NEWS
STAT SHEET
DIARY
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
PEOPLE
DEAR REDIFF

Where do you reside? USA UK UAE Singapore Hong kong Australia Canada North America South America Europe Africa Bahrain Kuwait Qatar Philippines Indonesia Asia New Zealand

It's the boyz from Oz, again!

Prem Panicker

The good thing about professional cricket sides (and I mean professional as in attitude, not in terms of whether or no you are getting paid for it) is that they have the ability to simutaneously keep in mind the immediate requirement, and a longer-term objective, when planning their game.

And Australia, judged on that yardstick, is as professional as they come. Thus, for their penultimate league game against New Zealand, they weighed it all up, and decided to rest their two fast bowlers, Kasprowicz and Fleming, as also lead run-getting Ricky Ponting. Instead, they went in with Adam Dale, Ian Harvey and Gavin Robertson -- sacrificing a pure batsman for two bowlers and a batsman who could belt the ball around a bit (Harvey).

This ensured that the players on their bench got some much needed centre wicket practise. And gave their captain and coach a fair assessment of their capabilities in the given conditions. Thus, if Australia finds itself needing to keep Kapra or Fleming out of the attack for its final league game against India, the management will know to pick Dale over Harvey -- and this is just one example.

Such innovative thinking continued beyond the picking of the team -- thus, Steve Waugh almost reversed the batting order, opening with Lehmann and Martyn, himself batting at three, and having the regular openers Mark Waugh and Adam Gilchrist come in at six and seven. It is easy to read arrogance into it -- but I think the more correct explanation was that he wanted to make sure that the likes of Martyn, Gilchrist and he himself had a good hit out in the middle, ahead of the crucial league game against India and, more importantly, the final.

That is planning at its best -- and just one more reason why Australia are streets ahead of most of the other sides in the business. Read between those lines, check out recent tours where the Indian bench has been seen more in the role of tourists than cricket players, and you could perhaps figure why the Indian side finds itself unprepared when injury strikes a lead player or two.

And in the facile ease with which it won -- two astoundingly bad decisions against their batsmen notwithstanding -- the Aussies demonstrated enviable strength on the bench. And again, there was a bit of a lesson India could learn if it cared to. Thus, on the other day, even when its frontline bowlers were getting thumped around, India failed to use the non-regular services of Tendulkar and Ganguly till late in the game, and never even remembered that Laxman does bowl a bit of off spin as well. Australia, on the other hand, has a team in which everyone barring keeper Gilchrist can bowl a bit. And regularly, they try them all out, with the result that there is a lot of variety in their bowling attack, and a lot of covers for the lead bowlers.

This brings up a further point of interest for the home side -- recently, when Rahul Dravid was dropped, Kishen Rungta went on record as saying that he had personally advised Dravid to "change his style of batting" and also "told him to concentrate on improving his off spin, so that he can be more useful to the side". Fair dinkum as the Aussies would say -- but what is the point of an individual player taking all that extra effort anyway? Saurav Ganguly, for instance, went at his own expense to Madras, to brush up on his bowling at the MRF Academy -- but how often does he get used? Laxman bowls a very restrictive brand of off spin, hitting the deck from a height, bowling a very tight line around off and generally being pretty difficult to hit around -- but of what use is that to anybody when he doesn't get to bowl? Dravid can practise off spin, leg spin and maybe even lethal reverse swinging yorkers... to as little effect -- a situation that will continue until our captaincy becomes more thoughtful, our coach (and I don't mean just the incumbents in those two jobs, this amnesiac tendency has been common to all our coaches and captains) actively explores extra options.

Back to the game of the day, where New Zealand won the toss and batted first, opening with Nathan Astle and Llorne Howell. Australia for its part opened with Adam Dale and Ian Harvey -- short, stocky men both, of more or less the same turn of speed, but different in every other aspect of their bowling. Dale's forte is the awayswinger and the huge leg-cutter, allied to superb accuracy (in this game, he bowled his 10 overs out in one sustained spell, and never once did he err badly in line or length). Harvey, on the other hand, is less of a mover, relying on his shoulder-strength to suddenly step up a gear and produce a ball considerably faster than his norm. However, his weak point is an erratic bowling style -- one minute full length, the next short, one ball outside off, the next sliding to leg -- that makes it difficult to set a field for him. From media reports, I understand that Harvey had been geared to the end of the season and was in fact on the verge of taking off on a holiday when he was summoned for one-day duties by the national side -- presumably, this lack of preparation has something to do with his less than good performance on the day.

One such delivery, that bit faster than you expect from Harvey, gave Howell -- who, from what we've seen thus far, seems just that shade heavy-footed to be a top-flight opener -- yet another bad day at the office. The ball was the faster one, swinging in just fractionally and pitched on perfect yorker length, Howell compounding his problems by playing all round it.

Stephen Fleming -- till this point in time the highest run-getter in the ongoing series -- looked in very good touch from the outset. Astle, who in his previous outings had played a few flashy strokes and then succumbed to wild swipes, meanwhile changed his batting style and dropped anchor. And between them, the two batted sensibly till an incredible return take by Adam Dale got the in-form Kiwi skipper. The ball was on fullish length, Fleming smashed it back down the track, the ball looked to have gone past Dale when the bowler stuck his right hand in the way and clung on.

That brought another in-form player to the wicket, in Craig McMillan. And sensible batting, with both batsmen hitting out only when possible, but looking for singles at every opportunity, got New Zealand progressing steadily through the middle overs: 22/1 in 5; 45/1 in 10; 62/2 in 15; 77/2 in 20; 105/2 in 25; 125/2 in 30...

Around this point, there was some suggestion by the television commentators that the Kiwis should have been getting runs a shade faster, that Astle (whose 50 came off 86 balls faced with 58 of those deliveries being unscored of) was hitting too hard and thereby finding the fielders where he should have been getting the singles. I thought that assessment was taking the credit away from some very thoughtful Australian bowling, and some very shrewd field placement (I don't remember when last I saw two short covers in place in the middle overs, a ploy Steve Waugh employed to block the off-driving of both McMillan and Astle).

It was the Aussie fielding -- very good, though the hard edge they showed against the other day was a bit blunted, perhaps by the 43 degree temperature and a swift breeze that kept swirling dust around -- that produced the breakthrough. Astle drove on the off, the batsmen went for a brace, and Robertson, running several meters to his left from long off, picked up on the run, transferred his weight and threw back all in a flash to the bowler's end to catch McMillan, who was just looking to break loose, out of his ground.

And that in turn brought Cairns to the wicket with just under 17 overs to go in the innings -- in my book, the best spot for the flamboyant strokeplayer. When he comes out in the first fifteen, the extra hardness and pace of the new ball defeats his strokeplay, especially the horizontal bat shots. But down in the middle against a slightly older ball, Cairns is lethal.

Rather sensibly, Cairns took a while to get used to the conditions. And during that phase he, like Astle, concentrated on the singles and on strike-rotation, taking the Kiwis to 145/3 in 35, 174/3 in 40... the ideal platform for a good go during the happy hour.

Astle, who had played the sheet anchor role right through (those who figure an anchor has no role in today's frenetic one-day cricket arena need to check this innings out, keeping in mind the partnerships he was involved in, to really understand what one player holding an end up can do for a side on a less than ideal pitch), fell in the 41st when a hard drive at an attempted yorker from Harvey saw the bowler dive to take it low in front of him on the follow through.

Parore, who in earlier games has been coming in lower down, was the number six on this occasion, and a perfect choice he proved to be. The keeper is a very well organised batsman, compact, stylish, with a range of strokes round the wicket and, more importantly, the ability to keep the singles coming. In tandem with an increasingly confident Cairns, Parore pulled smoothly out of the blocks and Australia's bowling wilted. Warne, who had bowled a very tight first spell, came in for murderous stick at the death. Cairns took a huge six off him over long off, then got himself stumped as he attempted to come down the track and repeat the shot. At which Chris Harris came in and, with Parore going well at the other end, kept up the tempo, taking Warne for two huge sixes in the 50th over.

It was a good demonstration of one day batting by the Kiwis -- one man holding an end up, the others all getting runs at a healthy clip, to put up a challenging score on the board. To win, in fact, Australia needed to make more than any side has made under lights at Sharjah (though admittedly, this is only the second tournament under lights at this venue).

In keeping with the policy of letting the relatively inactive players have a bit of a bat, Australia opened with Darren Lehmann and Damien Martyn. Lehmann does open for South Australia, but on the day seemed to be struggling for his touch especially when driving on the rise on the off side. Martyn, however, was in fine touch -- which meant that according to the contrary laws that govern cricket, he had to be the first to go.

A lusty cover drive off Simon Doull saw Chris Harris take a perfectly judged catch, anticipating the carry perfectly, getting into position, waiting on the ball and diving forward at the perfect moment to hold with seeming ease. A lot of fuss is made of the Jontys and Rickys of the fielding world -- in my book, Chris Harris, considerably less hyped, ranks right up there in the top bracket of outfielders.

Lehmann was not at his best, and his dismissal was on par with his form of the day, playing all over a slower straight delivery from McMillan to lose middle stump as he tried to step away and force to off.

That brought Steve Waugh, batting at three to get some practise, and Tom Moody together. In the 16th over, Parore did his team a disfavour when Dion Nash induced Moody to edge, only for the keeper to make a meal of the catch. A rare blemish from a Kiwi, given the high standards they set themselves in the field. And as it turned out, a very costly one, for on the day, Moody was in the mood to produce a match winning knock.

Steve Waugh, too, was looking good when the first of two apalling decisions in the game was handed down. Javed Akthar, himself an erstwhile off spinner, saw Paul Wiseman, bowling for the first time in a one day international, strike Waugh on his pads well outside line of off. The ball would, on the turn, have gone on to hit the stumps -- but the point was that Waugh was well outside line of off, he was playing a shot, and there was no way in heck he could have been adjudged LBW on that one.

The decision might have made a bit of a mess of Waugh's desire to have a long bat, but as far as the team cause went, it didn't seem to make much of a difference. Out came Michael Bevan and, within minutes of his arrival at the middle, Moody began to look like the Abominable Snowman who had lost his way and wandered into the Sahara by mistake. Bevan is not only an incredibly swift runner himself, he inspires swiftness in others -- and Moody, here, was made to run for his life as the normally tight Kiwi fielding wilted under the enormous pressure Bevan was putting on it.

In Bevan's running between wickets there are a couple of lessons for India's vaunted practitioners of the art. Some of the Indian batsmen, secure in their own speed, take off without reference to their partner's intentions or even abilities. Bevan, despite being probably the fastest between 22 yards in the contemporary game (he is to this side what Dean Jones used to be to Border's lot), judges his partner's ability perfectly, stretches him to the limit but never beyond and thus, despite all his fleetness of foot and readiness to take on the best arms, is rarely if ever involved in a run out.

Moody, after shepherding Australia along through the middle overs and helping to ensure that it never lost sight of the asking rate, fell in the 39th over when he tried to slash Dion Nash over extra cover. Simon Doull, one of the most notable exceptions (Kapra is another) to the rule that tall fast bowlers rarely make electric outfielders, raced in off the line to take a superbly judged catch.

That brought Mark Waugh to the crease. Bevan who, on the day, made his second successive 50 of the tournament (for once, with a couple of boundary hits and a six thrown in, where normally he strolls through at darned near a run a ball without the benefit of boundaries) was on song by that point, so the younger Waugh reckoned on taking a single off each ball he got, and letting the southpaw do the hard work.

A game earlier, Ian Chappell in the television comm-box was mentioning how he preferred umpires who deliberated before giving their decisions, to those who were quick on the trigger finger. Bevan's dismissal was a case in point to underline the validity of that. The ball from Nash was yorker length, and Bevan, on one knee, cut at it, his bat at the time about an inch off the ground. Parore held to his left, and at the level of his shoulders. Even if the umpire hadn't spotted that the ball was hit on the full, into the ground, a moment of deliberation should have told him that when the bat is that low to the ground, there is no way a cut can take the ball shoulder high to a tall keeper (unless it had hit the back of the bat, which very clearly was not the case here). But keeper and bowler appealed for the catch and Robinson, like Javed Akthar, made the kind of mistake an itchy finger on the trigger invariably causes.

That brought the two regular openers together. Australia's progression is interesting, as an indication of an almost perfectly conceived chase: 18/0 in5; 44/1 in 10; 60/2 in 15; 93/2 in 20; 121/3 in 25; 145/3 in 30; 176/3 in 35; 197/4 in 40, 229/5 in 45.

Going into the death, Australia required 63 off the last 60; 31 off the last 30. And when the team went past the winning post, it still had 2.1 overs in hand -- thanks to Mark Waugh who, after a stream of singles that kept the target in sight, opened out in the 46th over, with a six off Simon Doull over extra cover, before nailing it down in the next over with a crisp drive for four to long on off Nash.

A fluent win by a side that appears to have recovered from the Indian tour, and got back its confidence and spirit. And that mindset makes the Aussies a dangerous proposition on any kind of track.

Tailpiece: I am often accused of second guessing. Of pointing out, in my match reports, what the Indian team could have done in this or that game.

That does not take into account the fact that my match reports are merely a concise form of my online commentary -- at which time I am calling the play as it happens, not as an afterthought with benefit of hindsight.

But just for fun, let's try this: India plays its last league game against Australia, needing to win or, at the least, to lose by a narrow margin in order to make the final.

So what would you do, to maximise the team's chances? In my book, I would make these changes to the side: If Agarkar is playing, then fine, Agarkar comes in for Harvinder and solves one major problem. In such an event, I would retain Laxman. And when bowling, bring on Saurav Ganguly after the first 15, introducing him immediately after the fall of a wicket so I get two, three tight overs at least out of him at a time when the batsmen are not going to be going berserk. The same, again, with Laxman. And for the left-hander's in the Aussie side -- besides Gilchrist, there are also Lehmann and Bevan -- I would combine the off spin of Harbajan Singh with Tendulkar bowling leg spin, given the vicious turn he has been getting of late, and backed by a leg slip in place.

In any event, I would ensure that by the 35th over, I have used Ganguly, Tendulkar and Laxman for a minimum of ten overs, ideally 15. Which means that going into the death, all my frontline bowlers will have overs to spare, thus opening up my bowling options and ensuring that I have cover in case the slog proves hellish on any one bowler.

And if Agarkar remains on the injured list? Simple -- bring in Rahul Sanghvi, open with Prasad and Ganguly, and bring about a situation where, between Sanghvi, Harbajan, Kanitkar (who, incidentally, I would use in the middle, not reserve him for the death), Kumble, Laxman and Tendulkar, I have 60 possible overs of various kinds of spin. Which, with ten each of medium pace from Prasad and Ganguly, gives me more than enough options to play around with, juggle things around and keep the batsmen from settling against any one bowler or combination.

Now to see what actually happens...

Scoreboard