Shane Warne vs Anil Kumble

Reference: - Too Sexy (Leisure, Sport and Travel, The New Sunday Express, 14.08.2005)

Dear Sri Samanth,

It is your comment "there exists, let us remember, a straight arrow version of Warne" referring to Anil Kumble that demanded me to write this mail. Kumble is a straight arrow I agree; he is as important to India as the other is to Australia, but not at all a 'version'.

When talking about the importance of a bowler, I reckon, we should consider two factors about the other bowlers he is bowling with. For many years, Kumble was the only strike bowler for India (though not on foreign soil on most occasions). He only had one Javagal Srinath to share the company with. No other bowler stayed in the side for a long time to make an impact and develope a rhythm with him. Kapil Dev, as we know, was a mere shadow of the great cricketer in his final years. Venkatesh Prasad and Manoj Prabhakar on most occasions were exploring the 360 degrees around the ground and finding the slopes. Venkatapathy Raju and Rajesh Chauhan stayed only briefly. It was only late that he could get a good companion in Harbhajan Singh. So naturally, Kumble could have got many wickets, as, in any case, he is a genuine bowler. But when you look at Australia, there were many bowlers who Warne shared the company with. Paul Reiffel, Merve Hughes, Craig McDermott, Damien Fleming, Glenn McGrath, Jason Gillespie, Brett Lee, Michael Kasprowicz, Andrew Bichel were (are) all potential match winners. Comparing these two bowling attacks is like sending a group of four persons to pluck out the flowers in a garden as opposed to a group of only two. As the count of the persons decreases, naturally the number of flowers per person increases. So there is no wonder in Kumble plucking out more flowers in a batch of two. But still, Warne has more flowers, and that too neatly plucked, in his kitty albeit tough competition from three others.

The other thing we need to consider is the competition for the spinner's place in these two sides. Naturally, India were depending chiefly on spinners, and Kumble with his ability, made it to the side. But there wasn't a permanent place for a spinner in the Australian ranks during most part of the '80s and the early '90s when Warne made it to the side. Tim May and Greg Matthews weren't 'successful' bowlers. It was tough for a rookie to come into the side in the first place and then make it his own. This was also the case with Anil Kumble after the fall of L Sivaramakrishnan. Both these players enjoyed the freedom as there wasn't any competition. As years went by, the case remained the same with India. The primary alternative to have thought was Sairaj Bahutule. Finished! Does one need more explanation?! But toward the end of the '90s and into the 2000s, there surely was one Stuart MacGill on the horizon. If one looks into the career stats of both these players up to where MacGill stands now, he can see no difference whatsoever. Still, Warne gets the nod ahead of MacGill. This clearly explains the greatness of his bowling skills. Also, Kumble was dropped many times from the team, but Warne hasn't tasted that medicine much. I accept Kumble is a genuine bowler and undoubtedly one of the best to have played for India, but he never is a match for Warne.

Still, I don't consider Warne to be the greatest ever spinner to have played the game, as the media boasts. In my book, that honour goes to Sidney Barnes the great England 'spinner'. He delivered the 'ball of the century' many times as opposed to Warne's two. 189 wickets in 27 tests at 16 that includes 24 5WI and 7 10WM is simply outstanding, isn't it? The best slow bowler? Australia's Clarrie Grimmett, with 216 wickets from 37 tests at 24 with 21 5WI and 7 10WM. I wonder why don't the media recognise these past cricketers! Probably, we should blame the absence of videos..........

Full content of this post along with replies can be had here

Read More

Six decades past Hiroshima and Nagasaki; still lapping its lips

It was on August 6 and 9 sixty years back, that America poured the Little and Fat Boys into the hearts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, frying its people to death. The casualty toll was estimated at 1,30,000 in Hiroshima and 75,000 in Nagasaki. Apart from these dreadful numbers, there were (are) people who lost (lose) their lives as years went by (go by) from radiation doses. Those born with genetic disorders add to the whatchamacallit. This was the first example of a morbid and fiendish America, trying to usurp the control of the world from a similar Britain. The continued bombings virtually turned these places into morgues without any mercy to the clamour of the moribund Japanese.

And after that, the world saw America sucking up the bloods of millions of innocent people all over the world. The last stop was Baghdad, laying waste to one of the greatest ever civilizations and transforming it into a land of inarticulate squalls. The vehicle has now started moving again. As of now, war has added an economical backdrop to curb the usually perceived azoic silence. So, we cannot expect a wo to the happenings as the backlog of one would mark the beginning of another assignment to 'combat terrorism'. In the name of War on Terror, America has so far killed uncountable number of civilians across the globe. Who will bring the mighty America to any court of justice? With countries like Britain and Australia playing second and third fiddles and many others, except the sufferers, around to cringe and cuddle them, no stoppage to this homicide can be expected in the near future. A ‘forthcoming power’ like India also got frightened by America’s ferine halo and remained gagged without even taking a gambit to condemn the ruthlessness. Until some resolute government comes girded up its loins to take up the cudgels for the ordinary people, we might be forced to continue giving our eyes and ears to crumps in the streets and guileful guffaws of the war-thirsty ogres on TV. Even the great Napoleon had a Waterloo. Then, nincompoops like the senior and junior Bush are no exemption.

The trustiness of the UN is sold out way before. Even after America were found guilty of cooking up stories to justify their onslaught and invasion in Iraq, the hokey UN didn’t try to winnow America’s true intent from their tergiversations and impeach them; in fact, it ratified their misdeeds by disencumbering from its obligations.

Back to the reminisced story; we now count Hiroshima as an industrial centre and Nagasaki as a shipbuilding centre. Hats-off to the administration and people in Japan and across the world, since their voluntary service made a land of rising sun from a land of ravaged sun. The epilogue is, ‘nothing is impossible’. But America, the world police, continues desolating the world. If this practice goes on like this, the people of the world would need planchettes as their communication means in the 21^st century and beyond. Having said all this; let me divulge clearly, I am against the mammonish and peevish American governments over the years and certainly not against the country or the people of it.

Read More

The new off-cricket rules in cricket

The new rules in cricket, if implemented, are definitely going to spoil the game. These blind suggestions have raised the eyebrows of one and all. The most baffling thing here is that these changes have been suggested by a committee led by the former Indian cricketer Sunil Gavaskar! Let’s look into the wrong sides of these laws.

Substitute who and when

The substitution directive would make cricket a 12-a-side game effectively. More than this, it would make the game more obscure and boring than interesting. The team winning the toss can take full advantage of this new directive. They can decide which player to be substituted and when.

Consider the situation in which India plays Pakistan. Let VVS Laxman be India’s 12th man and Asim Kamal that of Pakistan. Both are pure batsmen. If India wins the toss and decides to field first, then after finishing the spell of one of its bowlers, India can make the substitution with Laxman so that he can field for the latter part of that innings and can bat when India chases. But because Pakistan is batting first, they may not substitute a batsman with Kamal, for it would be foolish if they do so. Also when they come to bowl, they would not substitute a bowler in their ranks with a batsman. So the full advantage goes to the team winning the toss. This, in effect, would paralyse the game.

Cricket is a game unlike soccer or hockey. Both have their own scopes and limitations. The beauty of these games lies in these scopes and limitations. My question to those who demand substitution in cricket like in soccer is, would you welcome a field restriction in soccer like in cricket? Consider a scenario in which one of the teams playing in a soccer match cannot have any defenders and the goal keeper can stand only at the center below the bar for the first 10 or 15 minutes and the opposition takes its advantage using its strikers; and this reverses after the half time. It would be really deadening. We have to realize that cricket is cricket and soccer is soccer. There shouldn’t be any cross-over. Better make cricket a 12-a-side game!

Who benefits, if implemented

The rule of substitution is going to be handy for the bits and pieces and specialist batsmen. Many think today that this wouldn’t help the bits and pieces cricketers, which is incorrect. That the substitution would come into play only during the second half in a LOI is apparent. The most probable violation of this is when a bowler who has finished his spell for the team bowling first be replaced with another player. In the previously mentioned case (which is most probable), the benefit can be had only with a new batsman coming into the frame as most teams would go into a game with enough bowlers and may not take a gamble with only 4 players who could bowl; whereas if a bowler is replaced with a batsman, it can strengthen the batting department further. The best option here is to go in with a bits and pieces cricketer (like Mohammad Hafeez, Sridharan Sriram, Shahid Afridi, Rikki Clarke, Andre Adams et al) as the twelfth man. This would provide the team enough room to utilize the twelfth man at any stage in the game. The teams that realize this will take the advantage of substitution.

Field restrictions

The first 15 and the last 5 overs in the present version of LOI cricket (as the other is running on the test basis now and is not mandatory) would meet the entertainment aspect of the game. Splitting the field restriction into three PowerPlays would only make the game more baseball-like. Cricket is a game in which both the batsmen and the bowlers need to get equal importance. The new rule would make the game more batsman-friendly. It would be better if the ICC realizes that cricket is not just a ‘hitting’ game. Who said watching the containment cricket from the16th to the 40th over is uninteresting? It is the time when we get to see the brains of intelligent middle order batsmen in the likes of Rahul Dravid, Damien Martyn, Boeta Dippenaar et al. The Twenty20 version has already spoiled international competitive cricket and has made the whole game encapsulated into 40 overs and less than 3 hours.

A better option

The rule of substitution can be used to good effect in the last two innings in test cricket. The bowling team can exploit a fifth day wicket with a spinner who replaces a batsman. Likewise, a batsman who failed miserably in the first innings could be replaced with another. This would make more sense and create evenness between the two teams.

Business rather than cricket

The new rules are also developed along the same lines of the Twenty20 version, and with an eye and a half on attracting more sponsors than to make the game more interesting. It is obvious that the ICC has not sought suggestions from cricket boards, or from those outside the organization. Cricket is a game of the people and not a monopoly of the ICC. I wonder how many people have told the ICC that the existing version of the game is uninteresting! I would like to know how many surveys have been conducted on this and among who? No wonder in their acting foolishly, for no one at its helm was a good or even a mere cricketer. But if outstanding players of all time like Gavaskar are to take such decisions, sorry I do not belong to this place anymore……

Full content of this post along with replies can be had here

Read More