-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Cricket Web Content - Feedback
- Thread starter SJS
- Start date
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Magrat Garlick
Global Moderator
Ooh, this is good.Mr Mxyzptlk said:
Rawl Lewis coming soon?
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
As soon as I figure out who my wicket-keeper will be.Samuel_Vimes said:Ooh, this is good.
Part Two:
More West Indian "Whodats" : The Middle Order
I must admit that I cheated a bit, slipping a couple of "allrounders" into the middle order.
_________________
A reminder of the top three:
Opener #1
Suruj Ragoonath
2 Tests; 4 Innings
Average: 4.33
HS: 9
Opener #2
Leon Garrick
1 Test; 2 innings
Average: 13.50
HS: 27
One Drop
Lincoln Roberts
1 Test; 1 Innings
Average: 0.00
HS: 0
Part Two: The Middle Order
Three More For A Crowd
Moving on we come to the difficult selection of the middle order, where the West Indies selectors have not made significant blunders in recent times. The mistakes that have been made have been persisted with sufficiently to negate reasonable selection to this list.
Number Four
David Joseph
4 Tests; 7 innings
Average: 20.14
HS: 50
Occupying the most important middle order slot is David Joseph. He debuted with a half-century against Australia, but never left the Caribbean. Indeed, Joseph's 7 Test innings all came in his debut series, as Australia drew 2-2 with the West Indies in 1999. Selected on the back of a terrific domestic season (401 runs at 50.12), Joseph seemed primed to take on Australia as one of three debutants for the first Test.
He proceeded to further encourage the excitement, smashing four boundaries and a huge six off MacGill in his first innings. Joseph rolled along to his fifty, then received an unfortunate LBW decision against McGrath. His second effort required no misfortune, as a lame fend to first slip gave McGrath another wicket.
Dave Joseph's brief Test career was characterized by starts with less than significant progress, and he scored 100 of his 141 runs in his first and last Tests. At the age of 29, his days in the sun were over as far as international cricket was concerned. Much like Garrick after him, Joseph may have deserved a further run at Test level, but the return of Chanderpaul and the "emergence" of Ricardo Powell ended any such thoughts.
Number Five - the misplaced allrounder
Dave Bernard jr.
1 Test; 2 Innings
Batting Average: 5.50
Bowling Average: - (0/61)
Perhaps batting a bit higher (ok, a LOT higher) than he should in this XI (or any XI), Bernard was picked to debut against Australia, and is the fourth player on the list with such an honour, thus far. Marketed around domestic cricket as an allrounder, Dave Bernard jr. only managed 11 expensive overs in his lone Test.
Currently at 24 years of age, Bernard is still young and may well play for the West Indies again, but his selection at the time proved a bit of a blunder. Rarely ever has a player looked so undercooked upon introduction to Test cricket. In fact, Bernard might as well have not played at all - so slight was his presence on debut.
Always more than handy with bat and ball for Jamaica, Bernard is a true allrounder. When picked to play Australia at the Queen's Park Oval in 2003, it was at the expense of a fourth specialist bowler, and Australia made sure to hammer that mistake home. Bernard was not used until part-timer Marlon Samuels had been introduced into the attack, and didn't even bowl half as many overs of his Jamaican team-mate. In the end he had figures of 11-1-61-0 amidst the carnage of 576/4 declared.
In two turns at the crease, Bernard fared little better, and compiled a total of 11 runs, hitting a four in each innings. Both dismissals featured poor footwork and loose strokeplay - typically uncharacteristic of the man. Drafted in and drafted right back out - the Dave Bernard jr. story.
Number Six - the traditional allrounder?
Darryl Brown
3 ODIs; 2 Innings
Bat Average: 10.00
Bowl Average: 24.80
Daryl Brown's selection to this team breaks the mold entirely. Unlike the players before him, Brown is picked on One Day International merit, or lack thereof. Undoubtedly the most bizarre selection on this list, he still posed a moderate international record.
Despite a batting average of 10 and a bowling average of 50.50 outside of international one day matches, Brown was picked to debut against Zimbabwe in 2001. He operated as the first change bowler, and returned exceptional figures of 10-3-21-3. It wasn't to be long before he was set back into place, however, and Sri Lanka did so a game later.
En route to victory in the final of the LG Abans Triangular Series, the Sri Lankans decked Brown for 72 runs off his 10 overs, and Sangakkara was his lone wicket. He would add 1 more wicket to his career tally from then on, playing his third and final One Day International against Pakistan the following year. Brown returned figures of 5-0-31-1, following up a career high of 9 with the bat.
Six in the shack...
Not satisfied? Understandable. It's clear that the middle order composition is left wanting somewhat, distinctly lacking worthy middle order players. Alas, that is what this list is all about. Without frailty on paper and in actuality, this most outstanding of batting line-ups is worth naught (though it is hardly worth more at the moment).
A top six that would send shivers down the spine of the typical West Indian supporter, if only due the curiosity either as to why these players ever donned the regional colours, or who they are at all.
The initial warning holds relevance once more:
If, by chance you are one of the above mentioned, many apologies for the cruel reminder.
AndrewM
U19 12th Man
Chappell-Hadlee series preview.
http://www.cricketweb.net/article.php?CategoryIDAuto=1&NewsIDAuto=957
Every player in the New Zealand squad must be at the top of their game to stand a chance in the second Chappell-Hadlee series.
Captain Stephen Fleming is recovering from cancer surgery and will miss the games in Auckland and Wellington. This is offset by the reselection of Chris Cairns and a fit Jacob Oram.
New Zealand has good all-round strength but it is the specialists that need to perform. Astle, Hamish Marshall and Craig McMillan have under-produced of late. With no Fleming to open, Astle must look to take on the raw Australian pace attack. Lou Vincent is expected to replace Fleming's opening spot.
Ricky Ponting's side will look to bat first and take New Zealand out of the contest. Matthew Hayden and Adam Gilchrist have been in ominous form and must be dealt with early to expose their less established middle-order.
The Australians have made more wholesale changes, introducing batsman Brad Hodge, resting Glenn McGrath while adding fast bowler Michael Lewis and spinner Brad Hogg.
Australia is sure to target stand-in skipper Daniel Vettori. Although only 26, he has played more than 150 ODI's and 65 tests. Vettori was captain against Bangladesh earlier this year, but admitted he was seldom pressurized. He seems unfazed by the challenge and will be keen to stamp his own style.
A Vettori-Cairns brains trust will be a fresh change from Fleming's long-standing approach. Nathan Astle has been appointed vice-captain but expect Cairns to have a strong influence out in the middle. Cairns' experience and new determination could be New Zealand's trump card.
With no McGrath, Brett Lee heads a slightly green attack short on international experience. The untested duo of Stuart Clark and Lewis will partner Lee. With the ninth World Cup just 16 months away, Australia is understandably looking to blood new talent. Conversely John Bracewell is basing his campaign on the squad for this series and has no such selection luxuries.
Shane Bond plays his first match against Australia since he took 6-23 in the last World Cup. He struggled in last month's South African series, but should find some form at home. Bond, like Lee for Australia, will lead his side's attack. If Bond does not take early wickets then New Zealand will struggle to contain the Australian batsmen.
If Bracewell has learnt from previous campaigns against Australia, winning the first match of a series is absolutely vital. Australia is most vulnerable at the beginning, and New Zealand must strike first if they are to win.
Australia have won the last 6 ODI's, with New Zealand's last victory in game one of the 2004-5 Chappell-Hadlee Trophy. The truncated schedule will benefit New Zealand's one-day unit, who have played more ODI's recently than their counterparts.
December 3rd, Game 1, Auckland (D/N)
December 7th, Game 2, Wellington (D/N)
December 10th, Game 3, Christchurch (D/N)
Head to Head:
Played 97, Australia 68, New Zealand 26 (3 no result)
New Zealand (from): Daniel Vettori (capt), Nathan Astle (vice-capt), Lou Vincent, Hamish Marshall, Scott Styris, Craig McMillan, Jacob Oram, Chris Cairns, Brendon McCullum (wk), Kyle Mills, Shane Bond, James Franklin, James Marshall.
Australia (from): Ricky Ponting (capt), Adam Gilchrist (vice-capt, wk), Nathan Bracken, Stuart Clark, Michael Clarke, Brad Hodge, Brad Hogg, Mike Hussey, Simon Katich, Michael Lewis, Brett Lee, Andrew Symonds, Cameron White.
http://www.cricketweb.net/article.php?CategoryIDAuto=1&NewsIDAuto=957
Every player in the New Zealand squad must be at the top of their game to stand a chance in the second Chappell-Hadlee series.
Captain Stephen Fleming is recovering from cancer surgery and will miss the games in Auckland and Wellington. This is offset by the reselection of Chris Cairns and a fit Jacob Oram.
New Zealand has good all-round strength but it is the specialists that need to perform. Astle, Hamish Marshall and Craig McMillan have under-produced of late. With no Fleming to open, Astle must look to take on the raw Australian pace attack. Lou Vincent is expected to replace Fleming's opening spot.
Ricky Ponting's side will look to bat first and take New Zealand out of the contest. Matthew Hayden and Adam Gilchrist have been in ominous form and must be dealt with early to expose their less established middle-order.
The Australians have made more wholesale changes, introducing batsman Brad Hodge, resting Glenn McGrath while adding fast bowler Michael Lewis and spinner Brad Hogg.
Australia is sure to target stand-in skipper Daniel Vettori. Although only 26, he has played more than 150 ODI's and 65 tests. Vettori was captain against Bangladesh earlier this year, but admitted he was seldom pressurized. He seems unfazed by the challenge and will be keen to stamp his own style.
A Vettori-Cairns brains trust will be a fresh change from Fleming's long-standing approach. Nathan Astle has been appointed vice-captain but expect Cairns to have a strong influence out in the middle. Cairns' experience and new determination could be New Zealand's trump card.
With no McGrath, Brett Lee heads a slightly green attack short on international experience. The untested duo of Stuart Clark and Lewis will partner Lee. With the ninth World Cup just 16 months away, Australia is understandably looking to blood new talent. Conversely John Bracewell is basing his campaign on the squad for this series and has no such selection luxuries.
Shane Bond plays his first match against Australia since he took 6-23 in the last World Cup. He struggled in last month's South African series, but should find some form at home. Bond, like Lee for Australia, will lead his side's attack. If Bond does not take early wickets then New Zealand will struggle to contain the Australian batsmen.
If Bracewell has learnt from previous campaigns against Australia, winning the first match of a series is absolutely vital. Australia is most vulnerable at the beginning, and New Zealand must strike first if they are to win.
Australia have won the last 6 ODI's, with New Zealand's last victory in game one of the 2004-5 Chappell-Hadlee Trophy. The truncated schedule will benefit New Zealand's one-day unit, who have played more ODI's recently than their counterparts.
December 3rd, Game 1, Auckland (D/N)
December 7th, Game 2, Wellington (D/N)
December 10th, Game 3, Christchurch (D/N)
Head to Head:
Played 97, Australia 68, New Zealand 26 (3 no result)
New Zealand (from): Daniel Vettori (capt), Nathan Astle (vice-capt), Lou Vincent, Hamish Marshall, Scott Styris, Craig McMillan, Jacob Oram, Chris Cairns, Brendon McCullum (wk), Kyle Mills, Shane Bond, James Franklin, James Marshall.
Australia (from): Ricky Ponting (capt), Adam Gilchrist (vice-capt, wk), Nathan Bracken, Stuart Clark, Michael Clarke, Brad Hodge, Brad Hogg, Mike Hussey, Simon Katich, Michael Lewis, Brett Lee, Andrew Symonds, Cameron White.
Googenheim
U19 12th Man
Good one...
Hazza
U19 Cricketer
A look at Action-Remodelling
A look at Action Re-Modelling
Action remodelling is often a controversial matter and, when an action is reported, is usually at the forefront of much discussion in cricketing communities. But do bowlers really recover after their action rehabilitation, or do they fall victim to this controversial matter?
I can speak on a personal note regarding this problem; having had my action re-modelled three times in the last three years, I can empathise with the international cricketers who have had their actions under scrutiny. It's very hard in correcting things that come so naturally and that you have been doing for such a long time, and a bowler's action is certainly something that becomes second nature after a while.
My action was re-modelled through constant injuries that I sustained whilst bowling and I found it hard to correct these defaults that were set in my mind. To change from having a tight, compact action to a Harmison-esque one requires a lot of time and effort, as well as requiring a great deal of coaching. You can imagine that a professional who has bowled successfully in their own style for a good number of years more than I have would probably find it twice as difficult to re-model.
Below I will attempt to summarise and analyse some of the major action changes, and the repercussions of the action rehabilitation that has taken place in the unfortunate bowler's careers.
Let's start with one of the greats, Dennis Lillee. Lillee was, at first, a wild, runaway fast bowler, but his lack of a correct technique eventually ruined his back, giving him stress fractures. This resulted in Lillee missing quite a large chunk of his career whilst he re-modelled his action and received intensive physiotherapy.
But Lillee returned rejuvenated and was back playing for Australia in the 1970s. From then onwards he tore up helpless batting attacks with his strike partner, Jeff Thomson, recording his best bowling figures against the West Indies - 7-83, including the prize scalp of Vivian Richards. In this time he also overtook Lance Gibbs' test wicket tally and powered his way to 355 test wickets, then a world record. From this evidence, it is clear that action re-modelling definitely worked for Lillee, and turned him into one of the all time greats.
On a more recent note, Shabbir Ahmed, the Pakistani pace bowler, has been reported yet again to the ICC with a suspect action. His action was initially suspected in his first ODI, where he was called for throwing, but he soon returned to action after working hard with Michael Holding, the former West Indian pace bowler.
Unfortunately, it wasn't long before the Ahmed was in the spotlight again for chucking. He was reported once in New Zealand and has been again in England's current tour to Pakistan. This has put him out of action in the series, with captain Inzamam Ul Haq not risking playing him again.
So where will Ahmed go from here? His action has already blighted his career twice, and it remains to be seen what steps are to be taken next. In this case Ahmed's re-modelled action is still not legitimate enough for test cricket.
Jermaine Lawson is another pace bowler who has recently undergone action rehabilitation. After making a brilliant start to his test career, including a hat-trick versus the Australians, Lawson was reported to the ICC with a suspect action.
Lawson changed his action and was promptly cleared by the ICC, but it was not long before he had to change again. Unfortunately a spinal problem put him out of the ICC Champions Trophy at the end of his comeback season. Thankfully Lawson has recovered, and is now back playing test cricket. With his new action however, things haven't been going as well as they were, and Lawson struggled against the Australian batsman.
Lawson's action is still not without controversy although he has been given the all-clear by the ICC.
Another West Indian whose action was deeply criticised was Charlie Griffith. Many coaches who worked with Charlie suspected that he threw the ball, especially his bouncers and yorkers (two of the most dangerous weapons in his armoury).
Griffith didn't make his run up quicker to achieve the yards of extra pace on his bouncer and yorker alike many bowlers, in fact there seemed to be no difference with his body or approach to the crease at all. The extra pace was generated from his bent arm, which exceeded acceptable limits.
There were examinations into Griffith's action whilst he was in the commonwealth team touring Pakistan. His coach, Alf Gover, noticed that it all seemed to go wrong when he landed at the crease after his bound. As Griffith went very wide of the crease and angled the ball into the batsman's body, his right foot angled unnaturally towards the batsman, and his left even more unnaturally towards second slip. From this position he could only 'fall over' in his delivery stride, so therefore his chest was not front on, but pointed towards first slip.
From this position Griffith could only do two things: fall away towards the off side and throw. As his body went over, the weight balance had to be compensated by an opposite force; in this case it was the elbow, which ended up pointing toward mid wicket leaving the ball by Griffith's face. From this position the arm must be bent when the ball is released. There is no way that he can straighten his arm.
Griffith was lucky to escape being called for throwing during that series, and many put this down to the fact that the Pakistani umpires were relatively inexperienced and new to the international scene.
Griffith is a fine example why the throwing rule is so eagerly pounced on by umpires and officials these days. It is likely that he would not have been the bowler he was if he'd been called for chucking; he would have been without his deadly yorker and bouncer, and without the express pace that made him feared by many of the batsmen around that time (a bouncer that he bowled once hit Indian Nari Contractor over the head, and caused Contractor to require life-saving brain surgery).
From looking at the above examples, it is clear to see that action rehabilitation has claimed the careers of some, but has aided the careers of others. It will be interesting to see how Shabbir Ahmed will come out of his re-modelling, and whether he can really get around his throwing problem. Also it will be interesting to see what the future holds for bowlers plagued with constant injuries, as from the brief look in this article, they seem to have come back stronger than the throwers. I may be able to prove this further once I have a chance to test out my new action next season.
Unfortunately the trauma caused by the questionable action is still out there and claiming wickets as we speak, but as of yet the human race has not found a cure without side effects.
A look at Action Re-Modelling
Action remodelling is often a controversial matter and, when an action is reported, is usually at the forefront of much discussion in cricketing communities. But do bowlers really recover after their action rehabilitation, or do they fall victim to this controversial matter?
I can speak on a personal note regarding this problem; having had my action re-modelled three times in the last three years, I can empathise with the international cricketers who have had their actions under scrutiny. It's very hard in correcting things that come so naturally and that you have been doing for such a long time, and a bowler's action is certainly something that becomes second nature after a while.
My action was re-modelled through constant injuries that I sustained whilst bowling and I found it hard to correct these defaults that were set in my mind. To change from having a tight, compact action to a Harmison-esque one requires a lot of time and effort, as well as requiring a great deal of coaching. You can imagine that a professional who has bowled successfully in their own style for a good number of years more than I have would probably find it twice as difficult to re-model.
Below I will attempt to summarise and analyse some of the major action changes, and the repercussions of the action rehabilitation that has taken place in the unfortunate bowler's careers.
Let's start with one of the greats, Dennis Lillee. Lillee was, at first, a wild, runaway fast bowler, but his lack of a correct technique eventually ruined his back, giving him stress fractures. This resulted in Lillee missing quite a large chunk of his career whilst he re-modelled his action and received intensive physiotherapy.
But Lillee returned rejuvenated and was back playing for Australia in the 1970s. From then onwards he tore up helpless batting attacks with his strike partner, Jeff Thomson, recording his best bowling figures against the West Indies - 7-83, including the prize scalp of Vivian Richards. In this time he also overtook Lance Gibbs' test wicket tally and powered his way to 355 test wickets, then a world record. From this evidence, it is clear that action re-modelling definitely worked for Lillee, and turned him into one of the all time greats.
On a more recent note, Shabbir Ahmed, the Pakistani pace bowler, has been reported yet again to the ICC with a suspect action. His action was initially suspected in his first ODI, where he was called for throwing, but he soon returned to action after working hard with Michael Holding, the former West Indian pace bowler.
Unfortunately, it wasn't long before the Ahmed was in the spotlight again for chucking. He was reported once in New Zealand and has been again in England's current tour to Pakistan. This has put him out of action in the series, with captain Inzamam Ul Haq not risking playing him again.
So where will Ahmed go from here? His action has already blighted his career twice, and it remains to be seen what steps are to be taken next. In this case Ahmed's re-modelled action is still not legitimate enough for test cricket.
Jermaine Lawson is another pace bowler who has recently undergone action rehabilitation. After making a brilliant start to his test career, including a hat-trick versus the Australians, Lawson was reported to the ICC with a suspect action.
Lawson changed his action and was promptly cleared by the ICC, but it was not long before he had to change again. Unfortunately a spinal problem put him out of the ICC Champions Trophy at the end of his comeback season. Thankfully Lawson has recovered, and is now back playing test cricket. With his new action however, things haven't been going as well as they were, and Lawson struggled against the Australian batsman.
Lawson's action is still not without controversy although he has been given the all-clear by the ICC.
Another West Indian whose action was deeply criticised was Charlie Griffith. Many coaches who worked with Charlie suspected that he threw the ball, especially his bouncers and yorkers (two of the most dangerous weapons in his armoury).
Griffith didn't make his run up quicker to achieve the yards of extra pace on his bouncer and yorker alike many bowlers, in fact there seemed to be no difference with his body or approach to the crease at all. The extra pace was generated from his bent arm, which exceeded acceptable limits.
There were examinations into Griffith's action whilst he was in the commonwealth team touring Pakistan. His coach, Alf Gover, noticed that it all seemed to go wrong when he landed at the crease after his bound. As Griffith went very wide of the crease and angled the ball into the batsman's body, his right foot angled unnaturally towards the batsman, and his left even more unnaturally towards second slip. From this position he could only 'fall over' in his delivery stride, so therefore his chest was not front on, but pointed towards first slip.
From this position Griffith could only do two things: fall away towards the off side and throw. As his body went over, the weight balance had to be compensated by an opposite force; in this case it was the elbow, which ended up pointing toward mid wicket leaving the ball by Griffith's face. From this position the arm must be bent when the ball is released. There is no way that he can straighten his arm.
Griffith was lucky to escape being called for throwing during that series, and many put this down to the fact that the Pakistani umpires were relatively inexperienced and new to the international scene.
Griffith is a fine example why the throwing rule is so eagerly pounced on by umpires and officials these days. It is likely that he would not have been the bowler he was if he'd been called for chucking; he would have been without his deadly yorker and bouncer, and without the express pace that made him feared by many of the batsmen around that time (a bouncer that he bowled once hit Indian Nari Contractor over the head, and caused Contractor to require life-saving brain surgery).
From looking at the above examples, it is clear to see that action rehabilitation has claimed the careers of some, but has aided the careers of others. It will be interesting to see how Shabbir Ahmed will come out of his re-modelling, and whether he can really get around his throwing problem. Also it will be interesting to see what the future holds for bowlers plagued with constant injuries, as from the brief look in this article, they seem to have come back stronger than the throwers. I may be able to prove this further once I have a chance to test out my new action next season.
Unfortunately the trauma caused by the questionable action is still out there and claiming wickets as we speak, but as of yet the human race has not found a cure without side effects.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Very good article, Hazzah... You have raised very valid points... I juz hope that technology grows enough to allow umpires at the junior levels to somehow test the validity of bowling actions. It is very harsh on people to have their actions remodelled when they are 20+, which means they are basically changing something that has been their habit for about 10 years.
Jungle Jumbo
International Vice-Captain
India v Sri Lanka 2nd Test Day Two Report
On a pitch easily seduced by the mystery of Asian spin, Muttiah Muralitharan and Anil Kumble deceived and bamboozled their opponents? batsmen to leave the Delhi Test hanging on a knife edge. A spectacular Indian collapse in the morning session preceded a rather ropey Sri Lankan effort as an intriguing match is developing.
With the experienced duo of Tendulkar and the recalled Ganguly at the crease, India would have had aspirations of a large total at the start of the day. Muralitharan though, had alternative plans. Firstly he trapped Ganguly, offering no shot, leg before with a vicious off break that spat venomously. Leg spinner Malinga Bandara then had a lacklustre Yuvraj Singh caught at short-leg for a duck. Devoid from the criticism was Tendulkar, perhaps unfortunate to be given LBW attempting to paddle-sweep Muralitharan. The importance and sheer quality of his innings was now enhanced by the carnage caused by the legendary Tamil spinner, for he had batted relatively untroubled for much of Saturday, smothering the sharp turn.
An uncertain Irfan Pathan was the next victim of the slide, snaffled by Jehan Mubarak at short-leg, before Mahendra Singh Dhoni was left clueless by an unbelievable Muralitharan doosra, pitching on leg before clipping the off-stump. Kumble and Harbhajan Singh were also baffled by the spinners, the latter deceived by another doosra. India had lost all seven of their remaining wickets for a paltry 36 runs in just over sixteen overs. Muralitharan finished with seven for 100, his 48th five wicket haul in Tests, and had switched the momentum in the game around in a flash.
Sri Lanka?s reply started steadily enough, with captain Marvan Attapattu looking strong. Avishka Gunawardene was unlucky not to capitalise on a solid start when he was deduced to be LBW to Pathan whilst on 25: replays showed that the ball was missing leg-stump. Kumar Sangakkara was maybe the guiltiest of the Sri Lankan batsmen as he prodded a loose Irfan Pathan delivery to gully. Mahela Jayawardene, following the removal of Sanath Jayasuriya from the team, must continue to provide a middle order pivot at number four. Again, as in Chennai, he did just that, consolidating a wobbly Sri Lankan position. He and Atapattu added 113 in a second wicket stand dominated mostly by Jayawardene, who drove the spinners exceptionally well. Much of the burden of the near future Sri Lanka batting order will fall upon the shoulders of the rapidly maturing Sangakkara and Jayawardene, and the degree of success in the next decade, particularly once Muralitharan retires, will be in their hands.
Trouble though loomed from the safe sanctuary that Sri Lanka sat in. Anil Kumble, after breaking the partnership when Jayawardene missed a straightforward sweep shot, ran through the middle order with a combination of guile and experience. Thilan Samaraweera was bowled by a ferocious leg-break that had the sweet scent of the Kumble of old, while Tillkaratne Dilshan lasted just a solitary ball, muddled by a more familiar flipper. Having then watched the chaos from the other end, Marvan Atapattu perished to the final ball of the day, who was superbly snatched of an inside edge by the crouching Gautam Gambhir for 88. Jehan Mubarak is the not out batsman on ten.
Tomorrow has the air of a classical encounter, with a starring cast of exotic performers. Most of the early pressure will fall on Chaminda Vaas and Mubarak, but the nagging threat of Muttiah Muralitharan will linger in the Indian conscience.
India 290 all out (96.4)
VVS Laxman 69, Sachin Tendulkar 109; Muttiah Muralitharan 7 for 100
Sri Lanka 198 for 6 (70.3)
Marvan Atapattu 88, Mahela Jayawardene 60; Anil Kumble 4 for 54
On a pitch easily seduced by the mystery of Asian spin, Muttiah Muralitharan and Anil Kumble deceived and bamboozled their opponents? batsmen to leave the Delhi Test hanging on a knife edge. A spectacular Indian collapse in the morning session preceded a rather ropey Sri Lankan effort as an intriguing match is developing.
With the experienced duo of Tendulkar and the recalled Ganguly at the crease, India would have had aspirations of a large total at the start of the day. Muralitharan though, had alternative plans. Firstly he trapped Ganguly, offering no shot, leg before with a vicious off break that spat venomously. Leg spinner Malinga Bandara then had a lacklustre Yuvraj Singh caught at short-leg for a duck. Devoid from the criticism was Tendulkar, perhaps unfortunate to be given LBW attempting to paddle-sweep Muralitharan. The importance and sheer quality of his innings was now enhanced by the carnage caused by the legendary Tamil spinner, for he had batted relatively untroubled for much of Saturday, smothering the sharp turn.
An uncertain Irfan Pathan was the next victim of the slide, snaffled by Jehan Mubarak at short-leg, before Mahendra Singh Dhoni was left clueless by an unbelievable Muralitharan doosra, pitching on leg before clipping the off-stump. Kumble and Harbhajan Singh were also baffled by the spinners, the latter deceived by another doosra. India had lost all seven of their remaining wickets for a paltry 36 runs in just over sixteen overs. Muralitharan finished with seven for 100, his 48th five wicket haul in Tests, and had switched the momentum in the game around in a flash.
Sri Lanka?s reply started steadily enough, with captain Marvan Attapattu looking strong. Avishka Gunawardene was unlucky not to capitalise on a solid start when he was deduced to be LBW to Pathan whilst on 25: replays showed that the ball was missing leg-stump. Kumar Sangakkara was maybe the guiltiest of the Sri Lankan batsmen as he prodded a loose Irfan Pathan delivery to gully. Mahela Jayawardene, following the removal of Sanath Jayasuriya from the team, must continue to provide a middle order pivot at number four. Again, as in Chennai, he did just that, consolidating a wobbly Sri Lankan position. He and Atapattu added 113 in a second wicket stand dominated mostly by Jayawardene, who drove the spinners exceptionally well. Much of the burden of the near future Sri Lanka batting order will fall upon the shoulders of the rapidly maturing Sangakkara and Jayawardene, and the degree of success in the next decade, particularly once Muralitharan retires, will be in their hands.
Trouble though loomed from the safe sanctuary that Sri Lanka sat in. Anil Kumble, after breaking the partnership when Jayawardene missed a straightforward sweep shot, ran through the middle order with a combination of guile and experience. Thilan Samaraweera was bowled by a ferocious leg-break that had the sweet scent of the Kumble of old, while Tillkaratne Dilshan lasted just a solitary ball, muddled by a more familiar flipper. Having then watched the chaos from the other end, Marvan Atapattu perished to the final ball of the day, who was superbly snatched of an inside edge by the crouching Gautam Gambhir for 88. Jehan Mubarak is the not out batsman on ten.
Tomorrow has the air of a classical encounter, with a starring cast of exotic performers. Most of the early pressure will fall on Chaminda Vaas and Mubarak, but the nagging threat of Muttiah Muralitharan will linger in the Indian conscience.
India 290 all out (96.4)
VVS Laxman 69, Sachin Tendulkar 109; Muttiah Muralitharan 7 for 100
Sri Lanka 198 for 6 (70.3)
Marvan Atapattu 88, Mahela Jayawardene 60; Anil Kumble 4 for 54
Jungle Jumbo
International Vice-Captain
Neil Pickup
Request Your Custom Title Now!
It's Player of the Month time again.
Neil Pickup
Request Your Custom Title Now!
CheersVoltman said:
Now, there's an idea...Methinks you need a proof-reader...
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Serious point - that is something I AM prepared to do (I've done it in a professional capacity at the London Stock Exchange 15 years ago)Neil Pickup said:Cheers
Now, there's an idea...
_Ed_
Request Your Custom Title Now!
This was done a little while ago but I'd just like to make sure I did the man justice, so thoughts would be appreciated.
Chris Cairns - A New Zealand Icon
Chris Cairns - A New Zealand Icon
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Reference to this thingy... a bit late I know.
I find it a bit simplistic to refer to Panesar as a "wicket-taking" bowler, and as a result infer that all the rest aren't.
Isn't this just a racial stereotype? Panesar is of subcontinental extraction - the typical assumption that Asians make better spin-bowlers than Anglo-Saxons (whether that's conscious or not, there's simply no denying it exists).
We've seen time and again that Ashley Giles and Robert Croft are wicket-taking spinners given the right conditions, and Panesar is exactly the same - so is Jason Brown, and formerly Graeme Swann, before he made the unwise career-move of leaving Northants.
As a fingerspinner, being an attacking force is all about the pitch. You can't be an attacking force without something in the pitch to allow you to be so. That is why Giles gets the stereotype: "defensive" bowler. It's not because of his talents, it's because he's English and to play on turning pitches is rare for the England team. "Defensive" is what Giles is when the pitches don't suit him. When the pitch turns, Giles has very rarely failed to deliver in Test-cricket.
I don't really like the "attacking" \ "defensive" stereotypes of spinners as it is. When you bring racial stereotypes into it, IMO you've got to think twice before posting on an international website.
I find it a bit simplistic to refer to Panesar as a "wicket-taking" bowler, and as a result infer that all the rest aren't.
Isn't this just a racial stereotype? Panesar is of subcontinental extraction - the typical assumption that Asians make better spin-bowlers than Anglo-Saxons (whether that's conscious or not, there's simply no denying it exists).
We've seen time and again that Ashley Giles and Robert Croft are wicket-taking spinners given the right conditions, and Panesar is exactly the same - so is Jason Brown, and formerly Graeme Swann, before he made the unwise career-move of leaving Northants.
As a fingerspinner, being an attacking force is all about the pitch. You can't be an attacking force without something in the pitch to allow you to be so. That is why Giles gets the stereotype: "defensive" bowler. It's not because of his talents, it's because he's English and to play on turning pitches is rare for the England team. "Defensive" is what Giles is when the pitches don't suit him. When the pitch turns, Giles has very rarely failed to deliver in Test-cricket.
I don't really like the "attacking" \ "defensive" stereotypes of spinners as it is. When you bring racial stereotypes into it, IMO you've got to think twice before posting on an international website.
Adamc
Cricketer Of The Year
Geez, don't know how you managed to construe the phrase 'wicket-taking' as a racial stereotype. The point made in the article was that Panesar takes wickets more regularly (at FC level) than England's other/previous spin options, and used averages (among other things) to back up the claim. Your point about describing bowlers as attacking/defensive etc. may be valid, but I don't see where racial stereotyping comes into it.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I think it's pretty straightforward - people have had the record Panesar has had before. Usually they've played for Northants, like Panesar, because Wantage Road is one of the few grounds in England that tends to produce pitches that give fingerspinners a chance.
Like I say - Panesar is of Asian extraction. I find it highly doubtful that BR would've described him in such tones were he of Anglo-Saxon. As I say - it's not the phrase in itself, it's the automatic implication - English spinners are regularly denounced as "defensive", and it's been rare for non-Anglo-Saxons to bowl spin for England (Min Patel is the only other one).
Like I say - Panesar is of Asian extraction. I find it highly doubtful that BR would've described him in such tones were he of Anglo-Saxon. As I say - it's not the phrase in itself, it's the automatic implication - English spinners are regularly denounced as "defensive", and it's been rare for non-Anglo-Saxons to bowl spin for England (Min Patel is the only other one).
Smudge
Hall of Fame Member
Ridiculous. Positively clutching for a bag of straws.
Look at his average for 2005 - he took wickets at just over 21 apiece. That's a wicket- taking bowler in my book, and in most others'. You're the only one bringing race into it, when it has absolutely nothing to do with it. The figures speak for themselves.
Look at his average for 2005 - he took wickets at just over 21 apiece. That's a wicket- taking bowler in my book, and in most others'. You're the only one bringing race into it, when it has absolutely nothing to do with it. The figures speak for themselves.
