Sport Today

Ram Guha
--

We go there, we get walloped, and we return. It will be no different
this time. Thus wrote yours truly on the eve of the test series in
Australia.

There are two ways in which one can meet the fate of this prediction.
The first is to take consolation in the fact that men much wiser than
myself also forecast a comprehensive Australian victory. If one has to
be wrong, then one may as well be wrong in the company of Geoffrey
Boycott and Ian Chappell. The second (and altogether more honourable)
path is to admit that I was foolish to contemplate a change in
profession. Historians have no business becoming astrologers. And so I
solemnly vow, in this newspaper published in the city of Saurav
Ganguly, that I shall never again venture into the future.

But the past remains my preserve. Thus, looking back over the past
century of test cricket, I see that before Steve Waughs champions,
there were three other Australian teams that dominated their
opponents. But, in time, each of these teams was dislodged from their
perch. In the stories of their rise and fall lie the key to why India,
against all odds and in defiance of all pundits, did so spectacularly
well in the test matches Down Under.

The first great Australian team was forged soon after World War I. Its
batting revolved around the dogged Warren Bardsley and the dashing
Charlie MacCartney. Its bowling was led by the ferocious fast-bowling
combination of Jack Gregory and Ted MacDonald, with that whimsical
leg-break bowler, Arthur Mailey, mopping up the wickets that remained.
Captained by the burly all-rounder, Warwick Armstrong, the Big Ship,
this side won 12 test matches in three series against the old enemy,
England.

The second great Australian side was built immediately after World War
II. Led by Don Bradman, the other great batsmen in this team included
Arthur Morris, Neil Harvey and Lindsay Hassett. Again, the main strike
bowlers were the quick, in this case Ray Lindwall and Keith Miller.
Aiding them was Bill Johnston, a superb left-arm swing bowler who
could also bowl spin. Between 1946 and 1952, this Australian side won
as many as 24 out of the 31 test matches that it played.

The third great Australian side was captained by that learned googly
merchant, Richie Benaud. Its other world-class bowlers included
Grahame McKenzie, right-arm pace, and Alan Davidson, an updated and
possibly better version of Bill Johnston. Its main batsman was Neil
Harvey; around him were a clutch of talented younger players, such as
Bill Lawry, Bobby Simpson, and Norman ONeill. Between 1958 and 1963,
this team did not lose a single series, defeating England, Pakistan,
India, the West Indies and South Africa.

Four features were common to these teams. First, each side had an
abundance of quality all-rounders. Gregory, and Miller, and Benaud,
could all run through a side or score a match-winning century. Just a
little behind them in this respect were Armstrong, Lindwall and
Davidson.

Second, each side fielded much better than their opponents. In the
team of the Twenties, Nip Pellew and T.J.E. Andrews redefined the
art of outfielding; while Gregory and Bardsley caught everything that
came their way at slip. Bradman was himself one of the finest fielders
to grace the game; with him were Neil Harvey (a cover specialist), and
Keith Miller (an outstanding slip). Likewise, the side of the late
Fifties had at least half-a-dozen brilliant fieldsmen, among whom were
Davidson, ONeill, Simpson and the captain himself.

Third, each of these sides was very well served behind the stumps.
Armstrong first had Hanson Carter and then Bert Oldfield. Bradman had
Don Tallon, while Benaud had Wally Grout; both of whom would figure on
any short list of the greatest wicket-keepers in the history of
cricket.

Fourth, the batting of all three sides was dominated by
stroke-players. True, Warren Bardsley and Herbie Collins were careful
and orthodox, as, later, were Sid Barnes and Bill Lawry. But the bulk
of the batsmen were strokemakers. Macartney, Armstrong, Morris,
Hassett, Harvey, ONeill; all sought to score at four or five runs an
over. And the likes of Gregory, Miller and Davidson were more
attacking still.

Fabulous fielding, brilliant wicket-keeping, explosive batsmanship; in
these respects, the Australian side of our own time has emulated its
predecessors. And while it may have lacked all-rounders in the
conventional sense, Ian Healy and Adam Gilchrist have done the work of
two men one behind, the other before, the stumps and done it
spectacularly well too.

Warwick Armstrong himself never lost a test series as captain, but the
side he built was finally defeated by England in 1926. Don Bradman was
likewise unvanquished as a leader; but his boys lost to England in
1953. Richie Benaud, again, retired undefeated, but soon afterwards
Australia was dethroned as world champions by the West Indies.

How and why did these sides finally lose? In each case, the chief
cause was a decline in bowling strength. Ted MacDonald did not tour
England in 1926, and his mate, Gregory, was a shadow of his former
self. On the 1953 tour of England, Bill Johnston broke down, Miller
was plagued by a bad back, and Lindwall was ageing. And when Australia
lost to the West Indies in 1964-65, they were without Benaud and
Davidson, who were both retired.

Notably, while the bowling had declined, the batting remained strong.
In England, in 1926, Bardsley and Macartney both batted at close to
their top form as, 27 years later, did Hassett, Morris and Harvey.
Likewise, there were three world-class batsmen in the Australian side
that toured the Caribbean: Lawry, ONeill, and the captain, Bobby
Simpson.

Man for man, the batting matched the opposition. So did the fielding.
But not the bowling. When England won at the Oval in 1926, crucial
roles were played by the tear-away cold, Harold Larwood, and the
veteran slow bowler, Wilfrid Rhodes. When Len Huttons side regained
the Ashes in the year of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, the
Australians came unstuck against an attack led by the young Freddie
Trueman and sustained by the Surrey spin-twins, Tony Lock and Jim
Laker. And in the West Indies in 1964-65, while Australia had but one
world-class fast bowler, Garth McKenzie, the home side had three
Hall, Griffith and Sobers apart from a world-class slow bowler,
Lance Gibbs.

Bowlers win test matches, and bowling attacks make world champions.
Taking 20 wickets is far more important than scoring 600 runs. In
their pomp, of course, the great Australian sides did both. In their
declining years, they retained the ability to put up large totals.
What they lost was the ability to bowl out the opposition quickly and
cheaply.

Such was the case in 1926, in 1953, in 1964-65 and in 2003-04 as well.
For Ponting and Langer have batted as well as Dravid and Laxman.
Gilchrist has kept far better than young Parthiv Patel. But Kumble,
always, and Agarkar, when it mattered, bowled with more penetration
than Lee and Gillespie and McGill. In retrospect, one can see that the
loss of McGrath and Warne meant more, far more, than Steve Waugh
appreciated, or we, know-all pundits, understood.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040110/asp/opinion/story_2758093.asp

Of course, while it was just people like me and Yuk Tang saying it, the
assembled Indian fans joined with the Aussies in ridicule, and there was
much airing of dead-*** syndrome.

But if anyone really needed proof that McWarne are ATGs, the
vulnerability of Australian sides without them compared with their
seeeming invincibility when they are present ought to be enough.

Cheers,

Mike

-Samarth.

--
Shripathi Kamath

               "Distrust any enterprise that requires new clothes."
                                     Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)

regards
Pranshu B Saxena

Until recent years, selection as a Wisden Cricketer of the Year was
almost wholly based on performances in England, so a number of fine
non-English players may have missed out if they didn't happen to shine
on their tour(s) of England. Prior to 1965, other than Australia and
South Africa, countries tended to tour England only once every seven
years or so, so many players would only have a single chance to impress
Wisden's editor.
--
John Hall

               "Distrust any enterprise that requires new clothes."
                                     Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)

    Mike> English fans been pointing out quite often how much easier
    Mike> England would have found their task last winter without
    Mike> McWarne, pointing at their victory against the McWarneless
    Mike> side a year ago?

I think it's quite apparent that McWarne should be renamed McGrarne,
at least against India. Warne not playing does not make much
difference to the Indians. McGrath .. that's a different matter.

--
Pip-pip
Sailesh
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sailesh

First of all, we should not forget that Australia didnt actually *lose* this
series, it was only a tie in the end no matter how much India should have won
it. Also, this in one slightly unusual instance, in that Mcgrath and Warne were
missing, but are not retired or gone yet, neccesarily - Mcgrath comes back from
injury in a month, and Warne from suspension in a month. And, who knows, Warne
may yet have quite a bit of time left if he keeps himself fit - he could
conceivably be at least a semi-effective spinner for several years yet.

Also, BTW, while Ramachandra Guha has been very reasonable in this article, I
do think his views are a little coloured by his dislike for the Australian way
of playing cricket, or so it seems. Just read an article which had extensive
quotes from him yesterday, and among other things he said..

-----------
It is the basic idea of one team having dominated for so long, and a challenge
to their pedestal, feels cricket historian Ramchandra Guha.

The Aussies are regarded as a crude bunch with litle respect to every visiting
team. Their treatment of the Lankans and Murali is typical of them.

They are seen as***y, ones who dont take well to defeat. So, what India has
managed to do is being regarded the world over as the change in the order,
especially by the British, who havent won in around 20 years there, Guha
adds.
...
Guha makes an interesting observation when he points out that the Aussies were
steadfast in refusing to tour between December and March the best time for
the sport in the Northern Hemisphere.

Instead, they insisted that Test nations visit them.

They became lambs to slaughter, says Guha. Play hard in the Aussie summer,
inflict the early blows and suddenly everyone their team, their media, their
fans are after you. A carefully-prepared programme to achieve an enviable
record. Add to it a talented bunch of cricketers, and elswhere, hope slowly
vanishes.

The Australian cricket establishment is probably stronger than the team too,
points out Guha. It is equally powerful in the ICC. Their media can be
jingoistic, like their team is known to be abusive, racist and rough. They all
work in tandem. It usually is a tough world out there.

In striking contrast was the Lloyds world-beating side. The most-fearsome pace
battery the sport has seen, the bunch were still charmers. They were feared,
but feted and loved wherever they went. They were never accompanied with the
kind of establishment that Australia boasts of today an administration, the
team, fans and the media. Michael Holding and his fellow fast bowlers played
hard, but seldom resorted to the kind of abuse the Aussies are known to be
capable of, argues Guha.

Recent observations that Sourav Ganguly, and not so much Ricky Ponting, is
being viewed as a successor to Waugh as captain for the coming generation
surly, moody, in your face and tough as nails could lead to the idea that
India could soon end up like the Aussies, and not for cricketing reasons alone.

It is indeed possible, feels Guha. While we are still behind the Australians
in pure cricketing terms, we have other means to match them.

Our  basic infrastructure, the administration, the money, the media, which in
recent times, has become less and less generous to applauding rival
performances, and the jingoistic fans, could lead to India becoming like
Waughs Aussies, he says.

Like them, it could make India objects not for emulation, but fear. But that,
provided India continues to play like Australia did, all these years, every
single series, each unforgiving tour.
--------------

The dislike Guha has for this Aussie team of the past few years is pretty
obvious above, IMHO. And, maybe, that is colouring his view of how good they
may or may not be at the moment and in the near future.

There is no question that Australia slips badly without Mcgrath and Warne at
the moment - they are clearly not the same anymore. But the fact is that this
was also really the first really extended full series without them (Mcgrath did
come back midway thru the WI series as they knew he would, at least
psychologically that was different).  Australia still has a great batting
lineup. IMHO, if Australia has a long period without these 2 greats, they will
probably adjust - they will come back to the pack, they wont be like Steve
Waugh's awesome teams of 3/4 years ago where they went out attacking every
single minute and tried to win every single game. Maybe they will instead
"settle" a bit more - use their great batting lineup to bat sides out of
matches and then plug away and get wickets and grind out victories (with a
fully fit Gillespie in mid-season form they potentially have a decent
spearhead, maybe - better than most other countries do at the moment).

The key is, if they are to be displaced from #1 (as the 3 other Aussie sides
were), there must be an obvious contender. Iam not totally sure there is one
yet. India is what the Indian media sees as the obvious contender - but frankly
we still dont have the bowling to take 20 wickets regularly, our bowling
situation is worse than Australia's away from home usually, even today. (Also,
of course, for India to be the #1 test team in the world, we'll have to
actually *win* an overseas series sometime - currently, despite how close we've
come a few times, its 18 years since we last won a test series outside the
subcontinent). South Africa might be an option - but Australia did beat them
head to head badly the last time, and RSA has similar problems to Australia at
the moment, a bowling attack that isnt as potent as it used to be with Donald
and Pollock at their peak IMHO (and, IMHO, while RSA's batting is very
talented, it isnt as good as Australia's yet). Pakistan might be an option too
- their bowling looks likely to turn out nicely in the next few years. But
their batting IMHO is still basically weak - and Inzi, while he is still
probably their best batsman, isnt *that* young anymore.

If Australia continues its decline, if Mcgrath and Warne dont come back at all,
then the top position in world cricket might be up for grabs a little bit. But
it isnt entirely obvious yet, IMHO, that Australia is definitely going to be
displaced - the media, IMHO, is jumping the gun just a little bit at the
moment. (Though my views are probably coloured a bit by the last 2 ODIs as well
- at night, with the white ball, Gillespie and Williams actually look a quite
deadly bowling combination and one wonders what the fuss is all about, I dont
think Ive ever seen an Indian combo look that deadly, for example. But that is
still with the white ball at night - in the test series, on flat pitches and
without the white ball, the same bowlers looked quite innocuous really).

Sadiq [ someone like Tait might yet step up ] Yusuf

So, even the optimistic Indian fans would have expected 2-0 loss before the
series started.

Raj S

--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff

Well it sounds so sweet I had to take me a chance,
I rose out of me seat Lord, I had to dance,
Started moving my feet, well a clapping my hands.

Cheers,

Shishir

N-

<snip>

Yes, but they drew with RSA at home.  RSA is the #2 rated side in the world.
The Kiwis were ranked ahead of them as well.

And it is not about beating Australia in the absence of a 'couple of
players', rather competing with them in the absence of two absolutely
topnotch ATGs in McGrath and Warne.

Beating New Zealand at home is not something even India managed, and India
is supposed to have somewhat of a massive advantage playing at home.

I have no doubts that England will find it easier to play Australia without
McWarne.  A lot easier, IMHO.  They may not win, but they won't be
steam-rolled like they were, either.

--
Shripathi Kamath

Anyway, he has some interesting insights into what ails Pakistan cricket.
You must read it. [Great stuff on Imran, Lillee and the internal politics of
Pakistani cricket]

Nugget from the book

-----
It was interesting that at the same time as my words of advice [as Pak
coach - Arun] to the Pakistani players under my charge appeared to be
falling on deaf ears, people from around the world were approaching me for
coaching advice.

Once when I had accompanied the Pakistan team to Sharjah as the national
coach, Sachin Tendulkar came to ask me for some batting advice. 'Javed bhai,
I need your help with a problem,' he said in his polite, unassuming,
unaffected way. He had been getting out cheaply by playing inside the line.
We talked things over. I helped in whatever way I could, and he was smart
enough to figure the rest out for himself.'
----

[Btw, the above is a reference to the Pak team under Sohail's captaincy.]

Cheers
Arun