Strip Sydney Test of its Official Status!

Strip Sydney Test of its Official Status!

Australia: World beaters or World cheaters?

By Sreelata S. Yellamrazu

The only logical manner that cricket can now move on at a saner level is if the Sydney Test is stripped off its official status. It will not be the first time (remember the last time India, and Sachin Tendulkar in particular, was targeted by then match referee Mike Denness in South Africa). Consider the other options. Consider the magnitude of the repercussions. This is not about one-upmanship. This is about delivering justice, where it belongs.

Consider for the moment that not one or two but a good many instances where the umpires have botched up the rules of ruling someone out. Consider the impact where at least seven of the alleged bad decisions were declared wrong when all an opposition side needs is 20 wickets to win a match. This was simply not a case of the umpires getting it wrong. To err is human; to be bias, is to aid the opposition.

Admittedly India's batting on the final day of the second Test in Sydney was far from encouraging, especially given that India had done so well in the first innings to set the cat amongst the pigeons for Australia. Australia were determined to shake India’s morale. Instead they have only highlighted their bullying ways and ungentlemanly approach to the game, whose crown they wear but whose respect they have failed to command.

The guffaws must be really loud. How does one gentleman’s rule apply to India and not apply to Australia? Adam Gilchrist’s comments to a channel here in India spoke of downright double standards. When Gilchrist asserts that India should accept the umpire’s decision, why is it that on more than one occasion, Ricky Ponting has stood his ground in sheer arrogance? Had the tables been reversed, would Australia stand for this blatant one sided affair? If Ponting is acting dictatorial with the media about being questioning on his double stand on how the game should be played, does not a player of Sachin Tendulkar’s stature speak of a greater integrity when he claims Harbhajan made no racist remarks to warrant this punishment?

Ponting is asserting Michael Clarke has taken the catch cleanly when the replays clearly show that there is more than an element of doubt to suggest Sourav Ganguly was only given out under dubious circumstances. While the members of the Australian team had conveniently brushed it as Mark Benson’s oversight in not consulting with the square leg umpire (thought given that that gentleman was Steve Bucknor, would it have been any different?) , the fact remains that Ponting is claiming a significant wicket. Who gave him the authority to decide who goes (having seen as it can be so biased) just as who did give him the authority to decide how the media should report? How does anyone believe when the captain has claimed a catch when the captain himself stands blatantly despite being out? Is this honesty, or Australia’s meaning of honesty, like their interpretation of racism?

Gilchrist may have made walking a new phenomenon for Australian cricket but to claim mighty that he does not make appeals unnecessarily and that it is India who have gone over the top is foolhardy. Need we remind Gilchrist of his vociferous appeal against Rahul Dravid in the second innings when the bat was nowhere close to the ball? Australia were desperate for victory, and they did employ the sub continent’s tactics of vociferous appealing, and rather needlessly so. Did they not succeed?

The loopholes are many. Consider the fact that these nonsensical charges of racism were labeled by Ponting on behalf of Andrew Symonds and the testimony on which Harbhajan was slapped the three match ban came through Matthew Hayden and Michael Clarke. In the same manner that without evidence, the committee decided to pass judgement against Harbhajan, why was the word of Sachin Tendulkar not taken into account? Does Sachin not command respect simply for the way he has played the game all these years, forget Ponting’s colourful past?

The result simply shows insensitivity in understanding such serious allegations of racism. Racism is not even a concept in India. Yes, casteism is understandable, although deplorable. But racism is a raging matter in Australia where the aborigines for long have been handed a raw deal. Perhaps the word has become rather loose to rattle at the first hint of disruption.

Symonds is playing cry wolf. When it didn’t work in India, he has done it again back home. Someone of his own background must be careful of not degrading the meaning of the word ‘race’, because the word soon loses its charged meaning when used so blatantly. What it once again shows is the divisive nature even in the ten nations that this ‘world’ game is played. Is Symonds the type who will stand still while he is childishly labeled a ‘monkey’? Would the pictures lie when they show that more words were exchanged by Symonds rather than Harbhajan Singh?

If conspiracy theories must abound, this was a well planned ploy. Australia have already had their sixteen match winning streak broken once. That too, humilitation handed by India. The way India bounced back in Sydney, another upset was on the cards. Whether the umpires were adhering to the white supremacy theory or if Bucknor has coloured his vision is subject to debate. But this was an obvious attempt to shift the focus and what could be more poignant that shaking the one man Australia thought was an easy subject? How else does one explain how the two teams appeared to make truce on the field only to have the issue take of racist allegations when the day’s play was done with?

The thing about Steve Bucknor’s age and vision is rubbish. His vision is just fine if he is giving only one team obviously disgraceful levels at the international team (in this case, India, in all cases, India) while the other team is allowed to get away. (the vision of the third umpire may need an optmologist though.) One wondered why Symonds was not sharing the ‘Man of the Match’ trophy with the other ‘men of the match’ Bucknor, Benson and company.

This was well thought out and executed to perfection. Kudos must be given to Australia, not only for playing the game hard, ruthless even in the face of obviously deplorable decisions, but also, bullying the game, the opposition and the ICC authorities to rule in their favour. Australia dare not touch Tendulkar. Dravid has his own grave to ponder over while Ganguly has come back raring stronger. Anil Kumble will fight fire with fire. Who then would make for an easy target and who could be provoked into playing the perfect ‘bakra’ (that goat for non-Hindi folks)?

It is no small matter that Australia have been smarting ever since India won the Twenty20, to even denounce the nature of the format of the game. That Australia nursed that grudge through their one day series in India became pretty obvious as the series progressed. Now it is the threat of the Test series becoming more formidable that set fear in the hearts of the Australian players. Australia has played a rather dirty game off the field, and revealed even the top world beating team is not exempt from behaving shamelessly under the threat of fear and humiliation.

(if anything should come from this, Harbhajan must learn to keep in tongue in check; Australia have just exploited his easily provoked nature to malicious intent.) Sunil Gavaskar hit the nail on the head when he said it was hard to accept the honesty of the players who claims a dishonest catch and who has the temerity to stand his ground when he is obviously out. There is only one way to solve Kapil Dev’s dilemma that five years hence on, everyone will forget the injustice delivered to India. Obliterate the result. India should accept that. Australia must live with that.

Just ask Australia if they would accept their sixteen match streak coming to a halt because of such poor umpiring decisions. Gilchrist says, India must accept the umpire’s decision. If India does accept the loss, who gains by the maladies of the Test? Ponder on that and Gilchrist’s assertions will become easier to understand. If the umpired have sullied the game, Australia have shown why despite being world champions all these years has not improved their reputation as unreasonable bullies for their blatant ungentlemanly conduct, unbecoming of a team and nation of their stature. Sri Lanka have suffered, South Africa have suffered. And it is easy to see why racism is such a ‘hot’ (disgracefully) term in their game. Education is required for Australia and the men who dictate the rules of the game to understand sensitivities of people better than they do the laws of the game.

The only decent way this game can go on is for Australia to get an educated lesson on what constitutes racism , for Harbhajan’s ban to be revoked, for Ponting a lesson on what constitutes the gentleman’s game and whether his authority as Australian captain ends, for Bucknor to bid goodbye to cricket, and for the Sydney Test to be stripped of its official Test status. In the game where so many decisions have been wronged; no other balm can effect a reversal of fortunes or stop the Border-Gavaskar Trophy (ignominious if Australia wins the Trophy on the basis of the Sydney Test) from being unfairly retained by the Australians on the basis of this Test.

If there was a time to rebel for the Indian team, it is now. There is integrity at stake and (not Ponting’s kind of integrity, please) and no sport can be a leveler that chooses to divide peoples of nations and people of one world and worse, promotes behavior that sabotages games by using these divisive forces. Neither the game has won, nor has the people who have followed it. Australia has scream from the rooftops; they did not shape this particular game on their cricketing acumen.

If a middle ground cannot be found, if such a champion beating side cannot decipher that their opposition has been handed a raw deal (which could also mean Australia is afraid to take on the challenge again in trying to retain the trophy), India must pack its bags. Forget financial repercussions; there is a lot more at stake here and it simply ain’t cricket, mate! Who wants to play a game like this, let alone watch it?

(As for public information, the author of this piece did not grow up as a fan of Indian cricket. As a sports writer-columnist, she has tempered an objective view about the game and it is from this that steams the anger at the obvious sullying of a game she so reveres. Again for the sake of those myopic to view this as anti-Australian, the author holds the game in reverence as does the champions, but not their unruly behavior. Besides, Australia is much too beautiful a country to be done in by a couple of their uncouth cricketers.)

free-website-hit-counters.com

Monkey around Indian cricket?

By Sreelata S. Yellamrazu

In a classic case pot calling the kettle black, the Australia team is threatening to take India apart for a few stupid spectators who allegedly passed racist comments against a so-called one of their own!

Indian cricket fans, who not long ago were reveling in India’s winning the inaugural ICC World Twenty20 championships, have had to face much frustration with Australia showing why they are the world champions in one day internationals. Playing like a well knit unit, Australia have brought all their skills to the fore in one composite picture and the result has been an overwhelming series victory in what should have been India’s home territory.

It was this annoyance that led to a few irate fans supposedly making monkey like gestures at Andrew Symonds, the only player in the Australian who does not bear resemblance to the traditional Caucasian male. Admittedly, if that were the case, then it would be a really stupid uncalled for gesture on the part of the fans. In the land of Lord Hanuman, (to term him loosely as the monkey God does not seem appropriate.) that people even indulged in such behavior shows a small section of completely ignorant or disrespectful bunch of Indians. But by no means, are they a representative of the hospitality accorded to foreign teams.

But here lies the contention. The Australian team is acting so offended over the entire episode, it makes one wonder if they are just as skilled in donning pastoral robes with the same finesse with which they take the opposition apart. To call it a racist insult is taking things too far. And it is the Australians alleging that this tour to India has been hostile!

The Australian team had better get a hold of themselves because they are not about to find too much sympathy from anyone else in the world. Teams that have toured Australia in the past have tales of mental torture that they will not be forgetting in a hurry. In a country with a great sporting history, their acceptance of aboriginal society within their own fold has been appalling. In fact that Australia is consistently a group of all whites makes it a racist issue in itself and something that Australia has dodged, again with equal panache.

How does one explain Australia’s tolerant culture when Sri Lanka’s Muttiah Muralitharan was mocked at a decade ago and yet again Australian fans’ boisterous behavior was against on show as they targeted the coloured members of the South African squad not so long ago? Australia have failed at an integral integration policy and the reflection of it comes through certain sections of ignorant fans.

India is one of the most hospitable countries to tour. And the joke is that the generosity does not end off the field but extends of it as well. New foreign players receive baptism, foreign teams get unusual success and the Indian team often folds when it should blossom. Take a look at the number of former Australian player who have continued to come to India much after their retirement. And watch the Australian players cash in on the endorsements while in India! And they are received with fanaticism by the Indian media and fans. Therefore, to isolate one incident and throw a circle of darkness about the tour is downright disgraceful.

Mahendra Singh Dhoni may have uttered these words in another context but it is relevant that Australians do not talk anything at all just because they can. The series has been more fiercely fought with words rather than with any nail-biting encounters. Australians have shown cohesion and clinical determination, something that India would do well to emulate. But for Australia to be already sounding horns about what the Indians will face when they tour Australia down under is taking things a little too far. Australia would do well not to imitate Sreesanth’s antics of putting words before concrete action.

There is no denying that the Australians have been a bunch of men gripe with a bad case of sour grapes. The timing of the one day internationals bang after the Twenty20 tourney has meant that Australia has spent a fair time watching the Indian team being praised and feted like none else in the world. The Australians have been generous in their statements to the media talking of how all this felicitation has gone out of hand and that the Indians are in over their heads.

Yet again it shows Australia’s contriteness behavior of not understanding the cricketing culture of the nation. If the Australians thought the Indian team was being treated like ‘princes and rock stars’, they are absolutely right. The Princely states may have gone out fashion and India’s fame to the ‘western’ rock stars of the world may be next to negligible. But such is the fanaticism for the sport that the Indian cricket team is like a bunch of rock stars. They have their number hits and they have their doldrums. The only thing irking the Australians is the fact they missed out on having their cake and eating it too!

Formula One and Hamilton – A Heady Affair!

By Sreelata S. Yellamrazu

The season is about to end just the way it started. Lewis Hamilton stormed his way into stardom and now the fate of the championship hinges on his! Who would have thought that Formula One would have such a sensational season in the very first year since Michael Schumacher’s retirement? Yet the season has roared on, ingloriously or otherwise, and no one could have predicted this kind of down-to-the-wire scorching finale! And Hamilton will, one way or another, determine who wears the crown made exclusive by the Ferrari’s phenomenal icon!

“Hamilton who?” was not only the banner held up by a Fernando Alonso fan. It was also on the lips of most racing aficionados. Would McLaren gamble on a rookie? Was this not the same McLaren that had two Finns heading their line up? Mika Hakkinen may have hung up his boots, but Kimi Raikkonen moved on. But both of them had sufficient star power even as they climbed into the prestigious seat. What was McLaren trying to pull off?

But Lewis Hamilton shrugged challenges of races, culture and a sore, vengeful past champion to make his entry into Formula One not only dramatic but also, one that history would feel proud to be have chronicled. Even Ferrari fans, who felt lost in the absence of their colossal icon, tried to stay loyal to two stars in Felipe Massa and Raikkonen, could not help but acknowledge Hamilton’s presence, admire even.

This is not an ode to a McLaren player against a Ferrari. (The author of this piece has moved where Schumacher has travelled and has ended up showing loyalty where Schumacher left her, in the Ferrai pit garage!) But this is a curious reflection on how a debut driver stands not only on the verge of being crowned champion but also, holding the fate of other established drivers, including a two time world champion in his nimble but firm fingers.

Hamilton went from one ‘fluke’ victory to a champion-like stand repeatedly. Causing consternation for Fernando Alonso was not on the agenda. But causing the world championship to change hands was. Alonso has gone from being heir apparent in Schumacher’s presence to a grouchy, bitter, and embattled and surprisingly aging champion. Empathy would perhaps best describe the emotion one feels for Alonso.

It is apparent Alonso has moved on from being reserved to being

McLaren have fallen from grace and ironically, in the same season they should have been hailed to take considerable risk on a debutant, one that would go on to challenge the world order, nay, turn it on its head.

The two week wait (a normalcy between races in the Formula one race season) seems suddenly interminable. The Brazilian Grand Prix, always a race held with fascination and trepidation, will now also hold the key to the suspense. No matter what happens, Hamilton will have a say. This page of the history of the Formula One season 2007 hinges on Hamilton. Go on, turn the page, Hamilton! Can’t wait to see what’s on the other side!

Victory in Karachi, shocks at home...

Trevor Chesterfield

Anyone who has been listening to the Po-faced gloom and doom from some radio and television studious around South Africa, defeat loomed large for Graeme Smith's side in the build up to the first Test against Pakistan.

Why even polls in a couple of newspapers predicted defeat and suggested the tour a waste of time. This was after the earlier dizzying and frenetic ICC Twenty/20 Championship and South Africa's exit for the tournament in Durban before what was termed a largely 'unpatriotic' Asian crowd.

As it is, certain factors surrounding the team added to the Po-faced views of the critics, doubting media and general public. Andrew Hall had gone into retirement, a 'disgruntled' Jacques Kallis had quit as vice-captain to concentrate on his batting, Morne Morkel was injured and sent home and Shaun Pollock was axed for the first time in his career.

An added backgrounder was how rumours 'back home' were that new Cricket South Africa Norman Arendse was unhappy with the whole team management system and its 'non-quota' and 'non-target' stance.

Yet, on the day Arendse told a board meeting in Johannesburg that he demanded more say in selection of Test squads and teams, South Africa achieved what for many what was said to be impossible. They beat Pakistan at the National Stadium in Karachi by 160 runs.

Only as big win this one was it was not met with universal approval in South Africa by the media that was on tour with the team. The way it was spread around, a South African cricket reporter of Asian extraction, Durban-based Iqbal Khan, Pakistan are not supposed to lose in Karachi. Are they? His largely ineffectual stereotype news agency style reports of the Test in the country's largest newspaper group reflected the mood of the nation.

Anyway, it was he knowingly suggested that Pakistan sources said South Africa had the wrong team: that Dale Steyn was not capable of taking five wickets in a five match series let alone an innings and, Paul Harris was not an effective bowler, the team management had their selections all wrong.

But when for Pakistan the coach, Geoff Lawson, instead of the captain turns up to the post-Test media conference to field a lot of prickly questions, there is the feeling that something is not quite right. Hansie Conje pulled this stunt after the defeat to Zimbabwe at Chelmsford in the 1999 World Cup and Bob Woolmer fronted up to the media while the captain sulked in the showers.

When spotted afterwards, Cronje decided to duck again and refused to acknowledge a greeting in Afrikaans by one of his former Free State players in England following the series. It gave many an unpleasant illustration of how to accept victory and defeat.

Shoaib Malik, in his first Test as captain, it was said 'had a flight to catch'. That's a new one. So is the comment that the win by South Africa is the first victory against a major subcontinent team in more than seven years suggests that Sri Lanka are not major.

Lawson though took umbrage at the suggestion that Malik was too embarrassed to face the media. 'Respect the Pakistan captain,' he fired back. It appears there was none as the implacable view was how the new captain was embarrassed to meet the media.

It was the old story of 'ifs' and 'buts'. You know the one, 'if we had held a couple of catches' and 'but for Steyn and Harris taking five wickets for the first time in an innings' and 'but for a couple of centuries by Kallis, we too would have been in a better position'.

Naturally when you have five days to prepare for a Test as this one, and the background sniping was doing what it could to sap certain psychological points, to shove the win, and its size as well, under the noses of the armchair critics, was no doubt a good feeling for Smith.

Other Saf styled reporters and wannabe analysts on tour, boasting about dinner arrangements on the network and sucking up to the more important TV types (for some, being the sycophant goes with laptop, borrowed copycat phrases 'passed off as his own' image), lose touch with what is actually going on. Asking them what is their point of all this showing off and they wonder why they are suddenly being told impolitely to naff off by others.

Meanwhile, back in the CSA boardroom, Arendse is pushing his case of what he wants and how he wants it. South Africa beating Pakistan by 160 runs is waved aside. It's not important enough for the Cape Town advocate. He wants his thoughts to be heard and wants to bend the ear of anyone willing to listen.

Part of this planning (or that of a committee of which he was a member) are proposals of how to (re)structure cricket in South Africa to the benefit of all in the game. This, it is said, will form part of wide ranging discussions that took place the day Smith, Steyn and Kallis helped beat Pakistan on a fallow field far, far removed from Johannesburg .

The CSA governance structures, the (annual) review of the franchise system, national team selection policies and transformation are all part of the discussions. Part of this planning has it that the sport, below national team level, be re-organised. A lot of this is updating housekeeping arrangements.

But when it came to the CSA showpiece, the team (now in Pakistan) there was a reemphasis of the prioritisation of the Proteas, although some still questioned this approach. But the side did not lack for anything. There are the same management structures as Australia and England, 'despite them being First World and us not,' Arendse added.

But there came a problem when a national player, Johan van der Wath, announced on the day South Africa exited the recent ICC Twenty20 that he had signed for the Indian Cricket League, represented an attitude felt in some quarters to be reason enough to re-think the emphasis on the national side.

He was then quoted in a Cape Town newspaper as saying, in view of the decision of Van der Wath that it was time 'to question that logic' of the team's priorities. That as they have not won anything and players, black and white, are eyeing the more lucrative Kolpak contracts in England, the issue needed a rethink.

'Money was spent in bringing players through the system, but now money is being spent to promote English cricket,' he grumbled without looking at the causes that has created this position.

Arendse said there was no clear answer to the question of when CSA should scrap targets/quotas. This was despite the SA Players Association's memorandum calling for the system to be revamped.

'The players are regarded as one of the main stakeholder groups. They are entitled to their opinion. That opinion will be put on the table, like any others, and we will discuss it,' Arendse is quoted as saying.

All this is most interesting, but it doesn't get around to supporting the views of the players and why the identity tag is still one of colour and not one of players. The third generation since unity in 1991 and almost fifteen years since is almost on CSA; the amateur wing has burgeoning talent, but the thrust is going in the wrong direction.

To produce talent that wins Tests, limited overs events and trophies and raises the sport's and players profile requires a common goal: not one that is forced artificially on the system. If CSA want to move ahead, they need to take a close look at England where they have a natural development system and based on merit.

CSA chief Arendse feels heat at the top!

Trevor Chesterfield

Amid the fancy public relations act that followed Norman Arendse and his shoehorning into the post as president of Cricket South Africa to replace Ray Mali, now acting president of the International Cricket Council, there were a lot of grimaces as well that greeted the news.

Among those who didn't give it a second thought at first were the players and those members of the players' body, the SA Cricketers Association. Yet within weeks of Arendse taking over the post from Mali after a musical chairs duet, a few strange things have happened.

The first was how the decision by about 38 players to sign a moratorium that they were not in favour of so-called empowerment strategies and the dreaded quota system, as favoured by Arendse and certain others in the Cricket South Africa hierarchy, was leaked to the media. This had the president of the player's body, Ashwell Prince quitting. Little to nothing was said by CSA types. They were about to launch their bunfight, the ICC T20 Championship and didn't want disconcerting ripples to cloud the issue.

Nothing was publicly said either by CSA because they don't really enjoy it when players with a conscience take them on as they feel the system is marginalising others within the players' structure.

Prince was the first non-white South African to take over the role of captain in Sri Lanka last year. He is a humble enough young man with principles, and frankly, the strong egalitarian voice in me says that to use the term 'black' captain is wrong. Prince is the first from the previously disadvantaged society, group or whatever you want to call it, to earn the post. It is felt that he deserved it; labelling him 'black' because of his colour is wrong.

Anyway, calling him 'black' and not a South African is a mistake made by far too many South African journalists, reporters and so-called analysts and plays to the old classification gallery that displays certain lack of understanding of a nation still attempting to find a genuine identity. It would have been thought that after seventeen years since the formation of what is the United Cricket Board how such an egalitarian vision is still not accepted by all.

You don't read of people saying the white South African captain, Graeme Smith. And what is going to happen when an Asian is in line to become captain of the team?

There are a large number of critics in Asia of South Africa pushing the affirmative action line. One Mumbai-based writer said argued in a short message service (SMS) text before the ICC Twenty/20 Championship that in his opinion 'Proteans (sic) are liars, have no morals and are characterless'. If that is the view of an ordinary Indian, what would the new CSA president think of such a comment if it was sent to him? It would be interesting to find out.

Maybe it was, and perhaps why Arendse has found himself in the news again, allegedly shooting off his mouth over a second story leaked to an Afrikaans Sunday newspaper, which demanded comment. Whether this is a deliberate attempt to embarrass Arendse and his reaction begs questions about the accuracy of the comments he made.

Unlike the silence over Prince's decision to quit as president of the national players body when his opposition to quotas was made, this new disclosure caught Arendse wiping some sweat off his brow as the heat is turned up on his the statements he has since made.

Now he claims that his words have been twisted out of shape as much as the action of Paul Adams, and that he is not 'genuinely blaming at all whites for South African cricket's woes'.

This is all very interesting as there is the impression that Arendse didn't like one bit how the players association at large rejected the quota system and said so.

It is his view that criticism of transformation in cricket too often came from racist journalists, referring specifically to certain newspapers which had claimed that white English-speakers were being marginalised in all levels of cricket, while less competent blacks were placed in management positions. There seems to be certain paranoia creeping into this opinion.

'I'm not such a fool to think all our woes are the fault of whites,' he complains and says how many black, coloured and Indian people also do not believe in affirmative action, alluding no doubt to the views written in a report issued by the national players who met in a conclave and argued against such policies. But using classification as an identity label adds to the problem.

He wanted Cricket South Africa to talk about 'issues of patriotism' because though resources were being focused on giving the national team as much as those national teams of First World countries received, some players still left the country for greener pastures. Yet he uses ethnic labels to identify them: not as South Africans as it says on their passport.

Arendse said transformation since 1994 not only meant the promotion of more black and coloured players, but meant providing opportunities for women, the blind, the disabled, the rural poor and Afrikaners to advance in a sport that was traditionally dominated by 'privileged English boys from top high schools'.

This, however, did not mean that there was no space for white English-speaking players in the national team or management. Cricket SA is flexible about its transformation targets and would not enforce it in situations where it was inappropriate or impossible.

'I don't think there can be one white player who can say he has been denied opportunities,' he said, which flies in the face of a recent question sidestepped about why two talented players were said to be of the 'wrong colour' when asked why they were no longer in the mix.

Arendse had been aware from Makhaya Ntini, Herschelle Gibbs, Prince and about thirty others, who recently signed a memorandum against affirmative action how they were 'sick and tired' of being called quota players whenever the team loses.

Since then Tshwane Mayor Gwen Ramokgopa, which is part of the national capital Pretoria, suggests how Asians living in South Africa are 'adopted Africans without much of a voice'. That is an unnecessary xenophobic comment to make by a civic leader who should know better. This follows a row in some South African newspapers that Asians who supported India when they played South Africa in the T20 tournament at Kingsmead in Durban were being 'unpatriotic'. This is an ongoing argument in countries such as England, Australia and to a far lesser degree, New Zealand.

Yet when an fifth generation South African of Indian ancestry complains of being referred to as an Indian and not a South African, it requires not sympathy but a need to understand the hurt and feelings with the writer of a letter in a Durban Sunday paper about his identity.

No doubt as an advocate Arendse may have the same smart answer he gave to Heath Streak in early 2004 on what he should do when the dispute between Zimbabwe players and that country's cricket board over not only Streak's sacking as captain and the resulting players' strike because selection policy interference by the board, notably the bully Ozias Bvute, Zimbabwe Cricket's chief executive.

Bvute confronted me Queen's Sports Club in Bulawayo in mid-November 2003 during the second Test of the game against Zimbabwe and said, 'You whites from South Africa are not really welcome here. We only play with whites (teams) because we are told (by the ICC) that we have to.' This was after talking to a mixed group of mainly cheerful ten and eleven year olds and wanting to know their favourite Zimbabwe player(s). The chorus of 'Heath Streak' seemed to attract Bvute's attention and drew an immediate rebuke.

Recently, Ray Mali, former CSA president and now the acting ICC president uttered the words 'fairness, justice and equality'. They were not about the Cricket South Africa's current state of mind either. A quietly spoken, retired school teacher the words were offered at the start of the battle between Darrel Hair and the ICC about denying him his right to work. Mali was replaced as CSA president by Arendse and perhaps the words he offered might be useful for Arendse to remember.

Sensational Victory for India and for Twenty20!!!

By Sreelata S. Yellamrazu

Coming back from the brink of elimination was an extraordinary feat. To beat the high and mighty Australians into subjugation was the stuff of legends. But to snatch victory from under Pakistan’s nose needed every ounce of courage India could muster. Twenty20 could not have asked for a better encounter, or a harder fought winner in the end! The inaugural Twenty20 World Cup had two winners in cricketing spirit. But Twenty20 perhaps won more hearts than both teams put together.

Pakistan appeared gutted. And why should they not? Losing by five runs and losing their way after a phenomenal campaign will hurt Pakistan for some time to come. But Pakistan’s high jinx against India at World Cup continues. Led by Shoaib Mallik and a team of youth and exuberance, it was simply not to be Pakistan’s day. But Pakistan proved that they can be a sensation when they play like a team. There is much to be proud of, trophy in hand or not.

Pakistan were the team to beat. India did. Credit must go to India to hold on even when the game appeared to slip away. An extra edge of courage made India the first ever champions of Twenty20 on a World Cup platform.

The sedate manner in which India started their innings, threat lurked that this could be an antithesis of a final. Batting was not easy against the obvious superior Pakistan bowling attack. Wickets crumbled. Heroes fell by the way side. The target in the end seemed frighteningly short for a campaign to raise the Cup.

But India’s bag of tricks made this one magical atmosphere. Gautam Gambhir played his part. But there would not be fancy shots over the boundary for Yuvraj Singh. The stage was set perfectly. The team that wanted the Cup badly would have to fight. India fought back with aplomb. Pakistan’s wickets fell to a consistent R.P. Singh and Irfan Pathan and Pakistan shifted from cruise mode to a determinate struggle.

The task was getting onerous for Pakistan. But India could not afford to take it easy. The point could not have been driven home better by Misbah-ul-Haq and Shoaib Tanvir who connected the ball with ferocity that nearly snatched victory from India in the end. Joginder Sharma can take his place amongst the stars. Bowling at the death in two successive matches against Australia and Pakistan, Joginder saved India the blushes and spurred the team to victory.

It is hard to see beyond the youth to know why the team had a refreshing approach right through the tournament. Their courage to fight back from the mediocrity to stage three dramatic knock out matches to seal the World Cup has made India’s World Cup campaign a memorable effort, sealed by the sparkling trophy as a reminder of better days in India’s cricketing history.

For Mahendra Singh Dhoni, it has completed a three year honeymoon. His talk may appear confident but his body language speaks a rather positive dialect that reflects on the feedback from the team. A young captain, an inspiration leader and a man respected by the team he leads, Dhoni could not have asked for a better initiation to his captaincy.

He will come back to lead the charge against Australia and Pakistan. Not all days will be like this. But if Dhoni’s early inclinations suggest rightly, Dhoni has his head and his heart in the right place. Now if the BCCI can move away from geriatric redundancy, Indian cricket may well see men of these young boys.

Twenty20 has won over many a purist. Twenty20 cannot challenge the classic case of a Test. But what it has shown is that Twenty20 has its own place and niche and cricket has something to offer everyone. For Twenty20, it could not have asked for a better launch. Progressive Australia disposed, it has opened up the field for new champions, new heroes.

Twenty20 is not all about bang. The World Cup has been a short, sweet story no less inspirational than any other cricketing tale. India have raged with passion and enjoyed their game. Not all of cricket allows this, but any game is richer for the experience. In the translation of this exuberance into the other forms of the game remains paramount for India. Converting this victory into a successful formula should be India’s goal. Lifting the Cup is not the end; it is only the beginning that someone like future skipper Dhoni would do well to remind himself of.

That the final could swing either way is true. But the fact remains India showed a little bit more edge in the end, and were duly rewarded for plain sticking around. Their victories may not have been comprehensive (not many matches in the Twenty20 World Cup have been). But for fighting the odds, fighting their demons, fighting obvious weaknesses, fighting night after night, India passed an endurance test to herald what could potentially be a turning point in Indian history. India have shown more mettle and their victory is well deserved. On an even better note for the Indians, Irfan Pathan has bounced back and bleak days when one of India’s brightest shining stars faded gave way to a speculator array of dazzling fireworks. Bounce back ability is no longer a confined virtue.

It brings one to wonder: what would the men (who still happen to sit on the high chairs of the BCCI) who claimed India had no need to play Twenty20 have to make of this. Would they dare undermine India’s victory now? India’s victory and Twenty20 have proved a bonanza, the very princely purse that pays cricket’s luxurious days. Indeed the Cup flows over!

SA’s worst dissection – as always at a World Cup!

By Sreelata S. Yellamrazu

Even the self-assured Graeme Smith appeared set aback by the stunning events of the just concluded encounter in the Super Eights of the World Twenty20 championship. This would be South Africa’s live nightmare at every cricket World Cup thus far. Just when it seemed South Africa had ridden over the storm, along came a hurricane and blew away the home team into bygone woe and piercing despair. Smith has a point. But the case hinges on more than his point. The host jinx stays; South Africa have once again missed the World Cup train!

‘Chokers’ is a cruel word, especially if you happen to be a fan of the team labeled so. However, if choking is a harsh word, it would be pretty hard to describe South Africa’s debacle against India on the sordid night. What would be fairer to say is that South Africa were faced with a scenario no one had foreseen. When the moment was upon them, they were plain too paralysed (and crippled by the early blows) to react, let alone salvage. When they realize they could lose it all, South Africa’s mind set changed – from staying crouched ready for an attack, the hunter suddenly became the hunted. Only in this case, it was not so much India that were preying on them, it was the burden of their sudden twist of fortune that proved to fearsome of one of the most ‘formidable’ teams of the tournament.

Graeme Smith seemed slighted by remarks that South Africa lost their virtual place in the semi final by virtue of their getting their equations wrong. Wherever that assumption came from, this time it did not appear South Africa were unaware of their target. It seemed a plain case of nerves making the tournament favourites stutter their way to another significantly shambolic World Cup loss.

Smith is a strong skipper and would not have let that predicament pass. But he is also shrewd to point out that the tournament that kicked out the team that had won all its matches thus far would have to be looked out. While he may have stated a thought provoking point, it must then create some cause for consternation that teams like Australia that have lost to the lowliest teams have made it thus far. The tournament has thrown open the doors such that most teams have scrapped through games and group tallies and perhaps, this must also be a case with Smith takes it all with a pinch of salt.

Smith was very aware of the loss of momentum. His fiery motivation in the middle of the Indian innings may have seemed like the tirade of a dictator. But Smith has his own way of gearing the team and leading the charge. In hindsight it would seem if the captain was not happy with certain mishaps in the fields (dropped chances, misjudged opportunities), he had every reason to be.

But just leafing back the articles in this column, one point was reiterated on the fateful night. South Africa’s top three never really fired in the tournament. There was no real charge from the start of the innings and if the law of averages had perhaps done their job, Smith would have been so aggrieved. But Smith has to take the blame for his own inability to see through the India’s resurgence and stayed on to impact the game more. South Africa were put to the ultimate test at thirteen for three. While in previous matches, the likes of Justin Kemp and Albie Morkel saw through the tough turmoil, to do it all over again was perhaps just a task too much.

It is all very well to boast of depth in the batting order. But to rely on the lower order while the top order does a lullaby is just not on, even in a short game like Twenty20. The recovery between Mark Boucher and Morkel did cause a few flutters for the Indians but it was another matter that held South Africa down while India motored on, right into the semi final.

Besides a difficult start to the chase, South Africa appeared paralysed. It was not just the possibility of loss, but also, rather the distant plausibility that they could go out of the tournament. Distant because all they has to chase was 126, a target not particularly frightening for a team of this depth and fortitude. What did them in was the sudden fear of an unanticipated scenario. The factor seemed to have crippled them beyond belief.

It would not have helped their chances that their prolific batsman of the tournament and their biggest connector of the ball, Justin Kemp, was felled by a run out. Some may even raise the issue of the dubious decision surrounding Herschelle Gibbs with the umpires coming increasingly under the scanner. But was it possible that the big three up the order, Gibbs, Smith and AB de Villiers, could have approached the innings differently? While it serves no purpose to ruminate on the past, these are perhaps the areas that the team should look at. It seems prophetic now when Kemp mentioned that there were a few more areas that South Africa could improve on.

But it is a matter to look into. Otherwise considered a formidable side, South Africa develop a sense of vulnerability about them when a World Cup comes around. Their fragility has bizarrely passed down even though significant personnel changes have come along as also a varied bunch of skippers, each more different from their predecessor. There is always next time, but South Africa are increasingly finding themselves reflecting more on their losses than setting their sights on significant victories.

This is nothing to take away from India’s plucky performance. Whether their batting faltered to reveal a rookie hero or one of their star bowlers proving wayward once again, India continued to fight. And that made all the difference. South Africa had the fate of this matches in their clutches. But when it was time to fight, the will and the might deserted them, with devastating effect.

Daniel Vettori openly said his team would support South Africa in the match against India in order to be able to go through. The match did turn on its head, and one does wonder, did New Zealand dare buy the Indians a round of beer knowing they could plausibly meet each other in the finals? Or did Vettori extend a conciliatory beer to the much disconsolate skipper of the home team? Not a pleasant treat, any which way one looks at it. New Zealand were fortunate, but South Africa have not ended the tournament a pretty sight. Ironically the team that first handed Australia its defeat in the warm up match, perhaps significantly of things to come, have to painfully look back only to realize they themselves had perhaps stymied their progress on the apparent road to victory!

Pakistan: Breaking out of the Cocoon in Impressive Style!

By Sreelata S. Yellamrazu

In a thoroughly exhilarating inaugural Twenty20 World Cup, Pakistan is the only team to have made their final Super Eights match a contest of no threatening consequence. (South Africa, at the point of writing this article, still have a match against India and while it may not threaten to topple them from the virtual final four spot, still makes for a keen contest.) Pakistan though have come into the tournament rounds by leaps and bounds. But only a brave betting man would daresay Pakistan are the favourites to lift the cup by a mile.

Pakistan’s only loss came against India and that too not in the Twenty20 format of forty overs. It was in the bowl out that Pakistan got it all wrong and conceded the match to their fierce rivals. Overlooking the bowl-out clause cost them but not dearly. That would explain why the bowlers failed to strategize using the crease in a normal rhythm and run up and tinkered to make a mess. But Pakistan have not looked back in this Twenty20 and what was considered a slight imbalance with the fiasco with Shoaib Akhtar has died down to reveal a more stable, settled Pakistan under Shoaib Mallik.

Pakistan seem to have a hold on the game in a situation where another team would consider it dire. It does come as a surprise that Pakistan have done as well as they have and as cohesively as they have. Shahid Afridi’s coming down the order has raised many an eyebrow. But his usefulness with the ball has not gone unutilized, showing the value for having a blistering batsman who can also turn the game on its head with the ball.

Mohammad Asif suffered a bruise at Shoaib Akhtar and just to prove that Pakistan’s woes are usually self-inflicted, Asif has not really suffered the routine harrowing affairs of a bowler in a Twenty20 match. He has proved more than a handful, incisive, and deadly accurate from match one.

Another match who needs mentioning is Shoaib Tanvir. He is the biggest talk coming out of Pakistan and his performances have ensured he remains in the limelight. Although he attributes Wasim Akram for bringing the notice of the selectors to his talent, Tanvir seems to fit into the international arena with a degree of self-confidence and a down-to-earth personality. And if all goes well, the cricket world should hear more of the exploits of his enigmatic bowler.

But Pakistan’s strategy has a beautiful blend not just of youth and experience, but of bat and ball. Two seemingly scary scenarios and Pakistan made it without a scratch. Better yet, they looked decidedly on top of the game when the sun set on their encounters. Younis Khan and Shoaib Mallik have played their praiseworthy knocks with the bat. But the duo was joined by another name that hung around the international arena for a bit before he made a mysterious disappearances into the dry land. Misbah-ul-Haq could not have timed his return to the international game with greater aplomb and his mug shot gleams as he continues to remain the big to hit the ball the farthest (111m to be precise surpassing the likes of Justin Kemp, Albie Morkel and Chris Gayle).

Handsome are Pakistan’s gains as they have made a smooth and clean entry into the semi finals. For all of Pakistan’s clinical performance, and a well jointed array of skills with bat and ball and individual talents that make this a fascinating team to watch, Pakistan’s mercurial behavior of the past has not been on show. (Perhaps their batting against India as it fell away towards the end overs was a hiccup.)

Their bowling has been enigmatic; their batting has been superlative at the best of times. They may not have the high scores, or individual tallies. But Pakistan make a pretty impressive bunch and for all of the sub continent that has bemoaned of too much cricket, it is less likely Pakistan will be spared the circus of this enticing roulette that Twenty20 poses!

A lot rides on Pakistan. If not in the result, Pakistan have a major role in keeping the climax of the Twenty20 on track. For the sake of the tournament, one hopes Pakistan’s devious ways have blown away with the rain clouds. This is one case where the law of averages hopefully actually misses its mark, in the temperamental department at least!

NZ v SA: More Power to the Hosts!

By Sreelata S. Yellamrazu

New Zealand have been the most amiable favourites to win the Twenty20 World Cup. Their performance over time has shown that they have a better sounding board on the game and the necessary artillery to deliver. One of the most prominent to show that spin by way of their skipper is not to be taken likely, they now face an uncertain future for the semi-final slot in the inaugural Twenty20 World Cup. South Africa have subdued the tournament favorites and ironically, are still their only refuge if New Zealand are to make it to the semi finals!

South Africa responded in style against a sloppy England and making it against New Zealand would virtually slot them in an invincible position in the lead up to the semi finals. Justin Kemp featured predominantly in leading South Africa courageously and majestically with the bat. The fall of the wickets at the other end failed to frazzle the tall all-rounder. Shaun Pollock and Mark Boucher had modest scores to show but their partnerships with Kemp was immensely substantial for the hosts to pull one over the ever-aspiring tournament favourites.

The defeat certainly hurt Daniel Vettori, whose pride would not have let him deflect from his primary objective as captain of New Zealand. Snide remarks were made in newspapers of New Zealand’s performance but they were harsh given their performance thus far. New Zealand begun well with the bat and threatened to take South Africa to the cleaners. Pollock seemed to come to grips with the game but threatened to lose it all once more in the face of the New Zealand assault.

Perhaps it would be better to say, it was South Africa’s bowling comeback that made a greater impact that New Zealand’s waywardness in batting. Once Morne Morkel (one of the two Morkel brothers who ominously stand to represent South Africa of the future.) came onto the scene, the entire scenario changed. Where Albie Morkel stuck in out at the sticky end of the previous game against England to subject the England bowlers to blistering blows, it was the turn of the other Morkel to steal the show and rightly so. He got South Africa back into the match when it seemed New Zealand had galloped out of the reach of the hosts.

The umpires are just going to face the brunt. Billy Doctrove denied a budding young bowler to right to fame. Morne Morkel, with four wickets already in the pocket, bowled out the batsman only to have to turn back and watch the umpire declare the ball a no ball. Resigned to it, he ended his spell. But the replays made for a horrific display as Morne seemed well within the bowling crease and his foot only half way over the line. Undoubtedly Morne will have many more moments to impact the game with the ball. Comparisons are already been made of Morne being the Shaun Pollock of the impending future.

But it a game where bombastic runs make heroes of batsmen overnight, this was a glaring oversight on the part of the umpire!

As Justin Kemp stated at the end of the game that South Africa still need to get a few more areas right in order to fully impact the Twenty20 game and their progress, South Africa have coped well in the absence of a spinner and in the constant presence of consistent criticism of their bowling appeared pedestrian and boasting of a sameness about them. However, if South Africa are to truly go the distance, one gets the feeling Graeme Smith will have to fire one significant innings at this final stage. AB de Villiers and Smith were on song in the warm up match where the hosts dealt the Australia a blow. But it is the top three that have to fire on all cylinders now and while Gibbs has only come back from injury, this is not the game that allows much time between recovery and achieving heart stopping glory. Perhaps Albie Morkel and Kemp would love to have a thunderous platform from which to shoot their cannon balls in the final important games.

A lot though will ride on the match between South Africa and India. India pulled one out of the hat against England although it took more than nerves to do it. Now India will have to attempt a Houdini act to help New Zealand pack their bags. The tournament would love a game of such proportions. Indian fans may just differ in their opinion. Daniel Vettori’s pride is at stake. He looked sheepish when he told the television commentator that New Zealand would support South Africa in the final game to go further. That was certainly not what New Zealand had in mind when they started out, and certainly not part of their original strategy. Who knew Twenty20 allowed time to switch to Plan B!

Settling Tall Scores in Hair Raising Affair!

By Sreelata S. Yellamrazu

England knew their fate even before the game against India got underway. The England team piled up like school boys (a few even chewing their brittle nails) as they watched Justin Kemp stealing the show and the match for South Africa against New Zealand. That also meant, South Africa’s victory left no room for comeback for the men of cricket origin.

On the other hand, India found plenty of time between matches for controversies, not necessarily slanderous, but deviating from the event nonetheless. Could Dhoni handle the heat, of the change of guard back home and the fluctuating fortunes of the team in South Africa in a do-or-die situation? Undoubtedly all eyes were on Dhoni, as India’s new captain in more than one sense. But stealing the thunder seemed order of the day for the openers and for one middle order south paw, Yuvraj Singh.

England were considered tournament favourites, no by virtue of any form, but by the fact that they had perhaps played more Twenty20 matches in the domestic scenario than any other Test playing nation. But if there is one thing about England, apart from their brief success under Michael Vaughan and the Ashes victory of 2005, they have had little cheer over the last decade. Even that was considered a flash in the pan. All the talk of finding their mark and their balance was quickly rendered redundant and their team composition continues to flummox most cricketing brains.

If an example were to be cited, in the match of little consequence for England except perhaps playing for pride (whatever that means), England chose to hold back Andrew Flintoff and Dmitri Mascarenhas in favour of Owais Shah and Luke Wright even as England were running out of overs. The difference is telling considering the fact that England were neck and neck with India’s tally until that penultimate over when Yuvraj turned it on. Dmitri should have at least been given an opportunity to silence Yuvraj’s claims of the former being the cause of his grievance.

It has been precisely matters like these that have become the watershed of England cricket and the stalemate that England are finding hard to break out of. Their fielding has been paltry, given their own modest standards but it has done little to help their bowlers salvage something back for the team. Even in the game against South Africa, crucial misses such as that of Albie Morkel, resulted in South Africa getting out of the clutches and into a league of their own.

The Indian openers started awkwardly, particularly Virender Sehwag who seemed to try very hard to get out but the balls proving too good for the best of batsmen. Eventually the self-destructive streak subsided and a more vintage Sehwag looked to break through the clouds. It spelt great start for India as Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir got into a zone of their own and left England gasping thereafter.

That Twenty20 is a game relished by all batsmen was no more proved when Yuvraj and Dhoni tossed around thoughts as to who should follow whom. Eventually Yuvraj prevailed on Dhoni and then, on England with a might of near unmatched proportions. Dhoni went in first, but Yuvraj’s feats lasted through the night. Stuart Broad had no clue what he was getting himself into when he acceded to bowl the penultimate over of the match. Yuvraj Singh did not know either than he would soon be joining the likes of Gary Sobers (and Malcolm Nash), Ravi Shastri (and Tilak Raj), and Herschelle Gibbs (and Daan van Bunge) as he strode his way into the constellation of stars.

Yuvraj claimed that hitting the first four sixes of that over did not seem out of the ordinary. It was only when he caught sight of Dmitri Mascarenhas lurking in the outfield that his stinging pain when the latter blasted him for five sixes not so long ago in the series in England came back to him. Himself scarred from the treatment meted out to him in the aftermath of that effort, Yuvraj chose to inflict a few of his own on the young English lad as Broad could only watch as Yuvraj played six out of six textbook shots to set the ball sailing over the boundary every single time.

A first for Twenty20, and England had just been hit all over the town!

While Dhoni spoke all the right notes at the post match conferences, when he roared off that his team has finally put out the all-round performance demanded of them and that the bowlers bowled professionally, there had to be a few guffaws. Admittedly, it would be unfair to judge Joginder Sharma on his first outing in the tournament. But one had only to look back on the South Africa-New Zealand match to see what ‘professional’ bowling truly entailed. India managed to keep things on par. The only consolation for England lay in the fact that despite knowing that they were out of depth to actually win the match, they managed to stretch India more than the latter would have liked, especially with back-to-back do-or-die encounters, the following night against a resurgent South African side!

Indo-Pak Fireworks for Twenty20!!!

Pak for India: Fizzle, Sizzle, Fizz!!!

India for India: Dravid and Media Frenzy

What else? A Tie!!!

By Sreelata S. Yellamrazu

Is it mere coincidence that for a second time in one calendar year, two successive World Cup campaigns begin with controversies for Pakistan involving Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif? How much role Asif had to play is hard to tell before the truth is out (if it is let out). But if there one thing the crucial Twenty20 match between India and Pakistan should tell Asif he is better off staying away from Akhtar? (In the same vein, would someone tell Akhtar being the bad boy is only enticing to an extent! The image eventually wears down even on the easily enticed!) The only difference was : Pakistan and India never turned up for their scheduled clash. Barely six months later, the schedule has ensured there shall be escape this time round!

This was the second big billing match (with Sri Lanka and New Zealand postponing their encounter for a safer Saturday). Yet again, it seemed the overhype had killed it. England, the so called experienced men of Twenty20, took little time in showing they had changed little since their Ashes debacle not that many months ago. Someone should have told them, this was not Zimbabwe they were playing and even then, it was surprising they sleepwalked their way through the match. Australia though sported a different look: rugged, determined and merciless. A far cry from the jovial, innocuous faces from their drubbing at the hands of Zimbabwe. It seems too bad then that the one team that showed spunk in both matches consistently is packing bags. But Zimbabwe have done more than their fair bit to make this inaugural Twenty20 memorable, beyond the expectations of the organizers.

But it was the final match of the first Friday of the event that was made to appear larger-than-life. Mahendra Singh Dhoni exuded genial calm at the toss, suggesting the team was sufficiently relaxed. But all it takes in one emphatic blow from the opposition to take the smiles off India. Mohammad Asif bowled with an accuracy that even the feted Australian bowlers would envy. Four overs were all he was allowed and that was all he needed to break India’s bones. A wicket for every over, more ghosts exorcised between one World Cup and the next!

It cannot also be coincidence that three outstanding bowling performances have emanated from Durban. First it was Mark Gillespie’s four for seven against Kenya that sealed it for New Zealand. Shahid Africa came back with the ball with four for nineteen against lowly Scotland who tested Pakistan’s batting but collapsed when it was their turn. Now Asif has created sensation in a big game with four overs of four for eighteen! Perhaps a pointer to teams scheduled to play there in the next round!

Interestingly also, Danny Morrison was counting on an average of thirty-eight dot balls to win a bet with his fellow commentator colleagues but was shocked to inform the previous day’s match conceded eighty-eight! Will have to wait for the end of this match to count them, given India’s struggle. After Asif’s advice to play Twenty20 at Durban like a Test match, it would be worthwhile to count at the end of the match!

Robin Utthapa’s half-century was matched by Misbah ul Haq. But Pakistan had made a mess of the chase themselves with India bowling a good counterattack to build the pressure. It took Misbah’s ferocity to put Pakistan within touching distance. To have lived up the billing, it had to be close. So, Pakistan needed one off the final delivery, which they didn’t and the result was jubilation for India who escaped with a tie by the skin of their teeth.

What once seemed to have slipped away from India suddenly evened things out in the middle. The rarity of the shootout meant players and umpires had a merry time sorting out the nitty-gritty rules. It seemed more like a picnic as all the Indian players lined up for a practice hit at the stumps. The final Indian line up created much cause for concern, but it was still a matter of delivering for a more stable Pakistan line up. Some how the tenseness of the game seemed released already for the Indians who appeared to have taken the shootout more of an exercise than an integral part of the game that would decide the victor of the match.

But once it came down to it, even the smiling Sehwag delivered the first salvo. Yasir Arafat made a complete mess of his bowling and to make matters worse, Harbhajan came with glee and went back the same way! Pakistan missed a beat by not following the simple trick of bowling off their routine run up and paid a heavy price for their lack of rhythm. It seemed a mockery as Uthapa took a bow! India 3-0 up. Afridi failed miserably and India held their nerve, followed their routine and won the game.

While admittedly the nature of the shootout is unique in cricket, somehow the fact that it was played out for the first time at this level made it more of a comedy rather taken with the seriousness it should have. India got the job done and that is all that matters. For Pakistan, ironically their bowlers got the team into a winning position and the biggest let down came from their no show! India: out of jail tonight!

More on the Indian scene: Why is there such a stink being raised from within the BCCI shackles? Rahul Dravid’s decision to step down from the captaincy and the decision become news on the day when India actually begin their campaign in a virgin version of the game is despicable to say the least.

The endless tirade on the television channels travelling the length and breadth of the country asking people’s opinions (plausibly because no one official was telling them anything more) was annoying and exhausting. Not even for a brief moment was the focus brought back to the crucial game.

It’s time the media did not give in to every self-seeking publicity the BCCI chooses to procure. These decisions happen, especially in India, this should be expected. Controversy dogs the sub continent undermining their own stature and that too what all the world’s eyes are trained on them. Dravid has resigned. It’s happened. Move on with it. When more material filters, give the game its due and air the views. Why subject the nation to a day long barrage of former cricketers who are lapping up the sound bytes while also filling their pockets for more than a measly meal? Especially when they have nothing significant to know light on, or provide insight on the situation!

Worse still, are news stories of “BCCI tell sources…” Have we not been to this circus before? Admittedly last time it was about the coaches, but look where it got us? We are now a coach-less ( or is too many cooks? Either way…) team now without a captain! The BCCI kept feeding bluff about the appointment of the coach before bluff caught up with them. No, we will wait for the first twenty-hours after the BCCI states they have appointed a new skipper to check the veracity of their statement. (That’s how long it took for the Graham Ford announcement to go bust).

( And just to add on: If “BCCI tells sources…” do turn true, it would be nothing short of tragic. Sachin Tendulkar has just returned from a decently successful tour of England. We have seen his gruesome side as skipper not once but thrice. Let him play his own game! Why spoil a good thing? )

Pakistan’s new coach Geoff Lawson said his team was aware of the fact that they had never beaten India in a big match encounter, especially the World Cup. Could they break the jinx here in South Africa?