I offer a feeble apology to my readers who, according to my counter, have continued to return to this page over the last month in search of cricket news and opinion but have found nothing. I am very sorry but illness, loss of necessary eye-wear and the the inevitable game of catch-up at work and elsewhere resulting from both, have severely hindered my ability to think clearly or at least write to a reasonable standard on cricket. My last post was a month ago and I ran the risk of not having anything to say in the month of September were it not for my return to health, vision and life-balance in recent days.
I thought I would begin by posting my friend's reply to my opening sentiments in the battle of wills I set in motion here
I would recommend a quick read of the points I set forth in that first move before reading the following reply from my good friend. It is quite long but well argued and I shall look to reply to it in early October. Later this week I will give my thoughts on New Zealand's upcoming tour of Zimbabwe (no small topic)
Sir,
First of all, to put my seemingly random question into context (I feel that in my frustration I may have neglected to do so). As I have to follow most international cricket on cricinfo I find that over the course of a day’s play I end up reading a fair bit of drivel from others, many of whom fancy themselves as comedians. It seems that one of the most common types of comment in recent times has been complaints with the IPL and T20 cricket in general. Throughout the most recent test series over here, as the Indians played as if the English attack were hurling scud missiles at them, I had to suffer through a number of comments blaming the IPL. So whilst I understand your skepticism, it seems that a number of people are of the view that T20 cricket was invented with the sole purpose of destroying test cricket. Well, seeing as the English invented the form of the game and now they sit atop the test rankings, they may have a point…
First of all, I do agree with your first point to a large extent. There are players in the IPL who will never be world class test or even ODI players whom are paid huge amounts of money to “slog”, as you put it. Kieran Pollard springs to mind here. However the advent of new formats will always produce players who are able to excel at that particular form, but lack the necessary skills to succeed in more traditional formats. One name that springs to mind is Michael Bevan. Regarded as one of the greatest Australian ODI batsmen of all time, he couldn’t match that success at test level. In the other direction is Geoff Boycott. A superb test player whom our own Paddles described as the hardest batsman that he ever bowled to, he simply was not cut out for shorter forms of the game. An ODI career strike rate of 54 is a clear indication of that. He could score a lot of runs and had the patience of a peace-mediator in the Middle-East, but when required to score quickly, he struggled. It is simply a case of different skills for different formats.
As a cricketer that has played a fair bit of T20 cricket (most recently at the very same Cambridge University that one Stephen Fry is an alum) and obviously know a number of people that have played the format at varying levels, I can say that it is a very difficult format to play. While I cannot speak for how players train in the IPL or at international level T20, in my experience players do invest a lot of time and effort in preparing themselves. Bowlers need to train hard to be able to put the ball exactly where they want to (no different from test cricket, except that the areas are less in the “corridor of uncertainty” and more of the block-hole variety) and work on variations to try and upset a batman’s rhythm. For batsmen, it is essential to know their strong scoring shots as due to the shorter nature of the game it is important to maximise every scoring opportunity. Unfortunately for the purists, this is the hoick to cow-corner for many of the big hitters in world cricket. One thing which has impressed me is how players have quickly adapted their game for T20. These adaptations require a great deal of skill and training. An example is the unbelievable scoop-paddle that Brendan McCullum pulled out against Shaun Tait. A great shot to counter the Yorker, which generated a lot of runs to a delivery that is traditionally seen as guaranteed dot ball. McCullum, in my opinion, has vastly improved as a test batsman in recent times. This is in spite of the fact that he is one of the poster boys for T20 cricket. The skills developed for T20 cricket should be added to a player’s repertoire, not replace it. Progress and cricket go hand in hand. Without it, the game would still be played with bats resembling hockey sticks and underarm bowling. If they are unable to do this, maybe they lacked the mental fortitude to cope with the rigors of traditional cricket to begin with?
Secondly one should never forget what the IPL really is, a glorified domestic competition. Every side must field a certain number of Indian players, so relatively unknown players get the chance to rub shoulders with some of the game’s greats. If this doesn’t motivate these lads to aim for the pinnacle of the sport, they probably should give up the game altogether. There is no greater thrill than playing against a world class player to really test yourself and the experience which can be gained from this is limitless. Any failure of any upcoming Indian players to take advantage of this is not the fault of the IPL, but of those individual players. Those players should be using the IPL as a way to make good money, as well as to gain valuable experience to develop their cricket away from the IPL. Any young player who is playing under great cricketing minds such as Shane Warne (even if he now resembles a poorly done wax figure of himself nowadays) and fails to emerge from that experience a better player needs to have his head examined.
Thirdly, while I agree that the Indian batting line-up displayed some frankly piss-poor technique, I disagree with where the blame should lie. T20 may be a factor, but it plays a very small part. The Indian side have traditionally been poor tourists and this was another (albeit extreme) example of it. You do hit on one of the major problems in my view, flat wickets. Sub-continent nations seem to have an obsession with producing snore-inducing wickets that even Chris Martin may have some hope of scoring runs on. I cannot for the life of me remember where I heard the quote on Indian attitudes towards bowlers, but it went along the lines of “those who can’t bat, bowl”. Indian batsmen such as Tendulkar, VVS and the Wall are worshipped like gods. On the other hand, Zaheer Khan is the only Indian bowler of any real note (even he is like Chaminda Vaas, good without being spectacular). Flat wickets cause two problems for Indian cricket. The first is that it discourages the development of quality fast bowlers as they are treated as second class citizens. I am holding hope that some young Indian lad refuses to be deterred by this and finds a way to counter this, a la Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis and reverse swing. The second is that batsmen are not required to have a great technique to score a lot of runs. Short bowling is wasted on flat wickets, so batsmen on sub-continent wickets are unlikely to face the sort of barrage that the English bowlers inflicted on them. Without exposure to quality short-pitched bowling, you will continue to see fragility to it. A cricketer worth his salt should wish to succeed in all conditions against all types of bowling. Rahul Dravid’s dogged resistance in the final test showed the quality of a player who has faced the most balls in test cricket history. Players who would rather take the easy route out and cash in can do so for all I care. I can find solace in the fact that characters such as those are unlikely to last in test cricket long enough to tarnish its good name. They will never be remembered like WG Grace and Don Bradman, nor earn a nickname as cool as “the Wall”.
Finally, the reason India were so soundly beaten. England are currently a very good test side with an abundance of quality quicks, a world-class spinner and batsmen enjoying a terrific run of form (Ian Bell was simply class). India are not a good test side and have not been for some time. They have long relied on their famed batting line-up to bat sides out of games. It is bowlers who win test matches. Without the ability to take 20 wickets, it is going to be difficult to win tests no matter how many runs you pile up. Champion test sides have always contained champion bowlers. The formerly-dominant Australians had Warne and McGrath, the West Indies of the 70s and 80s had a production-line of fearsome quicks and much of Sri Lanka’s success is owed to Murali. Simply put, India were up against a much better side. The Indian run-machine failed to produced any runs, their bowling attack made Dibbly, Dobbly, Wibbly and Wobbly (the NZ attack at the 1992 world cup for those thinking that I’m referring to some weird British children’s show) look lethal and they fielded like sub-continent sides of old. If anything, you’d think T20 would at least eliminate crap fielding!
Right, I’m well over the word limit so I should stop there. That should be sufficient material for you to ponder over (and no doubt pick to pieces). Quite a refreshing chance to engage my brain!
First of all, to put my seemingly random question into context (I feel that in my frustration I may have neglected to do so). As I have to follow most international cricket on cricinfo I find that over the course of a day’s play I end up reading a fair bit of drivel from others, many of whom fancy themselves as comedians. It seems that one of the most common types of comment in recent times has been complaints with the IPL and T20 cricket in general. Throughout the most recent test series over here, as the Indians played as if the English attack were hurling scud missiles at them, I had to suffer through a number of comments blaming the IPL. So whilst I understand your skepticism, it seems that a number of people are of the view that T20 cricket was invented with the sole purpose of destroying test cricket. Well, seeing as the English invented the form of the game and now they sit atop the test rankings, they may have a point…
First of all, I do agree with your first point to a large extent. There are players in the IPL who will never be world class test or even ODI players whom are paid huge amounts of money to “slog”, as you put it. Kieran Pollard springs to mind here. However the advent of new formats will always produce players who are able to excel at that particular form, but lack the necessary skills to succeed in more traditional formats. One name that springs to mind is Michael Bevan. Regarded as one of the greatest Australian ODI batsmen of all time, he couldn’t match that success at test level. In the other direction is Geoff Boycott. A superb test player whom our own Paddles described as the hardest batsman that he ever bowled to, he simply was not cut out for shorter forms of the game. An ODI career strike rate of 54 is a clear indication of that. He could score a lot of runs and had the patience of a peace-mediator in the Middle-East, but when required to score quickly, he struggled. It is simply a case of different skills for different formats.
As a cricketer that has played a fair bit of T20 cricket (most recently at the very same Cambridge University that one Stephen Fry is an alum) and obviously know a number of people that have played the format at varying levels, I can say that it is a very difficult format to play. While I cannot speak for how players train in the IPL or at international level T20, in my experience players do invest a lot of time and effort in preparing themselves. Bowlers need to train hard to be able to put the ball exactly where they want to (no different from test cricket, except that the areas are less in the “corridor of uncertainty” and more of the block-hole variety) and work on variations to try and upset a batman’s rhythm. For batsmen, it is essential to know their strong scoring shots as due to the shorter nature of the game it is important to maximise every scoring opportunity. Unfortunately for the purists, this is the hoick to cow-corner for many of the big hitters in world cricket. One thing which has impressed me is how players have quickly adapted their game for T20. These adaptations require a great deal of skill and training. An example is the unbelievable scoop-paddle that Brendan McCullum pulled out against Shaun Tait. A great shot to counter the Yorker, which generated a lot of runs to a delivery that is traditionally seen as guaranteed dot ball. McCullum, in my opinion, has vastly improved as a test batsman in recent times. This is in spite of the fact that he is one of the poster boys for T20 cricket. The skills developed for T20 cricket should be added to a player’s repertoire, not replace it. Progress and cricket go hand in hand. Without it, the game would still be played with bats resembling hockey sticks and underarm bowling. If they are unable to do this, maybe they lacked the mental fortitude to cope with the rigors of traditional cricket to begin with?
Secondly one should never forget what the IPL really is, a glorified domestic competition. Every side must field a certain number of Indian players, so relatively unknown players get the chance to rub shoulders with some of the game’s greats. If this doesn’t motivate these lads to aim for the pinnacle of the sport, they probably should give up the game altogether. There is no greater thrill than playing against a world class player to really test yourself and the experience which can be gained from this is limitless. Any failure of any upcoming Indian players to take advantage of this is not the fault of the IPL, but of those individual players. Those players should be using the IPL as a way to make good money, as well as to gain valuable experience to develop their cricket away from the IPL. Any young player who is playing under great cricketing minds such as Shane Warne (even if he now resembles a poorly done wax figure of himself nowadays) and fails to emerge from that experience a better player needs to have his head examined.
Thirdly, while I agree that the Indian batting line-up displayed some frankly piss-poor technique, I disagree with where the blame should lie. T20 may be a factor, but it plays a very small part. The Indian side have traditionally been poor tourists and this was another (albeit extreme) example of it. You do hit on one of the major problems in my view, flat wickets. Sub-continent nations seem to have an obsession with producing snore-inducing wickets that even Chris Martin may have some hope of scoring runs on. I cannot for the life of me remember where I heard the quote on Indian attitudes towards bowlers, but it went along the lines of “those who can’t bat, bowl”. Indian batsmen such as Tendulkar, VVS and the Wall are worshipped like gods. On the other hand, Zaheer Khan is the only Indian bowler of any real note (even he is like Chaminda Vaas, good without being spectacular). Flat wickets cause two problems for Indian cricket. The first is that it discourages the development of quality fast bowlers as they are treated as second class citizens. I am holding hope that some young Indian lad refuses to be deterred by this and finds a way to counter this, a la Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis and reverse swing. The second is that batsmen are not required to have a great technique to score a lot of runs. Short bowling is wasted on flat wickets, so batsmen on sub-continent wickets are unlikely to face the sort of barrage that the English bowlers inflicted on them. Without exposure to quality short-pitched bowling, you will continue to see fragility to it. A cricketer worth his salt should wish to succeed in all conditions against all types of bowling. Rahul Dravid’s dogged resistance in the final test showed the quality of a player who has faced the most balls in test cricket history. Players who would rather take the easy route out and cash in can do so for all I care. I can find solace in the fact that characters such as those are unlikely to last in test cricket long enough to tarnish its good name. They will never be remembered like WG Grace and Don Bradman, nor earn a nickname as cool as “the Wall”.
Finally, the reason India were so soundly beaten. England are currently a very good test side with an abundance of quality quicks, a world-class spinner and batsmen enjoying a terrific run of form (Ian Bell was simply class). India are not a good test side and have not been for some time. They have long relied on their famed batting line-up to bat sides out of games. It is bowlers who win test matches. Without the ability to take 20 wickets, it is going to be difficult to win tests no matter how many runs you pile up. Champion test sides have always contained champion bowlers. The formerly-dominant Australians had Warne and McGrath, the West Indies of the 70s and 80s had a production-line of fearsome quicks and much of Sri Lanka’s success is owed to Murali. Simply put, India were up against a much better side. The Indian run-machine failed to produced any runs, their bowling attack made Dibbly, Dobbly, Wibbly and Wobbly (the NZ attack at the 1992 world cup for those thinking that I’m referring to some weird British children’s show) look lethal and they fielded like sub-continent sides of old. If anything, you’d think T20 would at least eliminate crap fielding!
Right, I’m well over the word limit so I should stop there. That should be sufficient material for you to ponder over (and no doubt pick to pieces). Quite a refreshing chance to engage my brain!
