The IPL Governing Council will meet on December 17 to rule on expanding the 8-city league to 10 cities by the 2011 season.  According to press reports, Modi said, "we hope to close it in the first few months of 2010".  Franchises for cities in Kerala and Gujarat are rumored to be among the three or four cities that have been proposed.   And the list of potential owners ranges from actors (Salman Khan, Ajay Devgan, etc.) to the usual list of industrialists.

The new franchises are expected to auction for well over $ 200 million. 

Separately, a player auction will be held for IPL 3.0 this month on the 19th.  

By Anand Kumar from Arizona

Probably T20 is still in its nascent stage at the international level and probably things will change further in the years to come, but a few basic things that have emerged out of T20 world would probably remain the same. And I hope so, because that is good for cricket. One of such things is the end of dominance of a few teams over others. Compare it to Test Teams and the One day teams, where we have definite favorites going into a series or tournament. Agreed, upsets are a part in those formats too, but not to the same extent as we have been seeing in T20. After all, Australians  have ruled the world of Test and One day cricket for almost a decade now.

Look at these facts. In IPL-2, the last year’s bottom ranked teams, Deccan and Royal Challengers were the finalists. Only three days into the World Twenty20 and one of the Kings of cricket teams thus far is out of the tournament. An associate member of ICC, Ireland easily Pushed Bangladesh out of the second round and England the host team were galloped by the nascent Netherlands in the opening game. Another finalist for the last World Twenty20 is struggling to move to the second stage.

So who is your favorite for World Twenty20? Yes, now you have the luxury to keep Australia out and probably by tomorrow you would also be comfortable to keep a few good teams out. But the question is, coming into this tournament, how many of us believed that Australia would crack like this? How many of us believed that Netherlands would punish a Team that is considered to be the father of this format? How many of us thought that Pakistan would be so unsure about its place in the second stage? Do we still dare to have a favorite?

One of my favorite writer, Harsha Bhogle, recently mentioned in his article about the impact of the duration of a game by saying “If football was played over 20 minutes Manchester United and Barcelona may not have been in the final.”. This is the underlying difference between a T20 and other fatherly forms of cricket. When the game is reduced to shorter duration, the strategies must change and at the same time, it adds an element of surprise into it. It is easier to play at your top level for 3 hours, but not so easy when you have to stretch the same to over a day. At the same time, there is a little room for making mistakes when you are up in the short format, since there is a little room for recovery. In the longer format of the game, even if you make some mistakes, there is time for you to recover, your team and the captain can plan out counter attacking strategies. But such luxuries are not accepted by T20. Such basic things have allowed us to see surprises more often which in fact are not surprises, because there have been far too many. This probably is the core of T20. And probably this would be the reason for T20 to be a huge success.

The Writer is a software consultant by profession and an avid cricket player and writer by passion based in Phoenix, Arizona. The opinions expressed in this column do not necessarily represent those of the publishers.

By Anand

As Gilly’s thunderstorm knocked off the only north Indian team that could make it to the semis this year (as opposed to three last year, Punjab, Delhi and Rajasthan), the second edition of IPL has become even more interesting with mouth watering possibility of a final between two worst teams of the first edition of IPL, Deccan and Royal Challengers. Will that happen? Will resurgent Royals challenge the Super Kings tomorrow?

We will have to wait for another 24 hours to know about this, but for now, let us concentrate on the Special Gilly punch that stormed Deccan into the finals of IPL-2 and what Tishani Doshi mentioned as a north vs south divide in her cricinfo column even before the first semi final started, cautioning Daredevils with a “MIND IT DELHI”.

If you have followed the one day career of Gilchrist, today’s knockout punch would not come as a surprise to you. Be it the finals of the world cup 1999, 2003 or 2007, he has always attacked the opposition out of the game in no time and has produced his best when it mattered most in the so called big game. Today was no different. Most of us believed that Deccan was in for a good chance this time around and the first three consecutive wins only reinforced that belief, however when they wandered in the later part of the tournament winning only 3 of the last 10 league games, that belief was somewhat getting subdued.  Gilchrist probably was aware of that and leading from the front, he rose to the occasion and batted Daredevils, the most consistent team of the IPL-2, out of the tournament as he carved 21 off the very first over including 5 consecutive boundaries, 17 off the third over from Sangwan and the massive 24 off the 6^th over from the daredevils captain Sehwag. All packed in within 30 minutes of play and it looks like a keypad operated computer simulation of cricket game. His brutal attack had such massive impact on Delhi, that failures of Gibbs and Symonds from Deccan in this game have gone completely unnoticed. What Twenty20 fun!! Hats off to Gilchrist for a Twenty20 masterpiece. The message must have reached strongly in the Challenger and Super Kings Camp.

Given the outcome of the first semi final of IPL-2, Tishani Doshi’s article on north and south divide as far as cricket is concerned, would not have come at a much better time. On a funnier note, my own north Indian roommates have been after me because I have been supporting the non north Indian teams (Chennai, Deccan etc) so far. Looking around within my own cricket club, it is easier to find people being loyal to the IPL team that is related to their native place. Some of them have started becoming crazy to the extent that they become arrogant at times. Suddenly it comes to my mind, what a great idea it was to have City based teams in the IPL given the Indian set up. Probably this was the only way for a quick loyalty build up around the teams. Hats off to Modi and Co on this idea.

I would still be wondering, why it is tough to support a team based on the quality of cricket it is playing? And hence, how conveniently people would be able to switch loyalty back to the national team immediately after the IPL is over for the second edition of T20 world cup?

The Writer is a software consultant by profession and an avid cricket player and writer by passion based in Phoenix, Arizona. The opinions expressed in this column do not necessarily represent those of the publishers.

By Anand Kumar

After Kolkata kicked defending champions Rajasthan out of the second IPL today and Chennai almost shut the door on Punjab’s possibility of making it to the semi finals (mathematically they still have a remote chance), I wanted to have a look at the current standing in the IPL-2 as of now and could observe an interesting pattern. If you look at the below colorful points table, there is a reason why the last 4 rows have been marked yellow.

By Anand Kumar

Many must be wondering about the last two losses KKR saw from perfectly winning positions. Against RCB, they not only couldn’t defend a very defendable target of 173, but also lost from a position when RCB had to score 52 off the last 26 balls. Similarly, today against the Chargers, they couldn’t defend a target of 160 and they lost despite the fact that chargers needed 33 off the last three overs with two new batsmen at the crease.  What about the last over when they needed to defend 20 runs?

A loss for KKR is no longer news even for the die hard KKR fan because they have been loosing anyways. However the manner in which they have lost the last two games must have baffled many a KRR fans. I mean, it is hard to lose from those comfortable winning positions even in a Twenty20 game when you almost have the game in your hand and the only thing that you needed was probably to keep calm and follow the basics. I mean, it requires something on the part of the bowlers to leak so many runs consistently with ease. I had heard about team’s finding different heroes to win the games, but finding “heroes” (Ishant, then Agarkar and now Mortaza) to lose the games has been a revelation.

More than the buzz around “Multiple captaincy theory “and “Talk of Racism”, it seems to be related to the after effect of all these. More than the on field cricketing decisions, in my opinion, it has to do more with the team’s mentality and state going into the game. They have only won a single game and that too thanks largely to the DL Rule and after that they have been losing game after game and as many as 10 games in a row. No matter how good a player you are, losing game after games does have its impact on you. It tires your mind more than it tires your body. You are constantly going into that negative zone where you believe that winning the game is tough. Remember, the old saying “make winning a constant habit”. The dressing room environment is not positive, it is mostly negative. The lack of wins would hardly infuse any positive thinking for the future and it might just be about going there and playing, well as we say, trying your best, without much plan for the game or the future. More so when you are already out of the semis hunt.

KRR should keep this in mind and go into the last two games of their IPL stint thinking they have nothing to lose now. Sometimes, going into a game with this mindset does its own good because it relives the pressure of the outcome and gives you a chance to give your best. Why not try this ways of winning at least a game before we call it “Thanks IPL”, after all we have nothing more to lose anyways now?

The writer is a software consultant by profession and an avid cricket  player & writer by passion based in Phoenix, Arizona. The opinions expressed in this column do not necessarily represent those of the publisher.

Let me get this right.  If the tournament was held in India, the tax payer would have paid the bill for additional security.  There was no offer to compensate the poor tax payer!

Once the tournament was moved to South Africa, the 'poor' franchisees need to be compensated. 

The Indian board has decided to compensate the eight IPL franchises for any extra expenditure they incur in moving from India to South Africa this year, a senior official said.

Apparently, the BCCI has a "definite idea" of expenses incurred by the franchises last year along with an estimate of how much the cost would have been had the event been staged in India this year, the official said.

Samyukt Kumar, 10, is a resident of Stamford, Connecticut.  He is a keen player / observer of the game and a budding writer. 

Cricket just like many other international sports is a recreation of the way modern life is in the form of a game. Each team representing a country is sometimes playing well and sometimes playing badly just like an actual country with its ups and downs.

Nowadays, we face ourselves seeing the slow downhill slide of Australia during the quick uprising of South Africa and India. Australia from 2001 till the start of 2008 was so strong that it was a huge accomplishment to beat them in one ODI while drawing a test was pretty good. Today beating Australia in tests and ODI’s has become the norm by teams like India and South Africa.

Once this standard had been set it hugely helped teams like New Zealand to resist whitewashes and make the games closer. This might help other teams in the near future to convincingly beat Australia. England will largely benefit from India’s 2-0 test win against Australia last October because during Ashes 2009 England will feel more confident than they should, saying they lost five to nil in Australia in 2007.

Few years ago the Australian cricket team’s strength could be described like the power of the country United States. They both were seemingly invincible. In early 2008 the U.S. economy started going down and at the same time cricket Australia were slowly losing their power over the world of cricket.

With the emergence of the IPL, players from different countries are getting a chance to play together. This year’s IPL 2 looks like it is going to be played in South Africa giving a different taste of conditions to many players outside of South Africa. With different countries players playing together players get a better feel of other countries.

The main reason for a country's decline in cricket is players aging and several retirements at one go. Many of Australia’s best players retired at the same time thus exposing their debutants. That is why I think India will be strong for the next 5 years as many of their players are young, talented and have the support of experienced players in the mix.

Samyukt Kumar, 10, is a resident of Stamford, Connecticut.  He is a keen player / observer of the game and a budding writer. 

By Gulu Ezekiel

Indian Premier League czar Lalit Modi has let it be known that the nation should not come to a halt just for the sake of the national elections.

By his recent comments it appears Modi would have no problems with the nation coming to a halt for his pet project, a faux-sporting event that seeks to inflate the already giant egos of movie stars and business magnates.

Modi had told a news channel earlier this month when the Home Ministry first raised objections to the IPL dates clashing with those of the elections that the tournament dates are "set in stone".

There has been a humiliating climb down since as the IPL committee is being forced to repeatedly tinker with their 'set in stone' calendar.

The very fact that the Home Ministry is spending so much time and resources in dealing with a private corporate-based domestic tournament is linked to both national politics and the clout of big-shot industrialists for which the IPL is their latest plaything.

NCP leader Sharad Pawar, the International Cricket Council's vice-president, has been giving the Congress the heebie-jeebies with his pre-poll bargaining. His connection to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (he was the previous president) means the government has to tread carefully when it comes to the Board's cash-cow.

Modi obviously sees himself as world cricket's money-bags but has not been able to hold onto his seat in his own backyard, the Rajasthan Cricket Association.

The current debate over whether the IPL should be held at all or cancelled due to security reasons has seen the battle lines drawn. Those backing it largely have a financial stake in the tournament while those opposing it are on the outside looking in.

What is shocking is the amount of rope Home Minister P. Chidambaram is giving to the organizers - why can't he just say no?

All attempts to link the staging of the IPL to 'national pride' are petty and bogus as former India captain Bishan Singh Bedi and other influential voices have already eloquently stated.

Modi's finger-wagging admonitions aimed at the media for constantly raising the 'S (security) word' and his statement in a TV interview aired on Sunday that "there are too many news channels in India" is pretty amusing.

When last year these same channels went gaga in their coverage of IPL's inaugural season, Modi apparently had no issue with their numbers.

If at all national pride comes into the equation, it is linked to the battle for world power between the 'white' cricket nations (led by England) and the 'non-white' (led by India).

After a century of Anglo-Australian dominance, this monopoly was finally broken in 1997 when Jagmohan Dalmiya was elected president of the ICC, the first from Asia.

Market forces linked to the massive cricket-fan base in India and the three other Asian nations of the ICC then saw a major shift in the power equation.

The inaugural Champions League 20/20 was cancelled late last year in the aftermath of the Mumbai terror attacks. Another setback for the IPL board this year may well see a power shift once again.

But should we really care? The BCCI has lost the moral high ground with its blatant use of money power and intimidation aimed at players and officials connected to the rebel 20/20 Indian Cricket League - a precursor of the IPL - launched in 2007 by media mogul Subhash Chandra. And Modi has acted like a battering ram ever since he made it into the BCCI in 2005.

Having already used strong-arm tactics to ruin the international career of New Zealand fast bowler Shane Bond (among many others), the vindictive BCCI has now gone too far.

Trying to block the appointment of ICL 'rebel' and former Kiwi international Craig McMillan from the TV commentary team for the forthcoming Test series will only alienate the Board from the worldwide cricket fraternity.

The saddest part of the whole business is that it was former India all-rounder-turned-commentator Ravi Shastri who raised the red flag when informed McMillan would be part of the Sky TV commentary team for the second Test (Sony transmits the pictures from Sky, the host broadcaster).

Then again it was Shastri who gained notoriety last year by referring to Modi as "the Moses of cricket". While the Indian cricket team is being treated like rock-stars as they travel around New Zealand, team manager and BCCI official Niranjan Shah has been described as a "traveling goon" in the local media for acting as the Board's enforcer. And around the cricket world the BCCI is now dubbed the 'Board of Control for Cricket Intimidation.'

You can find a smidgen of logic in the banning of rebel Indian players from domestic tournaments conducted by the BCCI. But to insist on extending this ban to other national bodies and deny sportsmen and even umpires and commentators their bread-and-butter is both illegal and immoral.

Will print journalists who reported on the ICL be next on the IPL 'hit-list'? Already internet journalists are banned due to the IPL's own woeful website and foreign news agencies boycotted the first season due to the strictures that were presented to them in distribution of photos.

On the current New Zealand tour, Indian players were withdrawn from an exhibition 20/20 match due to the presence of a former ICL player. Indian cricketers have also been banned from being in the same English county side as these 'rebels'.

Ironically even when India led the sporting world in the boycott of apartheid South Africa from 1970 to 1991, there was no ban on Indian players being part of the same team as South Africans in both county cricket and the two World XI series in England in 1970 and Australia in 1971-72.

We had been told the IPL franchises would improve the spectator facilities in stadia around the country—among the worst in the world despite the Board's billions - and open academies to foster talent.

With the recession already cutting into their budgets, such grandiose plans seem highly unlikely now. But that has not prevented the owners from being busy making promotional videos and holding 'reality' TV shows to pick cheerleaders for the second season.

The BCCI is acting like a nouveau-riche spoilt brat in its attempts to destroy the ICL, which itself has fallen on hard times. It sure knows how to make money. But does it know how to spend it wisely?

Using its financial clout to browbeat and intimidate the rest of the cricket world into toeing its line will sooner of later backfire on Indian cricket.

The writer is a freelance journalist and author based in New Delhi. The opinions expressed in this column do not necessarily represent those of the publisher.

With the test series between India and Sri Lanka starting tomorrow, it is slated as a clash between the spin giants. If Sri Lanka will be betting on mastery of Murali and mystery of Mendis, India will surely rely on the accuracy of Anil Kumble and aura around Harbhajan Singh. While Kumble’s record is beyond the microscopes of any analysis, Harbhajan Singh is yet to become a reliable replacement of his senior in the team.

Bhajji entered the scene in 1998 but remained a shadow of Anil Kumble till Steve Waugh’s final frontier arrived in India in 2001. With 32 wickets in 3 tests, he turned into a turbanator. But since then, such magical performance has eluded him although it will be fair to say that such series come once in a life time.

With 275 wickets in 66 tests at an average of 31, his career could be said as nothing spectacular.  Yeah, he has been second best after Anil Kumble for many a years now. Kumble had taken 300 wickets after 66 matches at 28 a piece which is slightly better than Bhajji’s record. Kumble’s initial matches also included those on crater-filled pitches at home, a privilege Bhajji certainly hasn’t enjoyed. But Kumble’s performance improved drastically especially in the current decade. Can Bhajji do it? Only time will tell.

Bhajji’s biggest problem has been performing abroad. Table below compares his performance away and at home

The startling difference is visible in not only the averages but also the wickets per matches. Although on an average he bowls 51 overs at home as compared to 38 overs which could be reasoned to the higher reliance on pace attack outside India. With India going with a "3 pacers and Kumble" attack most of the time on pitches outside subcontinents, he has played lesser matches. But for a quality spinner like him, the difference of 2.3 wickets per match is little strange. Obviously, he has to toil harder on pitches abroad but he still manages to get a wicket in every 13 overs out of India as compared to every 10 overs in India.  Just that he proves to be a fraction expensive too but that is negligible.

Although he has complaied about the difference in the balls used at home and away which  causes the difference in the performance.

 
At home, Bhajji’s 62% of the wickets have come against Australia, West Indies, South Africa and Zimbabwe in 45% of the matches played at home. These countries are not regarded as highly as some of the other nations like Sri Lanka or Pakistan when playing Indian spinners in their own den is concerned.

Not surprisingly, his favourite opposition is Australia. If Ponting averages in the range of 12 in India, good amount of credit goes to Bhajji. He took 23 wickets in the 4 tests after those 2001 heroics which clearly suggest that 2001 success was not a fluke. Australians, look like surrendering to him as he needs just 7 overs to take each of their wickets. The very same bowler needs 13 overs to take a wicket against Pakistan. South Africa has always been vulnerable against quality spin on dusty tracks and Zimbabwe was never strong enough to face the spin music in India.

Leaving aside these four sides, he has taken 72 wicktes in 20 tests against rest 5 sides at 34 a piece in space of 13 overs. His biggest hurdles have been Pakistan without much surprise and New Zealand & England with little surprise. Bhajji has failed to trouble England and New Zealand in India. He needs 13 and 17 overs to take a wicket respectively against these teams and has taken 33 wickets together against these sides in 10 tests. Surely, these two sides are not as vulnerable against spinners, especially India’s second best, as they might be perceived.    

 
Although he has bowled well against Sri Lanka in India with 14 wickets in 3 matches needing 7.3 overs to take each wicket, it’s his record in Sri Lanka in 4 tests which is a little worrisome. He took 7 wickets in these 4 matches needing almost 20 overs to take a wicket. But that was at least 7 years back when Bhajji was relatively inexperienced. But this time he is experienced, has his place almost cemented in the side, Jayasuriya is retired from tests and Kumble is still present in the side with his deadly accuracy. This time, Bhajji needs to prove his worth at least in sub continent this time if not outside it.  Currently his record outside India is not worth discussing.

- Vibhash 

One of the most common positives emanating out of ODIs are, they have made test cricket more exciting and result oriented. More and more tests are ending in four days and even if there are draws, they are not as boring as they used to be earlier. In the last few years either the matches have ended in a meek surrender by one side or have been engrossing. Yeah, there have been boringly batting carnivals also but they are not very frequent. Like, in the recent India-Australia series, draw at Adelaide produced exciting cricket for 5 days and especially on the last day when the quality of cricket made the result a possible outcome almost till the tea. India-SA series started with a painfully boring draw but next two ended in results. Recent SA-England series started off with a draw but SA had to put a record breaking effort to avoid almost certain defeat.

Like the methodology followed earlier, lets look at the last 25 years by breaking the entire period into group of 5 years each. Here, I am not counting SA as they made a comeback to international cricket only in 1991-92 and other infants Zimbabwe & Bangladesh.

Table 1 shows the % of tests drawn for each of the seven test playing nations during the spans of five years for last 25 years. In this period each team played approximately 45 tests per year on an average with New Zealand & Sri Lanka averaging in 37-38 range and England & Australia averaging above 50 attributed to their well designed calendars.  

Table 1

For each of the team, % of draws is highest in the first period and it declines after that. Coincidently, with ODI world cup coming to subcontinent, this was the period in which number of ODIs played started increasing. Effect was probably visible in the next period. The most significant change is visible in Australia’s numbers. Obviously if they are given the credit to change the face of test matches by playing them more aggressively, the numbers show it. They need not have won them all, but their cricket has surely made sure that the matches they play are more result oriented.      

Table 2 shows the number of ODIs played by each of these teams. The period 1983-1988 is not counted for Sri Lanka as they got the test status in the middle of this period. India’s ODI per year increase significantly in the period 1993-1998 although they still played 50% of their tests as draws. This was the period when they were easily winning at home although the trend of lose the first test and draw the rest was the trend abroad. Australia’s ODI/year as been consistently increasing 1993 and the % of draws have been declining since then and declining by a significant number. One more interesting observation is – England has the minimum number of ODIs per year in the last two periods. Is it better scheduling by them so that the players do not burn out as England already has a very busy domestic calendar? Or is it that they are lesser in demand to be watched playing ODIs by their own crowd as ODIs have primarily become the function of demand by the viewers especially the fast food lovers. May be either England have more purist followers. They also have a huge soccer following – a segment T20 is trying to target. The story will become more clear with the EPL.

Table 2                                        

Just in case you have found it little difficult to glance through the tables, you can have a look the figure below. Red line displays the increase in number of ODIs per year from 1983-1988 to 2003-2008. Blue line indicates the drop in % of test drawn in the same period. The figure looks a bit like mirror image – increase in number of ODIs played causing more results in test matches.

Like any other analysis, this analysis is also debatable and invites various counter arguments like a draw is not just a function of style of playing but also opposition and venue matters. Like, in Chennai 2008, even Sehwag scoring a T20 style triple hundred, the dead track made bowling look innocuous and would not have produced a result even with a bonus day. But numbers do tell some trend.

 - Vibhash 

After the madness of IPL and 2 consecutive ODI series, the Sri Lankan tour of Team India will bring back the so called old magicians into the business. If the ODI team could not hold their front against the Lankan’s spinners, the same spinners will be facing an uphill task against India’s middle order which has given some headache to the best of attacks. India may not have won every test they have played, they may not have been as formidable as Australia, they may be blamed as inconsistent or loosing the tests in a session or two, but whatever good the team has done (they have had the best test arena in last decade or so as I have already discussed), some credit must be given to Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, VVS Laxman and even Sourav Ganguly. Sehwag also deserves some credit for team’s improved performance but let’s concentrate on Fab 4 as of now.

We can have a look at their individual records, how they have done in a winning cause or a losing cause or even to draw a match. But, batting is all about partnerships. Hence, let’s look at how they have partnered with each other.

Over the years, the typical batting order has been like this – Dravid at 3, Sachin at 4, Laxman/Ganguly at 5 or 6. At times, Dravid has come at 6 and Laxman at 3. Also at times Dravid has opened the innings. Anyhow, it would be safe to assume that Dravid, Sachin, Ganguly and Laxman have batted at 3-4-5-6 positions.  

Here “Inns” means the number of times a batsman has been involved with the other batsman. % 100 P’ship or %50 P’ship have been calculated as number of 100/50 partnerships divided by total partnerships. 50 plus P’ship is the summation of these two.

The table below shows how each one of them has been with the others in the partnerships when India has won a match. Not surprisingly, Sachin and Dravid top the list in terms of number of runs and numbers of innings as these two have been India’s best batsmen for quite sometime now. Over 50% of the times these two have had a 50+ partnership in case India has won the match. Surprise lies in Sachin and Ganguly’s data. They average over 71 in a winning cause and have had 50+ partnerships more than Sachin – Dravid combination. If anyone had any doubts on Sourav’s importance in the team as a batsman, here lies part of the answer. He has been as instrumental in winning matches as his other colleagues. Not surprisingly, Dravid – Laxman combination who has tormented Australians to a great extent, averages 76.45 in a winning cause. The record suggests that Dravid-Ganguly pair was the least preferred on crease if India had to win a test where as it was Sachin-Ganguly pair which benefitted them the most.   

All in all, these 4 average 62 per dismissal and 42.34% of the times make the partnership higher than 50 if India wins the match.

Coming to the draw matches, Sachin- Laxman pair and Dravid – Ganguly pair are the best bet where as Laxman – Ganguly don’t seem to spend much time together in draw matches. All in all, these 4 average 81.86 together in partnerships in draw matches and 45.28% of the times have a 50+ runs partnership. One interesting point he is - % of century partnerships increase by 12% and % of half century partnership decrease by 9%. Most of these draw matches have been those matches where middle order helped India getting a huge score but the bowler’s could not get the opposition in time. Not many of them would be the ones where India has saved the match in the 4^th innings as they have not had a great record doing that. Had the middle order shown the glimpse of this strong performance in the 4^th innings, India might have saved many defeats.

Now we come to the matches where India has lost a test match. All of them have a record worse than their overall record when India has lost a test. But what about the partnership records? Not surprisingly, the average partnership has been below 30 runs. Dravid-Laxman pair averages lowest when India has lost. This was the same pair who revived India in 2001 India-Australia series and repeated their heroics in the famous Adelaide test in 2004. But when Australia toured India, they beat India 2-1. One of the main reasons for that series defeat was failure of Dravid-Laxman pair. They scored only 83 in 4 innings at an average of 20.83. Australians had definitely done their homework.

Let’s look at Sourav’s partnership. He has the best record in % of century partnership as well as % of half century partnerships. Only in his case, total 50 plus partnership as a% of total partnership exceed 25% and overall average exceeds 30% with each of these three batsmen. His record may not be the best among these 4 but he surely bats well in partnerships.       

The analysis does not consider the quality of opposition, venue or situation of the match and could be debated. But, in a more holistic view, numbers do tell a story.   

 - Vibhash 

With Rohit Sharma being preferred over Yuvraj Singh for the test series in Sri Lanka, Yuvraj is going to get some rest for his injured knee. Although there are talks that the rested word used us a sugar coated replacement for dropped because of his susceptibility against quality spin bowling. Looking at his condition in the past few months and the form he has been in, the talks look more to be a reputation denting exercise. But there is definitely some merit to the argument of his batting against spin bowling. After all, his tremendous start in his ODI career was largely dented by the Murlis, Price and Flowers of the spinner’s world.

 The Table below gives his record against most countries – excluding not very strong like Bermuda or Kenya.

Having a look at his record against different countries - he is excellent against Bangladesh and good against Zimbabwe but lets leave these two nations.  His favourite opponents have been South Africa, England and Pakistan. Point to be noted here is that none of these three countries have big turners of the ball. South Africa has never had a quality spinner. In this period (2000-2008), only Shahid Afridi has been the long term prospect for Pakistan as a spin option especially in the last couple of years. But he relies more on his pace variations rather than spin. Anyhow, Yuvraj has had such an exceptional run against Pakistan that no bowler seems to trouble him. England has recently got Monty else they were surviving with the likes Giles’ and Snape’s. There could be an argument about Giles’ ability to trouble some of the best batsmen including Sachin Tendulkar but he somehow could not trouble Yuvraj very much. Out of total 23 matches played against England, there were 7 matches when both Giles and Yuvraj Played. Yuvraj averages 52 in these 7 matches mainly because of the famous Natwest series in 2002 when he batted exceptionally well.  Next time they played in a 3 match series, Yuvraj Averages just 12.33. The table below tells his record against these two spinners i.e. when they played in the same match with Yuvraj.

Real trouble starts with Murali, Hogg and Vettori. The table below gives some insight about how Yuvraj has performed against these spinners – Murli being the greatest off spinner ever played, Hogg bowled really well in last few years and Vettori has been New Zealand’s trump card.

Out of the total matches played against Australia when Hogg was one of their spinners, Yuvraj’s average drops to 22.14 that too with one substantial innings of 121. If we take out this innings, his average drops to 14. Although his over all average against Australia is only 27.65 which is almost 9 less than his overall average. When Hogg does not play, Yuvraj scores over 34 runs per innings against Australia at lightening fast strike rate of 96.69 in 12 matches. Clearly, Hogg’s bowling has had an impact on his batting.  

Against Deniel Vettori there was also a horrendous series in 2003 i.e. just before the world cup. Entire Team India stumbled on pitches terribly suited for pace attack of hosts. Vetorri might not have played a very big role in Yuvraj’s failure there. Barring that series, Yuvraj scores 91 in 7 innings with one not out which takes his average to marginally above 15.

Murali’s case presents enough data set for assessing Yuvraj’s skills against quality spin bowling. His average is 22.7 where as his overall average against Sri Lanka is 31. His strike rate drops to 73 from 80.  In case Murali is not playing, Yuvraj’s average jumps to 64.2 against Sri Lanka at a strike rate of 91.71. Not only these numbers, there is also a stark difference in the number of boundaries hit. When Murali plays, Yuvraj hits 1.86 4s and 0.18 6s in an innings. In Murali’s absence,Yubraj hits 4.5 4s and 0.88 6s against Sri Lanka in 8 matches. Murali, with all his talent and guile, surely affects Yuvraj’s batting.

Another study against Shane Warne would have been interesting but Yuvraj played only one match involving him.

One can argue about the methodology of the analysis as only the number of balls played against the spinner should have been taken into consideration. Right. But a bowler of Murali’s calibre or Hogg’s form (esp. In last two ODI series against India) plays on a batsman’s mind and affects his batting when the bowler is merely warming up to bowl. Several other spinners could also have been included but I could think of only these to have affected Yuvraj’s batting immensely. The last table below gives an idea about how Yuvraj has performed against these three or when these three were not playing.

The difference in average (of 17.57 per innings) and strike rate (of 22.90 per 100 balls) suggests that there is a story hiding behind spinner’s arm for Yuvraj Sing. Looking at the difference in the average boundaries per innings, Yuvraj  Singh does not look at his natural explosive against them  as well.

- Vibhash 

After two losses in two consecutive finals, picture looks a bit worrisome yet not so gloomy for team India. To look for happy days, we don’t need to go very far down the memory lanes – CB series win will do it for us. Just after the series, India was looking such a formidable side that it looked clear favourites in Kitply cup as well as Asia Cup. On the other hand, Australia definitely looked beatable especially when they had lost 3 of their 6 matches in the competition to India with one being washed out at an evenly poised stage. Few months and an IPL later, team India looks a jaded lot where as Australians have done what they are best at – crush their opposition completely (They beat West Indies in their den by 5-0 margin). Clearly, the consistency shows up here. If CB series was a rare blemish in Australia’s records, India notched up their performance than their normal level.

 
Now, in an ODI, winning is all about scoring at as faster pace as possible and loosing as fewer wickets as possible because loosing wickets hampers the run rate. When it comes to bowling, you have to take wickets at faster pace at a slower rate. In other words, your run rate per over has to be better than your opponents and may be you should take more wickets by giving away lesser runs than your opposition.

In my analysis, I consider four teams – Australia as they are truly world champions, India as they are my favourites, Sri Lanka as they have played really well in last five years and have been runners up in last world cup and South Africa as they are always considered a tough opposition to
beat. The time line considered is 5 years from today.

A look at the table above tells us clearly why Australia has been a true champion over the years especially with win loss ratio 3.22 in the last 5 years. They score 14.87 runs per wicket more than their opposition at a scoring rate faster by 0.69 runs per wicket. Sri Lanka scores lesser runs per wicket than South Africa yet have a better win loss ratio. With more number of matches played on Sri Lankan ground where their spinners just choke the opposition, their run rate conceded is best. May be their better net run rate has an effect there. A look at India’s number tells that although they score more than 3 runs per wicket but also concede maximum number of runs per wicket. This clearly tells the inability of their bowlers to take wicket. Their bowlers are also the most expansive of the lot conceding more than 5 runs per over.

Out of the total number of matches played per year, Australia seems be the best scheduler for their calendar year. Generally they play 25-29 matches per year although the figure was higher in the world cup year at 34. South Africa play 19 to 22 matches per year with more matches in world cup year at 30. India and Sri Lanka are far ahead in the number of matches they play every year.

If we divide runs per wicket scored by runs per over scored, the number that comes out to be over/wicket i.e. for how many overs a batsman stays at the crease. If the same number is calculated for the opposition and we subtract it from team’s number, it gives us how many more number of overs a batsman has been able to stay at the crease. Although the loophole is this methodology is that in case of no wicket lost in an innings, average is not calculated. But since it is safe to assume that such a scenario rarely occurs especially for the teams other than Australia, we can neglect this. The below figure gives an idea about how many more overs a batsman has been able to survive as compared to the opposition. Australia has been the clear leader here. On an average, their batsmen survive 1.95 overs more than the opposition.

South Africa comes second with the same number being 1.24 followed by Sri Lanka at 0.46. India just manages 0.20. Not that their batsmen do not survive at the crease long enough, but their opponents survive longer which makes the number small.

The figure below gives the Win/Loss ratio of these teams over the last 5 years. Surprisingly, Australia has come down from 5.75 to 2.66. Although, 3 of their 25 matches could not be completed. Had they won those 3, the same would have gone to 3.67.  Their worst period was 2005-2005 when they lost 8 of their 28 matches. Any team will happily walk away with this record BUT this is Australia. South Africa has been almost unbeatable in this period with losing only 3 out of 19 games.  India had its best run in 2005-2006 in Dravid-Chapell regime which was terrible for Sri Lanka. They lost a series 6-1 to India then.   

If we try to look at figure 1 and figure 2 at one go, we see that South Africa are winning more matches when their batsmen are surviving more at the crease as compare to their opponents. Same could be said about India and may be Sri Lanka. Although this number seems to be not as important for Australia as their batsmen were staying at the crease by 2.66 overs more than their opponents although their win loss ratio stayed at 3.12 (In 2006-2007), lesser than the peak 5.75. I have no explanation for this. May be they don’t stay at the crease that longer than others but score their runs fast enough to win so many matches.

Although above analysis does not consider the quality of opposition or the venue which does have an impact on these numbers. But I am just doing what an analyst does, take out some numbers and try to build a story around them.   

 - Vibhash

At this wee hour of night, I switched on the TV to find Australia - West Indies ODI on ten sports. My sleeplessness got some motive now.

As I switched on the TV, West Indies needed 108 of 117 with 8 wickets in hand. It sounds like an easy job with lots of wickets in hand and as per the run rate goes – after T20, 6 an over run rate looks easier than ever. But not when you are playing against Australia. The victory against them doesn’t look certain unless it has actually occurred and we hve become quite used to of it over the years. This team just keep dominating no matter what.

We anticipated, hoped, prayed them to be a bit less lethal with the departure of McGrath and Warne, but the softening doesn’t look creeping in. If Gilchrist’s retirement is going to have an effect, remains to be seen.

Today, Australia has just one lethal bowler – Brett Lee. The Clarks, the Jhonsons, the Brackens are all still not in that category but they are supplement enough for Lee’s brilliance. When everyone started waiting for Hayden’s retirement, Shaun Marsh seems to be praying for his retirement. All in all, the story remains the same – they keep getting replacements from their bench and they get them timely.

Even if they falter in one or more departments of the game, one thing which you can always witness is the intensity with which coupled with the disciplined makes them such a consistent performer. For example, in the recent India Australia series in India, in one of the matches they had a strategy of completely doing away with fine leg. It makes life extremely difficult for bowlers. But they rarely erred in line. Not even their weakest link, James Hopes. Expect the same form an Ajit Agarkar or Irfan Pathan and you know the result. See them celebrate after every win – one wonders about the childlike exuberance in the celebrations because they win so often that they should have got bored by it. But they celebrate almost in similar fashion no matter if it’s against Bangladesh or India – celebrations are neither vulgar to suggest as if the win was they got something completely unexpected nor sedate to suggest if its total boredom now after over a decade’s dominance. That shows how eager they are to win each every match. We should, in fact, replace the word eager by greedy.

This intensity, discipline and greed to win makes them the most hated team – no matter who they are playing, more often than not you tend to support their opponent.  

The story continued in the match also. West Indies were cruising at one point of time. They needed 36 of 43 balls with Bravo and Chanderpaul at the crease. If the bowling team wants to win from here, they need something spectacular event which lifts their moral and creates doubts in the batting side’s mind. Mike Hussey took a one handed flying catch and the match started turning. Findley and Chanderpaul kept meeting the run a ball requirement. With 12 needed in 17 balls, the match was almost over for Australia. Credit must be given to West Indies from here for making it so close and eventually loosing it. Ramadin could not score in 48^th over which made it 12 of 12 equation. Michael Clarke messed it up in selecting the bowlers in the final overs although their bowlers did not let him down. Bracken removed the last hope Chanderpaul and it was 8 needed in 6 balls. Shane Watson, considered as one of the biggest disappointments for Australia due to fragile fitness, bowled the last over. He is no Brett Lee but keeps bowling in mid 130s and bowls intelligently with tight line and length. Still, one would expect the batting team to pull of 8 of final over but it was not the case. Watson gave just 6 singles of the last 6 balls and Australia pulled of another sensational win out of no where. That is the beauty of their game – they hardly come under pressure and when they come, they don’t often stumble. Once again it’s the intensity level which is kept high till the last ball is bowled works for them. Even if the match is in a stage which is nothing but a mere formality, they will give as strong an attempt as in case of a close tie.

No doubt Australia is going to be hurt by retirement of Gilchrist and may be Hayden will go soon. But they have in their ranks weapons which they always wanted to have – all-rounder. James Hopes was doing a decent job till now. Now Shane Watson has also come in to give him company or may be competition.

In his latest book, Chetan Bhagat tries to give a glimpse of Australia’s cricket structure at the grass root level. What is most eye catching is their efforts to keep a player humble so that he is always willing to work hard on his cricket and his start status, if and when he succeeds at the highest level, doesn’t get into his mind.   

- Vibhash 

Going along the same lines of my earlier post, we get to see a few trends in India’s test record. Lets again look back in the periods of 5 years and stop in the period which threw India’s most celebrated win outside the country against a superpower – 1971 West Indies win. It starts from 1969 and ends at 2008. 

In the 1969-1973 periods, perhaps India’s biggest achievement was to have a 1-0 record against Sobers’ mighty West Indian side. Number of test playing nations was reduced by one with ban on South Africa however India had never played against them. These were the days when cricket was heavily overawed by India Hockey. India played 21 test matches and assuming average length of tests to be 6 days ( If I remember correctly, there were still a few 6 days tests played), India played 126 days of international cricket in 5 years which means 25 days of international cricket every year. Venugopal Rao, with no hopes of coming into the Indian Team, played 14 t20 matches in IPL spending 40 odd days and earned an amount which would have been unthinkable in 1970s. India won 25% of the matches played outside and India 31% of the matches played in India. These are all numbers. The biggest plus of this period was Sunil Gavaskar.

1973-1978 was era of Gavaskar’s establishment as a world class opener, Indian spinners creating an aura never been achieved again and the start of the trend – winning at home and loosing abroad. Out of the total 7 matches won, India won 5 at home. In fact, there was a decision in every match with just 2 draws in 13 matches. India lost a crucial series in Australia which they should have won as their opponents were deserted by Packer’s money. Note the number of draws in the table above – only 20% of the matches was drawn. They must be playing some aggressive cricket then.

Suddenly there was a spurt in number of matches India played between 1978 & 1983 – it went up by 165% to 53. This was majorly helped by Indo-Pak ties restarting after ages. India played two away series in Pakistan – lost both. India played one home series against them – won it. Most staggering record of this period was the number of matches lost at home – only one out of 26 matches played. Actually this is the period from which India’s near invincibility started at home – where most of the tracks were either benign or turners. Surprisingly this is the period when the spin quartet of India faded away, even at the start of the period. The number of draws increased to 64%. May be the aggression just died away. The biggest plus of this period was Kapil Dev – India’s best all rounder till date and may be forever. India won only one test away and it was Kapil’s 5 wicket haul which didn’t let Australia score even 143 in Melbourne.

India had already won the world cup and went on to improve itself as a strong ODI team at least in the first half of 1983-1988 periods. But this period was also the start of a bad phase in test cricket for India – they were never exceptional anyways. India could win only 6 out of 40 tests played with two coming against the new born baby of test cricket – Sri Lanka at home, one against West Indies and three against England. They did win the test series in England 2-0 but could not win it in Australia in spite of being a better team and having a few chances to win. In fact, when they played against the infant Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka, they lost. 62% of the matches India played ended in a draw. May be the test cricket was getting boring. But this period did produce one of the best tests ever played – the tied test in Chennai. The biggest plus of this period was Azharuddin who launched himself with a hat-trick of test centuries.

Things became even worse when 1988-1993 started. Sunil Gavaskar had already retired. The typical tussle between the players and BCCI was peaking. In bowling, India relied on Kapil Dev. In batting, there was no one as reliable as Gavaskar used to be. Azharuddin’s form had been volatile, Manjrekar was new, and oldies were just getting older. Enter a 16 year old kid – Sachin Tendulkar. Things did not change immediately like they do when Shahrukh Khan enters his movies. But by the end of this period, everyone knew Indian batting was not an orphan - he started as a kid and by the end the period, he was the backbone of Indian batting.  Captaincy had become a game of musical chairs – from Kapil to Vengsarkar to Shastri (as stand in) to Srikant to finally Azharuddin. India did not win anything if it was in alien territory. They played only 32 tests, drew 14 with 8 of them celebrated like victories (4 in Pakistan, 1 in Australia and 3 in South Africa) and when they won, it was mainly on square turners in India. The biggest plus apart from Tendulkar was Anil Kumble.

India kept their “tigers at home and not so abroad” record intact between 1993 & 1998. They did maintain a more than 1 win loss ratio but India just won at home apart from solitary win in Sri Lanka which was not very far away from home. 50% of the tests they played ended in draws. India did miss two historic wins narrowly (Outside the sub continent) – one against West Indies courtesy poor batting and one against South Africa courtesy poor weather. If 66 in Durban test was the lowest point of this period, getting Shane Warne down to dust was the best show of this period. The biggest plus of this period was Rahul Dravid.

Things started changing a bit from 1998 to 2003 period although the start was terrible with Cricket surrounded by betting scandals, captaincy troubles and India loosing to South Africa 2-0 at home. Sourav Ganguly took over from Sachin Tendulkar and started winning outside India but still in sub continent. Then they won in Zimbabwe, then in West Indies and finally in England. The highest point of Ganguly’s regime in test was stopping Steve Waugh’s final frontier in Kolkata when defeat was almost as certain as death. India did play some very good test cricket in this period which was sometimes paralysed by occasional hour of complacency – like in Zimbabwe when they lost the test in one session or in Melbourne when the last session killed their hopes. Look at the % of draws – 27% in 47 matches. May be the ODI effect was creeping in. The biggest plus of this period was Virender Sehwag and rise of Fab four as formidable four.

The final period of my analysis has been the best period till now. They maintained a win loss ratio of 1.6, have won more matches abroad than at home, won a test series in West Indies and England, won a test in South Africa and were commendable in Australia. One blemish though – they are not as good as home as they used to be. India lost a test series to Australia 2-1 which, many argue, could have been 2-2 but for bad weather. Other opponents have also not found it impossible to win at home. 40% of the matches have been draws and a lot of them were near victories but a combination of ordinary bowling and bad fielding let India down. If one can take out one plus from this period, it would be the emergence of a potent pace attack with strong bench strength. But, with the Fab 4 in the last leg of their careers, finding a stable middle order would be a major concern for India.         

  - Vibhash