite of such handicaps.Had the ODIs immediately followed, as they used to, that might have given them the necessary state of mind to be competitive, if hardly earn a 4-1 triumph.Instead, there was a gap of three weeks between the two during which the players went their separate ways.In spite of contracts with the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB), Gayle and Bravo skipped the WICB’s own first-class tournament to remain in Australia for the Twenty20 Bash (during which both were injured).A few sought medical attention for the ailments that would prevent their return. Others went home for a couple of meaningless, sub-standard four-day matches.It was plain from the start of the ODI series that, for some inexplicable reason, the spirit of the Tests had evaporated in the interim.Even from the other side of the planet, the same ‘don’t care’ approach that prevailed during the shameful campaign in England last May was clear through the television coverage.Faces were sullen and shoulders quickly drooped. Straightforward catches were spilled, slack strokes cost wickets.Even David Williams, the always upbeat coach, was moved to say after Friday’s latest humiliation: “It is a blessing for us the ODIs are over. We played terrible in all three departments and to drop five catches in 50 overs tells a lot about our performance.”Reliable, long-standing colleagues in Australia reported that it reflected a general problem of attitude. It is nothing new. It is the one common factor in the West Indies’ desperate decline of the past 15 years or so.The reports of Gayle, Williams and manager Joel Garner, never one known to hold back, should make instructive reading for the WICB. If they correspond to the unofficial accounts out of Australia, it must act on them as it has failed to do in the past.For all Gayle’s braggadocio, no one expected the West Indies, No.8 in the ODI rankings, to win even one match against the No.1 opponents who had just thrashed Pakistan in nine successive matches (three Tests, five ODIs and a Twenty20).What was not expected was the pathetic capitulation. The margins were overwhelming – 113 runs, eight wickets with 141 balls remaining, 50 runs and 125 runs. In each of the last two matches, Australia amassed 324 (for seven and for five). The West Indies could not bat through 40 overs in three matches and only once raise more than 200.It was mystifying why Kieron Pollard languished down the list at No.6 and 7 until the last ODI•Getty ImagesAustralians once flocked in their hundreds of thousands to watch what was their favourite team. Now the smallest crowds on record turned up for the match.Gayle’s failure at the top (7, 0, 34 and 14), each time to his bogey-man, the strapping left-armer Doug Bollinger, was clearly a significant factor.Without Sarwan and Chanderpaul, it exposed Travis Dowlin, Runako Morton, Lendl Simmons and Narsingh Deonarine for the modest players they are at this level. None seemed interested in buckling down, as Dowlin and Deonarine had done when given the chance in the TestsIn the circumstances, it was mystifying why Kieron Pollard languished down the list at No.6 and 7 until the last match.While he has made his global reputation as Twenty20 hitter, the big Trinidadian has shown at regional level that he is more than just that. He compiled 174 against Barbados last year and averages 37 in first-class cricket, better than most of those previously preferred to him in the longer game.With his controlled batting, stiff medium-pace bowling and sharp fielding he has at least provided one bright spot from this series.Jerome Taylor and Fidel Edwards are already out of action with hip and spinal injuries. The sore ankle that eliminated Kemar Roach from the last three matches came as another major worry at a time when fast bowling stocks are in short supply.He is an outstanding prospect who has just started his career. A long layoff, such as both Taylor and Edwards had soon after they began, would be a setback for him personally and for the West Indies.There was apparently such a lack of confidence in Gavin Tonge, the third fast bowler in Australia, that he remained on the bench in all five matches, leaving Ravi Rampaul (another with a history of injuries) to carry the attack.That Dwayne Smith shared the new ball with his unthreatening medium-pace prompted disturbing memories of Clive Lloyd doing the same in the early 70s before the arrival of Andy Roberts, Michael Holding et al.A couple of Twenty20 matches remain in Australia until, as Williams might say, it’s a blessing it’s all over. Zimbabwe at home follow immediately. They are even further down the rankings than the West Indies but, if the attitude isn’t right for their Twenty20 and five ODIs, more embarrassment could be on the way.

IPL remains India-centric but a cricketing powerhouse like India should think bigger

Ramiz Raja21-Jan-2010The IPL’s auction hammer has hit Pakistan badly. Like a jilted lover, the cricket fan is heartbroken, confused and angry. The question he asks is ‘How could the Twenty20 champions not have a buyer?’ The league has a major presence in Pakistan, and the country’s only sports channel beams the games live. Today, however, the mood has changed.The other great import, Hindi cinema, has also come under pressure. The sports ministry and parliament have got the knives out, terming the selection snub as a great Indian conspiracy to insult the nation and belittle the status of its cricketers. The players seem to be on the same page as the politicians and the media. This is not cricket, they say. All hell has broken loose.While it is quite possible that the inclusion of Pakistani cricketers would have divided Indian opinion, and invited controversy for the IPL, care should have been taken in easing them out of action. The task, though, could not have been easy.The IPL was dealing with global stars with an elephantine ego, coming from a neighbourhood very sensitive to the decisions taken by either party. The best way out of such a volatile situation is to play with a straight bat, take a decision in advance and not when the crescendo has built up. The assurances of selection and the clearances given to them by the Pakistan government to participate in the tournament gave rise to false hopes among the fans and the media. The subsequent process of elimination was seen by the public as political and undignified.However, there exists another school of thought in Pakistan which has criticised the players for displaying their keenness to play in the IPL, almost to the point of begging by auctioning themselves, knowing fully well the sentiment against Pakistan in India. Greed could have led to this desperation to participate in the tournament and if the players now think their dignity has been compromised, they have themselves to blame.India are a cricket powerhouse, the international policeman of the game. Nothing moves without their consent. With status and stardom comes responsibility. India should have been more inclusive in this regard, and fiercely fought the case of Pakistan cricketers. This would have produced a healthy debate, perhaps controversy too, but in a more graceful fashion. But the IPL remains India-centric, and all decisions are made in keeping with Indian interests. Some would argue that the IPL, being an Indian league, is but natural to think Indian first. By all means, but rulers are remembered for thinking big.

A cricket-starved fan in Dubai watches Pietersen and Morgan take it away from Pakistan – once she manages to find the stadium, that is

Sabah Ibrahim20-Feb-2010The match
I don’t get to see much (all right, any) live cricket, so this was a no-brainer. I would have gone no matter who was playing. As for a prediction, England’s dire performance against the Lions in Sharjah made me favour Pakistan.Team supported
I’m an Indian who supports New Zealand, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, but I do have a soft spot for Pakistan. That said, most of my cricket-loving friends are English, so it averaged out to about neutral. Once the match began I was rooting for England, purely because they were playing better.Key performers
It was a tie between Kevin Pietersen and Eoin Morgan. England were wobbling at the start of their innings after losing a couple of quick wickets – including that of captain, Paul Collingwood run out for a duck – but they soon took complete control.One thing I would have changed
Having the stadium – which is excellent, as are the facilities – moved to somewhere more accessible than the wilds of Dubai Sports City, and having the whole event be better organised. Finding the stadium, even for someone like me, who has lived here for over a decade, is a herculean task, and there are no proper parking arrangements once you’ve managed to decipher the inadequate directions and circumvent the lack of road signs to get there.Also, I would have liked to see Joe Denly get some runs. He’s had an awful season so far, and I think he’s so much better than this.Wow moment
A small interlude involving Stuart Broad and an advertisement made me laugh out loud. Matt Prior fumbled behind the stumps and Broad stood with both hands on hips. The big screen camera zoomed in on his incredulous expression and then cut to a brief ad for Head and Shoulders shampoo. Classic.Player watch
Jonathan Trott, Denly, and briefly, Graeme Swann fielded closest to where I was sitting, but they were more or less left alone by the crowd, who were mostly supporting Pakistan. Broad, fielding further along, got a steady stream of what I hope was just banter. When Trott failed to catch the six Fawad Alam hit to deep square-leg, the Pakistani fans went wild and let him have it for a good few minutes. One even leaned out over the barrier to clap Trott on the back as he picked up the ball. What was stranger was a security guard watched the fan lay hands on the England player about two feet in front of him and didn’t even blink. When Pakistan fielded, Umar Gul got a lot of encouraging yells when he took up a position right in front of me, but it didn’t seem to help.Shot of the day
Morgan’s six over fine leg to win the match. He had hit Gul’s previous two deliveries for consecutive fours, and from where I was placed – at roughly deep-cover region – the six seemed to explode off the bat.Accessories
I had brought my camera, with a 250mm zoom lens, both to take pictures with and to use as a substitute for binoculars. It did give the security palpitations, though, and I was twice asked to stop using it altogether, and once told flat-out that I couldn’t take pictures of the players’ balconies.Crowd meter
The crowd was overwhelmingly pro-Pakistan, which you would expect from the number of subcontinental immigrants Dubai has. There was never a moment of silence, between the rhythm of the drums and the constant chanting and stentorian bellows of “” and “” There was also a healthy English presence in the stands. There were at least two giant England flags in evidence, and a vocal group of young girls who cheered and shouted “Go England!” Pietersen got the biggest cheers, by a long shot. Even the Pakistan fans got vocal when he walked out to bat.Fancy-dress index
Given that Pakistan were playing, I had expected lots of green flags and painted faces, and there were plenty of those, but it was sequins that formed a big part of most costumes. I tried to think what these fans were possibly thinking when they designed the outfits: “We’re playing England in Twenty20s. I shall start putting together my ensemble right away! Floor-length black velvet robe and floppy hat covered entirely in bright yellow and gold sequins? Perfect. Oh, I do hope the guys wear their black stovepipe hats wrapped in bright green Christmas tinsel again, I love those!”Also seen: fake Afros of all colours, little girls in made out of Pakistani flags, and, utterly inexplicably, three huge Bedazzled stuffed animals – two dogs and a teddy bear covered from head to toe in red, gold and yellow rhinestones and sequins.There was a sliver of support for England•AFPEntertainment
The ubiquitous Twenty20 cheerleaders were there, presumably trying not to think about the hideous white-and-blue shiny outfits they’d been made to wear. There was lots of upbeat Bollywood music for Pakistan, and oddly, lots of Latin-infused R&B for England. Pitbull’s “I Know You Want Me (Calle Ocho)” must have been played at least a dozen times. Maybe Ryan Sidebottom’s hair or Alastair Cook’s Maybelline-ad eyes misled the organisers into thinking one or both of them had Latin roots.Banner of the day
A little boy of about eight months was wearing a massive bib/cape/Jedi robe with his name on it followed by the words: “Pakistan’s Next Big BOOM BOOM!”Overall
Pakistan losing the plot slightly was disappointing, but some fine performances from Pietersen, Morgan and the England bowlers made up for it. Twenty20s are like cricket soufflé anyway – light, pleasant, insubstantial, and leave you kind of craving the actual sustenance of a Test or even an ODI – so the actual cricket was secondary, for most, to seeing some big-name performers and having fun.Marks out of 10
7. Great atmosphere, and the fans were for the most part entirely supportive, cheering players of both teams, and once there, the Dubai stadium is fantastic. Even the ridiculously-named Ring of Fire lights do an excellent job. But the overall experience was definitely marred by how hard it was to get to there, and then to leave.Want to do a Fan Following report? Read our FAQ here