ICC One-day super series: The rest of the world not at its best!

The ICC super series has ended in a most one-sided fashion imaginable. I had always given the Australian side a good chance of winning the series if it was going to be played at home, but I had hoped for a closer contest. It was not to be.

Before the contest began, I had questioned the choice of captain in Shaun Pollock. If he was not considered good enough to captain his own national side, why did the Selectors think he was good enough to captain the Rest of the World. Was it a case of Sunil Gavaskar repaying back some real or imaginary debt to his father Graeme, who if you recall had played alongside Sunil in the first Super Series in 1971 when Gavaskar was a hot-shot rookie.

On hindsight, it appears that the choice of the selection panel itself was not right. None of the World XI selectors had chosen a national one-day side in the past and were thus unaware of the demands that modern day cricket places on a one-day side and the kind of balance necessary for a side to win. The importance of captaincy is far greater in one-day cricket than in tests. The best way to choose a world XI side would have been to get all coaches of major teams together to choose a side. Had Shaun Pollock not played his place in the side, you could have been taken by a more effective one-day bowler like a Rana Naveedul Hassan. Maybe Shoaib Akhtar would not have been chosen.

Pollock's inadequacies as a captain were very evident in the last one-dayer. With Australia on the ropes with Murali and Vettori weaving circles on the Aussies (at 150/5), Pollock decided to bring on the part-time off-spin of Gayle and Sehwag and then himself. This released the pressure and allowed Hussey and Watson to take the match away. Shahid Afridi was never used as a bowler and never at the top of the batting order to bring in an element of surprise. It was also very evident that the side missed Inzamamul Haq badly - someone who could shoulder the burden of batting long and batting fast. Rahul Dravid does not win many one-dayers for his national side and was never expected to lead the batting for the Rest of the World. Lara at 36 years of age is probably feeling over the hill while Kallis was inexplicably out of form. Full credit to Australia for leveraging the hurt and pain of the Ashes loss into positive energy and putting the issue of the "best team in the world" beyond doubt.

Ashes Final result: England 2: Australia 1

England quite clearly owe the Ashes to three factors: the two gentlemen in the picture alongside this post and the rain gods. It was fitting that what held Australia at bay in the final test were the three factors that have made England world-beaters in this series at least - Flintoff, Pietersen and some plain luck. It was clearly the passion and never say die spirit of Flintoff that brought England back into the game in Australia's first innings, when Australia looked like taking the initiative with long-awaited centuries from their two openers. When it was Englands turn to bat, it was Pietersen who dismissed the defensive mindset that had caused the downfall of the rest of the English batsmen and proceeded to put matters out of reach of the Aussies. Yes, he was aided by a generous dose of luck. But then who was it who said that "Fortune favors the brave".

Shane Warne was one Aussie who enhanced his already exalted reputation even further. This series really brought out the competitor in him and it was quite obvious that but for him, England could have won this series much more easily. 40 wickets in 5 tests is no joke against any opposition. However, the question on my mind at the end of this series is "who is going to replace him and McGrath in the Aussie side"? While the senior side was losing the Ashes in England, the Aussie A side was being thrashed by the Pakistani A side. Bereft of these competitors, Australia will have a pretty ordinary bowling attack and the side cannot be as succesful as it has been over the past decade when these two greats were leading their attack. The Aussie side needs to start experimenting and rotating some youngsters pretty soon unless it wants a prolonged period of an ordinary existence in World Cricket.

Ashes finale: England could pay dearly for their defensive mindset

I had remarked in my last post that England should not abandon their aggressive stance if they have to bring the urn back to England. Unfortunately, they have done so and its effects are there to see. First, their batsmen did not carry on in the aggressive vein that had been so effective in the last three tests. That momentary lapse of reason was enough to let Warne rip through the top 4 with only 131 runs on the board. Secondly, and most importantly they replaced their most effective bowler with a batting allrounder. Had Collingwood come off as a batsman, this mistake would have been less obvious. But as things stand he was dismissed cheaply albeit via a debatable decision. Now England has to defend an okay total with a less than full-strength attack.

Another thing to be noted is the Aussie plan for this test match. Quite obviously Hayden has decided to eschew all attack and accumulate. This has paid off so far. On the other hand, there was a definite plan to go after Giles early in his spell and nullify one of Englands weapons. If Giles is rendered ineffective, it increases the pressure on the other 3 bowlers. It will be interesting to see how this plays out on the third day. England is lucky that the weather is on their side and hopefully for them it might have a role to play on the third day. At this point of time, at the end of the second day, the advantage is solidly with Australia and it will be interesting to see how they execute in the next few days.

Ashes: Should have been 3-1, could have been 0-3, is 2-1 now, whats it finally gonna be?

Its been an unbelievable series of test cricket. The finishes in the second, third and fourth tests have been mind-blowing. The second and fourth tests won by the English could so easily have gone the other way. But there is no doubt that the English have dominated the Aussies. It remains to be seen if the English can sustain their intensity in the final test also. For a side not used to winning consistently, that can be a tall order sometimes. But who knows, the momentum is with them and they might just be good enough for the last hurrah.

There are two signs of a well-managed cricket team. First, that personnel get chosen for form rather than reputation. Second, the team is aggressive and plays to win. England has demonstrated these traits amply and Australia has not. England decided to go with in-form Kevin Pietersen rather than the out-of-match-practice but great Graham Thorpe. Secondly, they have gone into all matches with 5 front-line bowlers in all games. Australia on the other hand have stuck with Matt Hayden and Jason Gillespit and used 4 front-line bowlers throughout. In my opinion, the key to Australia's success in the next test will be its ability to overcome these team management issues.

Hayden is not in form and 4 front-line bowlers are not adequate especially if McGrath is not playing or is not 100% fit. They will need to attack if they have to get the confident English batsmen out cheaply. With the current strategy of playing Warne and three other good but not great bowlers, this does not seem to be happening. In England's case they have to resist the temptation of playing for a draw. If Simon Jones does not recover from injury, James Anderson needs to be played, not Collingwood. Collingwood should only play in Tests as a replacement for a batsman - possibly Ian Bell.

Either way, it promises to be a great encounter. I cant wait for it to begin!

India needs a captain who can bat in tough conditions!

The last time India did well outside the sub-continent was the tour of Australia more than two years ago. India was not expected to do well but competed reasonably in the end. The reason not many gave the Indians too much of a chance was that they typically had done poorly batting on the hard bouncy fast wickets down under. However, along came the first test and Saurav Ganguly was on hand to score a splendid 144. What followed was an inspired batting performance where almost every Indian batsman contributed and the Aussie bowlers had the toughest time in recent memory - albeit that Messrs. McGrath and Warne were out of action.

Contrast that to India's lacklustre performance in the last one year. One of the standing issues that India has had to face is the lack of any sort of batting contribution from its captain - Saurav Ganguly. Quite obviously, the rest of the line-up has lacked inspiration. More importantly, if the captain himself is struggling to get bat on the ball and is ducking and weaving to the likes of Sami and Shane Bond, how does he demand discipline and consistency from his fellow team mates. Batting is half the game and if India does not ensure that it is competitive on this front, it will loose more than half the games it plays. Unless Saurav Ganguly can change his batting fortunes soon enough, I do think it will be time for India's most succesful captain to step down.

World XI selection: a few raised eyebrows indeed!

While no team selection of this kind will not attract a wholesome debate, I do think that some of the selections and some non-selections do warrant some eyebrows. The selectors have not applied the same standards to all selections and that is of some concern. Were they selecting on the basis of current form or past records - this is not very clear.

There was always going to be a debtate with regards to the opening slot - Graeme Smith or Michael Vaughan - for opener and by default Captain. I guess the selectors chose Smith because he actually opens for his country whereas Vaughan would have been an makeshift opener. I guess there will be some murmurs also because of Smith's inexperience compared to the team that he is supposed to lead.

What is baffling is the inclusion of Shaun Pollock in both the one day and test sides. On current form, I am not sure he should have been in the 20. What is even more unbelievable is the fact that Inzamam-ul-Haq does not make it to either team. There is simply no reason - form or record - why he should not be there on either of the lists. One one hand people like Kevin Pietersen have been chosen on current form and on the other hand Sachin Tendulkar appears on both sides just by the dint of his past record - his current form has been abysmal.

What about old man Kumble - does he not have a decent record against the Aussies and has he not been winning matches against them lately? Vettori probably makes it to both squads to make up the NZ quota. Also, whats the reason that the South African team has 6 representatives across the two squads - last I heard they were not ranked in the top 3-4 in both forms of cricket. If you take out some of the South Africans - may be you have space for the likes of Inzy, Vaas and Kumble. Clearly, the South African selector on the panel had a stronger voice than anyone else. Not only do they have 6 players, they have both the captaincy slots also. Was'nt Shaun Pollock not considered fit to lead SA sometime back. How come has he become so good a leader so as to lead a World XI?

The Indian team loses because it lacks passion for the game!

One day cricket is played in the mind more than any other form of the game. Teams do not need to have the best talent to have a winning record. They just need players who have the deep desire to win. India lacks players who have this desire and it is reflected in its record in recent years. The team ostensibly has enough individual talent at its disposal, it does not have players with a passion for the game. This is the single most important issue that Greg Chappell has to contend with if he has to raise the performance of his new team.

Sri Lanka is clearly a team with a lot of passion for the game. Its players have a lot of heart as exemplified by Jayasuriya braving a broken shoulder to win the first one dayer in the tournament of the game. The passion shows up on the field as its spinners strangle batsmen with a nagging line and by bowling to a field - and more importantly the field responds by throwing itself at everything that leaves the bat. Without exceptional talent (with the exception of Murali and an over-the-hill Jayasuriya), this is the single most important reason why Sri Lanka is ranked number 2 on the one-day international ranking and India makes the bottom of the list of serious one-day playing nations. What is even more interesting is that the ranking of money made by cricketers would be the reverse. Indian cricketers probably at the top of the heap whereas Sri Lankan cricketers could probably be close to the bottom. The Sri Lankans clearly play for the love of the game. The Indians clearly have a big distraction that probably leaves them less passionate for the game.

Ashes Second Test: Unbelievable finish sets series up!

The World Champions will not give in easily! What was a foregone conclusion turned out to be nail-biter of enormous proportions. Was Kasper out or not, is debtatable as the picture shows, but his stand with Brett Lee will go down in history as one of the most astonishing last-minute stands in the history of the game.

The next test will not have McGrath once again. But I expect to see Australia firing. England will have its own worries also. Their batting has only fired in one out of 4 innings played in this series thus far. Vaughan, Bell and to a lesser extent Strauss have had problems getting runs on the board. Hence, if Pietersen and Freddie have off-days with the bat, they could have problems putting a decent size score on the board. Also Old Trafford is a happy hunting ground for Warne - he would not mind going after the England line-up which does not appear to have overcome their issues with Warne yet. Yes, he will surely reach 600 wickets and get lots more there!

Ashes Second Test: No McGrath, no teeth in Aussie fast bowling attack!

In my previous post I had mentioned that it would be interesting to see what happens if McGrath or Warne are not in action in any of the tests in this Ashes series. Lo behold, McGrath decided to step on a ball and tear his ligaments minutes before the second test. On the evidence of the play in the second test so far, this single piece of unexpected news not only leveled the playing field but actually tilted the balance in England's favor even before the first ball was bowled.

Psychologically, England were a different side in the first innings. The openers were clearly more confident and that showed in the 100 plus opening stand. The rest of the batting were very positive and that was evident in the 5 plus run rate witnessed across the stretch of the England innings. Since it was the first day, the wicket did not assist Warne as much although he was good enough to take 4 wickets on an opening day wicket.

For England, Kevin Pietersen continues to impress not only with his shot making ability but also with his temperament. I fail to understand how Ian Bell was a certain selection ahead of him and Thorpe. England would have been better served if they had the experience of Thorpe to go along with the exuberance of Pietersen. Flintoff return to batting form was a big plus for England. Now that they have 400 plus runs on the board, England has the advantage and this does make for an interesting battle ahead in the second test.

Ashes First Test : A feeling of Deja vu!!

After an electric first day, in which the honors were more or less even, Australia re-asserted their status as world champions and the storyline had a very familiar touch and feel to it. It is very clear that Australia's dominance over the last decade has been a function of the form of their two bowling superstars - McGrath and Warne. They have done badly or rather poorly by their own standards where these two have either been absent or have been rendered ineffective for some reason beyond thier control. One such series was India's tour of Australia a couple of seasons ago when both these gentlemen were absent injured. Their replacements (Williams, Bracken, Bichel and Macgill) and their current colleagues (Gillespie and Lee) were rendered toothless as India piled on the runs and never allowed Australia to dominate them.

It will be interesting to see what Australia's fate will be if any of these great bowlers is unable to play in the remaining tests. In my opinion, that would give England a real chance at winning a match. Until then, if they continue getting dismissed for less than 200 in both innings they stand a very small chance of threatening Australia in this series. A sense of deja vu is very ominous!

Ashes First Test First Day: First rate cricket!!

There is certainly nothing better in any sport than to see the underdog flex its muscles or spring a surprise or two. True, England had competed very well in the one -day series preceding the Ashes, they were underdogs by a distance. The ICC cricket ranking and ratings were realistically reflective of the dominance that the Aussies have enjoyed over the last decade or so. The English bowling certainly turned the tables on the Aussie batsmen on the first day of what promises to be a truly promising series in prospect.

The battle was symbolized by the blood dripping down Ponting's cheek (see photo) caused by a Harmison bouncer that evaded his bat and slipped through the visor of his helmet. Its been a while since Ponting and Co. have been pushed to the backfoot so comprehensively by any team. However, the champion side that they are the Aussies still managed to get to 190 and what happened after that was further testimony to the fact that the Aussie dominance just could continue through this series and there is one solid reason for that - Glenn McGrath.

Kevin Pieterson was standing amongst the ruins of the English innings at the end of the day. He will be eager to try out his hard-hitting stuff early on the second day in order to get England as close to 190 before he runs out of partners. There is one more thing that is to be noted about this English side compared to the sides of the recent past - the fighting qualities of the lower middle order as typified by Geraint Jones and Ashley Giles in this Test and Paul Collingwood in the one dayers. This fighting quality and the new found aggression in the pace attack have brought the English side so close to overcoming the Aussie dominance that has had a stranglehold over the cricket summit for quite some time now.

My selection for the first ICC World XI one dayer

The team for the one-dayers between Australia and the ICC XI certainly needs to be a little younger and obviously needs a bit of dash beyond what the test team has. The one-day specialists selected - Kevin Pietersen, Shahid Afridi, Razzaq, Herchelle Gibbs, Sangakkara and Chris Gayle do bring the power of youth and dash that could make the ICC XI an unbeatable side. Based on current form and the factors mentioned above, here is my pick for the ICC World XI side.

1. Virender Sehwag
2. Herchelle Gibbs / Chris Gayle
3. Brian Lara (Captain)
4. Inzamamam-ul-Haq
5. Jacques Kallis
6. Andrew Flintoff
7. Kumara Sangakkara
8. Abdul Razzaq
9. Steve Harmison
10. Shoaib Akhtar
11. Muttiah Murlidharan
12. Shahid Afridi (super sub)

This team would give Lara the option of using 5 front-line bowlers and three all-rounders - Kallis, Sehwag and Gayle (if he is played) plus the option of using the superstar supersub - Shahid Afridi. Even without Afridi, the side has plenty of batting firepower in Sehwag, Gibbs, Lara, Inzy, Flintoff, Sangakkara and Razzaq. All these batsmen can really hit the ball and score freely. Australia will be hard-pressed to beat this side.

Irfan Pathan: The next Kapil Dev or the next Debashish Mohanty?

One cricketer whose performances are bound to come under close scrutiny this season is Irfan Pathan. After a near-dream start to his international career in Australia and then in Pakistan, he had an ordinary season last year - which in no small way contributed to India's average fortunes in the season gone by. The clamour and the hype that surrounded his performances in his first year that he was India's next Kapil Dev has died down. In fact, the end of the last season saw him dropped not just from the playing eleven against Pakistan but altogether from the squad of fourteen. This does beg the question - was it a case of his not being a hundered percent fit or was it a case of someone who needed helpful conditions to succeed at the international level?

About a decade back, India had seen the advent of a similar swing bowling talent who had gone on to make an impression in helpful conditions in Toronto, England and Australia but petered out in not-s0-helpful conditions back home - Debashish Mohanty. Mohanty was unplayable in helpful conditions and took wickets by the bagful. But his lack of genuine pace (120's) proved his undoing. Irfan also has had a great deal of success, but he too suffers from the same problem - his lack of genuine pace. I do hope for India and crickets sake, that Mohanty's story does not get repeated with Pathan.

Super-sub rule: Boon for sides bereft of allrounders?

The super-sub rule is a welcome change in one day cricket and does bring an element of excitement to the game that was starting to become mundane. Apart from everything else that is being spoken about how good it is for the game, I think the rule is bound to benefit sides that lack quality allrounders more (say India & West Indies) than sides that already have a bunch of quality all-rounders like Pakistan and South Africa.

Take the case of India. If it bats first and like always packs its side with 7 batsmen. During its innings it can retire a batsman like Dravid or Kaif and subsititute one of them with a bowler to give them depth in bowling. This would level the playing field with a team teeming with allrounders like Pakistan - which typically on any given day can call upon 3 top-class allrounders who bowl decently - Razzaq, Afridi and Shoaib Malik. These all-rounders are better than a lot of non-regular bowlers. Mind you a player who has been substituted can still field - so India does not lose Kaif in the field if he is subsitituted.

If it bowls first, India can quickly bowl out one bowler on the trot at the beginning of the innings and bring in a batsman. I am not sure of this interpretation of the rule . Does anyone else know better?

My selection for the first ICC World XI test

20 players have been announced as probables for the ICC XI test team to face Australia. Out of the 20 announced, i would leave out the following 9 - Sachin Tendulkar, Brendon McCullum, Daniel Vettori, Makhaya Ntini, Shaun Pollock, Younis Khan, Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Andrew Flintoff and Graeme Smith. Tendulkar and Pollock lose out on current form. Brendon McCullum loses out to Boucher on his batting. Ntini would be the third fast bowler if a game is played in Perth. Chanderpaul and Younis are not in the same class as the other batsmen. Flintoff loses out to Kallis because of Kallis's better batting record while Graeme Smith loses out the opening slot and the captaincy narrowly to Vaughan on experience. Ntini would also be a cover for Shoaib Akhtar for the second test (assuming Akhtar's injury record holds).

So the team in batting order for the first test would be

1. Virender Sehwag
2. Michael Vaughan (Captain)
3. Rahul Dravid
4. Inzamam-ul-Haq
5. Brian Lara
6. Jacques Kallis
7. Mark Boucher
8. Anil Kumble
9. Muttiah Murlidharan
10. Steve Harmison
11. Shoaib Akhtar
12. Makhaya Ntini (12th man)

Why is India the favorite for the India-Pak series?

As I look around and read all media reports leading up to the India-Pak series, I sense an overwhelming sense amongst most journalists that India is the favorite. This feeling seems to be more pronounced amongst scribes from Pak than it is from amongst Indian scribes. I dont agree with this judgement.

I would say that Pak starts off as being a favorite. The first reason is that the team has had a baptism by fire in Australia. True, the series was a washout as far as results are concerned for the young Pak team, but one has to look at the end of the series encounters to see that the team has indeed started to compete on an even footing with the strongest team in the world. It is worth noting that the Aussie one-day side did not lose to the Windies and has not come close to losing to New Zealand in the series right after the VB series. That Pak was able to beat them in a crucial encounter and then run them close in the two finals, points to the Pak team coming together as a unit and becoming competitive. This generally does not augur well for any opponent, given the amount of talent that any Pak team normally has.

That said, these matches were one-dayers and too much cannot be read into how the Pak batting will cope with the 5 day version of the game. Imran Khan and so many other commentators have rightly pointed out the fact that it is upto the Pak batting if the team has to win in India. However, given the fact that the batting will surely enjoy the lack of pace and bounce that the Indian pitches lack grossly, I do think that the Australian experience will surely stand the Pakistanis in good stead.

On the other hand, it is the Indian batting that has a worried look to it. Lately, Tendulkar, Laxman and Ganguly have been hugely inconsistent, with the result that the load has had to be carried by Sehwag and Dravid. Indeed, if these two fail, the batting takes on a very fragile look. There is no Parthiv Patel to add the cushion at the end. It is sad that India continues to persist with out of form batsmen when it has so much batting talent waiting in the wings. The fact that Kaif and Yuvraj have to contend for an extra spot on the team is a sad commentary on the selectors especially when the test batting is not really firing.

Shoaib Akhtar's presence will be felt by pak, despite all the brave utterances from all Pakistanis. Without him the Pak team does not have anyone who can run through the Indian batting. That probably is something that the Indian batting must be really happy about. I hope that translates into confidence and not over-confidence. In the past, this has meant that India has made bowling stars out of people who have not done anything of note in the past and in the future after running through Indian sides in India. Examples like Azim Hafeez, Pat Pocock, Neil Foster, Greg Matthews abound in Indian crickets historical folklore.

VB Series: The action heats up!

Well, the action has really heated up in the VB series as I write this blog. The first final is reaching the halfway stage and Pakistan is on top - and who has just put them on top - my choice for the best all-rounder in one day cricket today - Abdul Razzaq. Popeye really seems to have turned the corner as far as his form is concerned since he recovered from his spinach induced illness.

Pakistan is at its best when its batsmen are putting runs on the board. Its bowling suddenly has an extra spring in its step - it doesn't matter if Shoaib Akhtar is not available - Navedul Hassan can step up and do the job if there are runs on the board. This has been pretty obvious in the last two games at Perth where Pakistan won. Indeed this has prompted Shahryar Khan, the PCB chief to say that Shoaib may not be a certainty for the tour to India. Maybe, it might be a good idea for Pakistan to stick to its line and length medium pacers for the one dayers and bank on the ligthtning quicks only for the Tests.

Coming back to the VB series, it has become competitive towards the end and all the three results in the final three games in the round robin had unpredictable results. However, the Pakistan batting with all its solidity and muscle was able to win the crucial games for them. I dont remember any side that boasts the fire power that Pakistan enjoys in its lower middle order today - Razzaq and Afridi are certainly the two most explosive batsmen in the world and lately they have been very consistent. This does mean that their side can win matches against any opposition including the current world champions Australia.

Best allrounder today in world cricket

Abdul Razzaq's explosive batting and subsequent outstanding bowling spell against Australia, got me thinking whether he is the best all-rounder in world cricket today. Razzaq, who had an exceptional start to his career, had cooled off somewhat in the last couple of years - contrast his 99 world cup performance with his 2003 world cup - and you have a story of a career in decline. However, he has had a good season especially in ODI's, bringing back memories of Razzaq of old and with that the question if he is good enough to be called the best all-rounder in World Cricket today.

Ok , lets look at the candidates for the tag. Lets look at batting and bowling all-rounders and not wicket-keeper batsmen - Adam Gilchrist would probably win hand-down if that was the case. Also, I think you need to distinguish between ODI's and test cricket to perform the assessment.

ODI's first. The choice at this point of time is between Razzaq, Afridi, Azhar Mehmood from Pakistan, Kallis, Flintoff, Chris Cairns, Symonds and Upul Chandana. In terms of impact being made currrently and cuurent form, I think the finalists are Razzaq, Flintoff and Symonds. In my opinion, Razzaq probably is ahead by a nose. Mind you, this is not a comparison of careers - but a statement of current form. Razzaq wins more games for Pak than the others. Kallis and Chris Cairns have probably had more exciting careers overall, but they are not winning today as many games as the three finalists.

Tests. The choice here is between Kallis and Flintoff. I think Flintoff is a better bowler and Kallis a much better and more consistent batsman. However, Kallis's bowling is not having as much as an impact as it used to earlier. He is more a batsman than a bowler today. Hence, in terms of impact with both bat and ball, my choice here is Flintoff. Surprisingly, Razzaq does not come close to the two finalists in test cricket. Razzaq's bowling in tests has been pretty ordinary as his test record suggests. Also, he has not crossed 50 in tests for over a year.

England vs SA 3rd Test: Momentum shift?

England's tour of South Africa is indeed turning out to be an intriguing one and far better contest than was expected prior to the series. When England won the first test, there was a chorus that could be heard about how strong the English side was and how it could challenge the Aussies in no time. The chorus did also include me. The first test by all means did signal a side that believed in itself and one that had the mental toughness necessary to be a top team.

However, subsequent to the first test, the tide seems to have slowly turned the South African way. In the second test, the English side did tremendously well to force a draw in a game where they were in a very poor shape after the first innings. At the end, when bad light stopped play, the game was actually tilted England's way. However, the third test saw no English fightback in the second innings after a similar to the second test debacle in the first innings. The fact that they batted last did not have anything to do with change - South Africa is extremely poor in its spin resources to pose any major problems on a wearing wicket. Although the lower half of the batting order did put up a fight and reduce the margin to less than 200, it still was a one-sided loss for the English.

So has the mometum shifted? I guess it is early to say. Although, this must have given a tremendous boost to the South African confidence after their pretty ordinary outing in India. They looked like a fighting unit. The fact that the entire team was ostensibly playing on merit and form, probably allowed for a stronger team spirit and it showed on the field. I believe this has been recognized by the South African selectors and they have recalled Mark Boucher for the fourth test - inexplicably no solid reason has ever been given for his dropping - which by all accounts was arbitrary. Boucher today is probably the second best batsmen amongst wicketkeepers in the world - after Adam Gilchrist. It will be interesting to see if he gets his job straightaway from AB De Villiers who seems to have performed a decent job with the bat and the gloves. It has also helped that Jacques Kallis is back to his best and his recent form is testimony to the fact that he has toppled Dravid as the number one batsman on the ICC rankings.

India's ODI problems

It is fascinating to know that a team with the likes of Tendukar, Sehwag, Ganguly, Dravid, Harbhajan, Kumble and such emerging stars as Yuvraj, Kaif and Pathan is ranked 8th in the current ICC ODI rankings. It is only above Zimbabwe, Kenya and Bangladesh in the ranking right now. This team that beat everyone with the exception of the eventual champions Australia in the World Cup last year has been in a free fall ever since the series against Pakistan in Pakistan. It recently hit a new low when it presented Bangladesh with its first victory against a major test playing nation since achieving test status and its first points in the ICC ODI table.

I think one important reason why the team has been in such a bad state has been the lack of new fresh talent making its mark in the last one year. One day cricket teams need the spark of youth and fresh talent to perform consistently. The reason India has done well in the 2 years preceding the World Cup was the fact that the team introduced good new talent on a regular basis - Sehwag, Yuvraj, Kaif, Pathan, Balaji - all established themselves in that period. In the last one year - the team has not only stuck to the old formula of playing 7 batsmen irrespective of situation, it has gone into all games with the same stale team. The only competition for the top 7 has come from the likes of Rohan Gavaskar - who everyone knows makes it to the national team because of his famous last name. The team selection has been less than objective - Hemang Badani has evey right to know what he has done wrong in all the opportunities he has got. The selectors have not tried any new batsmen or spinners - with the result that the current incumbents have become complacent. The resultant lack of intensity is there for everyone to see.

The team also needs to think through its batting strategy - Does it really need to play 7 batsmen in the sub-continent. Why not allow Dhoni to play and develop into a good wicketkeeper batsmen that he promises to become. Why not consider playing 5 batsmen, a good wicket keeping batsman, an all-rounder (Joginder Sharma, Ritender Sodhi ? ) and 4 genuine bowlers in the sub-continent and increase the number of batsmen if need be abroad. India needs to take a leaf out of Pakistan's book. Despite a weaker batting frontline, Pakistan routinely goes in with 5 batsmen and has been fairly succesful in ODI's doing that. More importantly, they need to rotate the top5 in order to bring in some competition and intensity at the top. The sooner they make it their policy, the better off they will be against a hungry Pakistan coming to India after a "learning" tour down under.

Pakistan's Capitulation

Well, the Pakistan Australia Test series seems to have been an anticlimax at the least. I expected the Pakistan team to come out all guns firing in the Melbourne and Sydney tests - after the expected loss in Perth. However, despite some sort of a struggle in the Melbourne test, it has been a fairly one-sided series and the result 3-0 speaks for itself.

The fact that their Captain and worldclass batsman Inzamam was out of action for most of the series, did not help matters. However, the bigger problem facing Pakistan at this point of time is the fact that this Pakistani side probably has the lowest level of talent seen in a Pakistani side for some time. That the below average (by Pakistani standards) talented side has very little international experience compounds the problem. I do not recall a Pakistani side going into a test match with only one fit wicket taking bowler as it happened at Sydney. The result was that this one bowler - Danish Kaneria - ended up bowling 50 out of a total of 118 overs and taking 7 wickets in the process. No test team can win test matches - let alone against the best side in the world with this strategy.

What perplexes me is the lack of fast bowling fire power at Pakistans disposal currently. Shoaib Akhtar is the only genuine wicket taking bowler that Pak has and he is prone to injuries and attitude meltdowns. Sami's test bowling average of 45 plus tells a story - he has certainly not lived up to the hype and promise he generated when he started out. Khalil and Asif have gone wicketless in their respective first tests. Navedul Hassan and Ifthikar Anjum remain honest triers at best. Danish Kaneria appears to be the only standout bowler on this tour and he is clearly overworked.

The only positive to emerge from this series from the batting point of view is quite obviously -Salman Butt. It remains to be seen if he can mantain his form and not fizzle out a la some of his predecessors in his role - Imran Nazir, Taufeeq Omar, Imran Farhat and even Yasir Hameer - who incidentally has yet to score a test hundred after his two hundreds on debut against Bangladesh.

The one day seried hopefully will be evenly contested - as the Pakistanis have continued to be competitive in the shorter version of the game - a result of having some decent all-round strength at their disposal - Shoaib Malik, Razzaq, Afridi et al.