This article is actually in reply to the comment posted by my friend and co cricket lover Anoop.
The comment i quote:
"I feel Aussies reacting as they have to the whole issue is a result of India's ability to get under their skin which only two other teams can manage:England(sometimes) and New Zealand.Right from the T20 World Cup we've been competitive and aggressive whenever we've played them.Never mind what the result was;but their frustration is born out of India's new generation's attitude of 'Give it Back!'.And their not used to it are they? That's why the cribbing.If other teams can master the tactic of upsetting the Aussies at their own game,my question is,is this the beginning of their end?"
It is an interesting observation he makes. Every time a team has won against the Aussies in recent times (it is not a long list though) they've managed to rub the Aussies the wrong way. Starting from the epic 2001 series in India with Ganguly making Waugh wait at the toss... Ashes '05, England, Michael Vaughan refusing Ponting's MoU of accepting the fielders word on dubious catches (the very understanding that is now in debate)... West Indies record chase of 417 on the final day in Trinidad (was it?) with the verbal dual between McGrath and Sarwan... New Zealand on countless occasions, especially in ODIs... Graeme Smith during South Africa's record 434 run chase.... off the top of my head. One exception that comes to mind is India's tour Down Under in '03-'04 where cricket of the highest class was played, and not surprisingly, in the best of spirits. Perhaps that was due to the cumulative effect of the absence of guttermouths (however great players they may be) Warne and McGrath and the aura of Waugh's swansong.
In general, it seems to imply that the way to beat the Aussies is to piss them off. Teams will beat Australia if they manage to upset them provided they back it up with skill and pure cricket. And, in fact, teams have been doing this with increasing frequency of late. I'm in agreement with Anoop to this extent. But is this really the beginning of their end?
Rewind: 2001 India defeats Australia 2-1 coming from behind. Some of us hollered the beginning of the end then... Well, I did : ) ... Its 2008, and the cricketing order hasn't changed.
I don't think it is the beginning of the end of Australia yet. In fact, their system is so good that i believe, the rest of the pack is way way behind. The West Indies era was different. The West Indian decline started with the retirement of greats like Sobers, Lloyd followed by the Big 4 and Viv Richards later. West Indies dominated because of great players, shrewd leadership, team spirit and the Hakuna Matata philosophy typical of the islanders. Once the greats retired, West Indies Cricket couldn't react. They didn't have a good enough system to produce replacements and strengthen the bench. And the mighty West Indies fell.
The Australian dominance, however, began gradually. Back in the 80's Australia realised the need for a better system of administration and the foundations of one were laid. After the Kerry Packer revolution, money started flowing in. Academies of excellence for players, coaches, umpires and technicians were set up and improved. Slowly the system became better and stronger. Australia did lift the World Cup in '87, but it was not until the mid 90's that the results began to show. The strength of Aussie cricket lies not in great individuals, but in a great system!
Therefore, I believe, Australia won't 'fall' like the West Indies did. They will be defeated only when cricket organisations over the globe rise to their levels. Until then, a loss here and there will remain minor blemishes.
The good news is that, theoretically, India stands the best chance since it has the resources, both in talent and dollars. If Pawar and Co. learn this soon enough and rise above petty politics and ad hoc moneymaking we might see a change of guard in another 8-10 years.
P.S. Just check out Cricket Australia website (http://www.cricket.com.au/) to understand just how organised it is. BCCI by the way, doesn't have one!
The comment i quote:
"I feel Aussies reacting as they have to the whole issue is a result of India's ability to get under their skin which only two other teams can manage:England(sometimes) and New Zealand.Right from the T20 World Cup we've been competitive and aggressive whenever we've played them.Never mind what the result was;but their frustration is born out of India's new generation's attitude of 'Give it Back!'.And their not used to it are they? That's why the cribbing.If other teams can master the tactic of upsetting the Aussies at their own game,my question is,is this the beginning of their end?"
It is an interesting observation he makes. Every time a team has won against the Aussies in recent times (it is not a long list though) they've managed to rub the Aussies the wrong way. Starting from the epic 2001 series in India with Ganguly making Waugh wait at the toss... Ashes '05, England, Michael Vaughan refusing Ponting's MoU of accepting the fielders word on dubious catches (the very understanding that is now in debate)... West Indies record chase of 417 on the final day in Trinidad (was it?) with the verbal dual between McGrath and Sarwan... New Zealand on countless occasions, especially in ODIs... Graeme Smith during South Africa's record 434 run chase.... off the top of my head. One exception that comes to mind is India's tour Down Under in '03-'04 where cricket of the highest class was played, and not surprisingly, in the best of spirits. Perhaps that was due to the cumulative effect of the absence of guttermouths (however great players they may be) Warne and McGrath and the aura of Waugh's swansong.
In general, it seems to imply that the way to beat the Aussies is to piss them off. Teams will beat Australia if they manage to upset them provided they back it up with skill and pure cricket. And, in fact, teams have been doing this with increasing frequency of late. I'm in agreement with Anoop to this extent. But is this really the beginning of their end?
Rewind: 2001 India defeats Australia 2-1 coming from behind. Some of us hollered the beginning of the end then... Well, I did : ) ... Its 2008, and the cricketing order hasn't changed.
I don't think it is the beginning of the end of Australia yet. In fact, their system is so good that i believe, the rest of the pack is way way behind. The West Indies era was different. The West Indian decline started with the retirement of greats like Sobers, Lloyd followed by the Big 4 and Viv Richards later. West Indies dominated because of great players, shrewd leadership, team spirit and the Hakuna Matata philosophy typical of the islanders. Once the greats retired, West Indies Cricket couldn't react. They didn't have a good enough system to produce replacements and strengthen the bench. And the mighty West Indies fell.
The Australian dominance, however, began gradually. Back in the 80's Australia realised the need for a better system of administration and the foundations of one were laid. After the Kerry Packer revolution, money started flowing in. Academies of excellence for players, coaches, umpires and technicians were set up and improved. Slowly the system became better and stronger. Australia did lift the World Cup in '87, but it was not until the mid 90's that the results began to show. The strength of Aussie cricket lies not in great individuals, but in a great system!
Therefore, I believe, Australia won't 'fall' like the West Indies did. They will be defeated only when cricket organisations over the globe rise to their levels. Until then, a loss here and there will remain minor blemishes.
The good news is that, theoretically, India stands the best chance since it has the resources, both in talent and dollars. If Pawar and Co. learn this soon enough and rise above petty politics and ad hoc moneymaking we might see a change of guard in another 8-10 years.
P.S. Just check out Cricket Australia website (http://www.cricket.com.au/) to understand just how organised it is. BCCI by the way, doesn't have one!
A fair resolution: 1) declare the second test between Australia and India played at Sydney during January 2 – 6, 2008 to be NULL and VOID on legal grounds, 2) cancel the ban on Harbhajan Singh, but punish him along with Andrew Symonds, Michael Clark and Brad Hogg for conduct unbecoming of players of test cricket, and of representatives of their countries.
ReplyDeleteExplanation: The umpires officiating for the test match (Mark Benson and Steve Bucknor) and the captains (Ricky Ponting and Anil Kumble) of the two playing sides have some legal grounds to enter into an oral agreement about umpiring decisions that AUGMENTS the ICC rules which provide for the umpires’ current decision making capabilities. However, under no circumstances do they have the jurisdiction to enter into an agreement between themselves that SUBVERTS the current rules of the ICC. To make this point clear, consider the incident involving Saurav Ganguly’s dismissal in his second innings. Ganguly (a left-hander) had nicked a ball, and the ball was supposedly caught by Michael Clarke in the slip position. Under normal circumstances, if the fielder (Clarke) was not in the direct line of sight of the umpire (Benson), or if the umpire was not sure if the catch was clean, he would consult the square leg umpire (Bucknor). If the square leg umpire also could not deliver a clear verdict, then the third umpire, who has the benefit of the TV replays, is referred to. This is the procedure for determining the dismissal of the batsman, as provided by the rules of the ICC.
Now, there is definitely the possibility that, when the third umpire is called in, the TV replays also could not determine the verdict clearly. This might be the case, for example, if the TV cameras could not provide the complete information on the position and the movement of the ball and the fielder during the catch. Currently, in international cricket, the batsman is usually given the benefit of the doubt, if the third umpire also could not reach a clear verdict. In this second test match, if the captains and the umpires, in this particular situation (where the third umpire is inconclusive), had agreed that to resolve the ambiguity in a more transparent manner, they would take the word of the fielder who caught the ball (to be conveyed to the umpires through the captain of the fielding side), then they are on a relatively strong legal ground. However, in the case of Ganguly’s dismissal, the umpire, Benson, decided to directly ask the captain of the fielding side, rather than first ask the square leg umpire and the third umpire. Thus his action amounts to subverting the decision process provided by the ICC rules. At this point, perhaps it is worth interjecting that there is no need to ascribe any sinister motives to the umpire. He must have simply gone by the earlier ‘Gentlemen’s agreement’, and possibly, he might not have understood the legal implications of his actions. Also, it is worth explaining the seriousness of this issue with an example here. In a game of cricket, if the umpires and the captains, on their own, could make agreements that subvert the ICC rules, then there is no guarantee that what is played at the venue is cricket. Just imagine, years later, the record books would specify a certain result, but what happened on the field, might be a game of gilli-danda, or football, for that matter! Thus it is very important to understand that the umpires and captains can only augment the decision making procedure provided by the ICC rules for the purpose of transparency, but they can never subvert the ICC rules. If they do, it could not be considered a game of cricket. Thus, the second test match between Australia and India played at Sydney, Australia during January 2 – 6, 2008 is NULL and VOID on legal grounds.
Note that this legal implication is also a happy consequence for all fair-minded followers of the game. Australia would still have the chance to go for their 17 straight test wins if they won the remaining test matches at Perth and Adelaide. Moreover, this would nullify the accusations of cheating that the Australian team has been hearing from many of their own countrymen. On the other hand, for India, they could still win the Border-Gavaskar trophy if they won the remaining two tests. Moreover, for Cricket Australia, BCCI, ICC and the media, the fact that the series is still undecided and kicking, would mean more revenue, and hence a welcome resolution. Thus this is the best outcomes for all parties involved.
(The grounds for my conclusions on the Harbhajan Singh ban, and punishing Singh, Symonds, Clarke, and Hogg will be explained later, in a subsequent article).
Yea, one thing I did like particularly about this blog is that, rather than just stating what we(Indian Team) lack and what they( The Aussies) do quite flawlessly,and stop without;you have highlighted the crux of why they are the way they are now; the actual reason and the effort thats gone into being a great team; one thing as you said the Pawar and his co should realize this sooner than later ! Nice work Amigo !
ReplyDeleteHi
ReplyDeleteMost articles lack substance, this article lacks that lacking.... i dint want to put it straight as "good work". Very original and highlights the core elements.
I request you to post on various other topics as well, anything under the sun.
Reading your blog not for topic, but the writing style..
Good luck.