Moving slightly off the ball for a moment, Mike Brearley will become president of the MCC and thus the man who can, if he will, bring about changes in laws. Lokendra Pratap Sahi sampled the former England skipper's thinking on key issues. Thus, on whether the use of technology to make decisions should be stepped up:To make better decisions, why not? Umpires could get upset, but the game isn't designed to make them happy... We must have the highest possible degree of correct decisions... I'm not at all uncomfortable at the thought that the human element could get minimised... Don't we all want decisions to be right?
Back to the cricket, and Dileep Premachandran chronicles what will almost certainly be the last appearance of India's batting troika in England. Siddhartha Vaidhyanathan meanwhile examines the decision to bat a second time, and places the present against the context of history:
The decision will be dissected threadbare if England bat out the final day. At that point, though, it wasn't without its merits: India's bowlers would get a rest (it was learnt later in the day that Zaheer Khan was suffering from a thigh strain). Additionally Anil Kumble would get final use of the pitch, on a ground where England had never batted more than 105.1 overs in the final innings.Fifty years from now Rahul Dravid will not be remembered as a captain who didn't enforce the follow-on in a game India could afford to draw.
Yet the move sent out a negative message. Dravid had been positive right through the series, and even said he'd do everything in his capacity to win this Test. England were bleeding and there was no better time to twist the knife. Rain was forecast for tomorrow, another reason to hasten the end. Leave on a high, trample over the opposition, especially when you're in their backyard.
The macroscopic view is instructive. Only once in this decade have India not enforced the follow-on, the Sydney Test of 2004. Then, like here, an Indian captain was at the threshold of a moment so revealing that he chose safety over adventure. An away-series win is such a rarity that Indian captains on the brink are bound to get edgy. Despite all their differences, Dravid behaved just the way Ganguly did at Sydney. First he thought of avoiding defeat, only then did he think of a win.
Elsewhere, India A completed a trouncing of Kenya at Mombassa. Irfan Pathan got six wickets in the game; Parthiv Patel continued his impressive development as batsman with a century from the opener's slot, a move up from the number three position he has been playing off on this India A tour; Badrinath continued his fine form with the bat -- Kenya is not exactly the toughest competition, but there are still some interesting signals in there for the selectors.
In his latest column, Harsha Bhogle finds reason to mourn the lost generation of Indian cricket. And finally -- I promise not to bring up this subject again -- Michael Atherton attempts to undo earlier damage, done when he demanded that Sreesanth be banned for his beamer at Pietersen, with an explanation that only makes matters worse. The story so far, including videos, is here. Now read the latest:
PS...I don't think I've ever received more abuse than after last week's article on Sri Sreesanth's beamer. Writing about Indian cricket or Indian cricketers ought to come with a health warning, such illogical passion does the topic arouse. But that should never prevent us from tackling the issues that matter, and the beamer, whether bowled accidentally or deliberately, whether bowled by Brett Lee or Sri Sreesanth, or by a wheelchair-bound black lesbian, should be penalised with a ban. The colour or character of the bowler is irrelevant, it is the damage it could inflict which matters.
Nice try, but it ends up as a bit of an own goal. Firstly, Atherton needs to do Indian fans a favor: don't suggest that the abuse you got has to do with the fact that you criticized an Indian bowler. It does not.
Atherton himself says, here (not sure why he had to drag a paraplegic black lesbian into it, but hey) that to his mind the beamer is criminal, and punishment should be the same for anyone who bowls it.
And that is precisely where the Indian fans are coming too, Mr Atherton: punishment should be uniform, we agree, and hence are a bit puzzled why you were so enamored of Brett Lee's apology as to bend over backwards in exonerating him (despite Lee being a habitual offender), while you were so quick to suggest banning Sreesanth (for a first offense, what is more).
To distract attention from the real issue by suggesting that the heated reaction has to do with our Indian-ness does us a disservice -- and doesn't serve the purpose the writer intended in his PS.
Also read previous roundup: Team India makes a collective statement
Advertisement
