Points to Ponder From Pakistan: Part Two

Continued from last week...

Different Formats 

The selectors’ inability to understand that different players are suited for different formats is confusing. One would expect such experts to know and understand Cricket a lot better than us mere spectators. The Test batting lineup continues to confound me. Kusal Perera hit two centuries in the unofficial test matches against Pakistan A. Then he went on to score another hundred in the practice match against the Pakistan Team. Somehow he missed out on a place in the Test team. 

Kusal Perera has been categorized as a limited overs specialist. This labeling is not based on any facts. Kusal Perera’s first class batting average is 51.35 with an amazing conversion rate of 11 centuries and 10 fifties. However, his list A average is only 31.47.  This shows that Perera is more suited to the longer format. Why the selectors continue to ignore this fact is hard to understand.  

Frustration again and again!

Spin on Spin

Rangana Herath has been bowling superbly for the past few years. After only two disappointing matches  against Pakistan, Herath finds himself carrying the drinks. On the other side of the coin, Tharindu Kaushal gets selected after just one good outing.

Dropping Chandimal and Thirimanne from the T20 format was a very good decision. Apart from the fact that both Chandimal and Thirimanne are unsuitable for the format, it is of paramount interest that they should try out new players. The onus should be on building a T20 squad for the next world cup.

Trying out new players have unearthed the likes of Milinda Siriwardene who have performed outstandingly well. Getting new capable players instead of playing musical chairs amongst the same set of players makes a lot of sense.

Captain Confused

Captaincy has a lot to be desired for in Sri Lanka’s T20 team. Malinga showed his immaturity as the captain during the matches. In the second T20 the decision to hold back Thisara Perera and Binura Fernando, when they were bowling so well, was a very poor decision. Instead of going for the kill, Malinga was more focused on bowling the 20 overs. 
In the last T20, Anwar Ali's wagon wheel showed that all his sixes and boundaries came from the on side. He simply slogged all deliveries on to the on side. The lines mainly bowled were  straight on middle and leg. It was a result of poor field setting and bad coordination between the bowlers and captain.These are probably the factors that cost Sri Lanka the final T20 match. 

At the end of the tour, hopefully, the selectors and the team think tank would have learned something useful for the upcoming series against India. It is also prudent to keep in mind that Sri Lanka is a team in transition, in the building stage, after the exit of certain key players. Therefore patience and persistence is of utmost importance. 

Points to Ponder from Pakistan: Part One

Assessment of situations, when they are over, is a relatively easy task. However, sometimes even the seemingly obvious is clouded by impaired judgement. As Pakistan leaves the shores of Sri Lanka, the question at hand is, are the Sir Lankans left with more questions after the series than when they began.

Poor Performer

As usual, Sir Lankan selectors have preserved their capability of not selecting properly.  Lahiru Thirimanne, the Sri Lankan vice captain, has had a horror time in Test Cricket. During the previous calender year, Thirimanne averages an appalling 13.30 with the bat with a highest score of 38.

This year, so far, he averages 25.33. The question is, what compels the selectors to persist, with Thirimanne in Test match Cricket If the reasoning behind his selection was talent, then I’m afraid the selectors should watch more Cricket. There are many technical deficiencies in Thirimanne which are unfortunately exposed in the longer format. His weakness of sparing at deliveries outside the off-stump shows a lack of judgement as to where his off-stump is. Also, his balance into the stroke is on most occasions not correct. This will cause theball to go in the air even when he is driving.  

In all fairness, Thirimanne had done well in ODI Cricket. The important fact is that             the selectors cannot seem to differentiate between the different formats of the game.

Chandimal The Wicket-keeper

Using Chandimal as the Test wicket-keeper allows Sri Lanka to play the extra batsman. Out of the youngsters,  Chandimal is probably the most talented. Making Chandimal keep wicket and batting him at number seven is a complete waste. Chandimal should be handled in the same way Sangakkara was handled in Test  Cricket. Chandimal should bat at number four without the added burden of having to keep wicket. The glove work should be handed over to Prasanne Jayawardene. Jayawardene would bring a lot of much needed experience to the team and can contribute even more as the vice captain of the team.

To be continued...

What Ails Our Selectors

Profiling a player and categorizing one is a very difficult and dangerous task. Whatever said and done, this categorizing of a player happens at some point. Hence, it is with a great foreboding that I attempt to understand the Sri Lankan selectors’ point of view without any form of labeling. 

No direction

Three questions immediately struck my mind as I first saw the lineup for the first test, of the Sri Lankan team against New Zealand in the ongoing series: the non-selection of Dinesh Chandimal and the selection of Lahiru Thirimmane and Niroshan Dickwella. 

Lets take these issues one at a time. If one looks at Chandimal’s record, there is a very clear indication as to which format of the game he does well at. In 14 matches Chandimal boasts a batting average of 44 with three centuries in Test Cricket. However, in the ODI format ,he averages only 30 from 89 matches. What is also clear is that Chandimal’s issue is more psychological than technical. Chandimal’s lack of understanding of his own game, has led to his downfall in ODI Cricket. Therefore, the argument of playing Chandimal in Test Cricket, becomes even more potent. 

Thrimanne’s story is the opposite of Chandimal’s. Though of late, Thrimanne has found some form in ODI Cricket, it begs the question as to whether that should warrant him a place in the Test team.An appalling performance in Test Cricket this year, finds Thrimanne averaging a mere12 with the bat. 

Dickwella meanwhile manages to find a place in the Test team without the backing of many runs at either Test or First Class level. After scoring a half-century in his maiden match, Dickwella showed that he has a lot of talent. But with a First Class average of 31 in 28 games, on batsmen friendly wickets, is not a good enough reason for him to find a berth in the Test team. What makes the decision seem even more bizarre is that Dickwella was played as a fulltime batsman.Which raises the question: is Dickwella one of the top six batsmen in Sri Lanka?  

Just to sum-up on the whole matter, the selection of Tharindu Kaushal at the expense of  Dilruwan Perera, shows the muddled thinking process of the selectors. All in all, it was a poor team selection for the first test. Lets hope the selectors get there act together for the second Test.

The Quiet Achiever: Thilan Samaraweera

Innocuous at the most exhilarating of times and reserved in his celebrations, Thilan Samaraweera is the epitome of what one would call a quiet achiever.  Never one to display excessive emotions, Samaraweera never craved popularity and after retirement, neither dabbled in Cricket administration or even politics.

Samaraweera began his career as a bowling all-rounder and later blossomed into a prolific batsman. His solid defense coupled with the ability to, pick the line and length of a delivery, earlier than most batsmen, meant that he was able to prolong his occupation at the wicket.

The best of Thilan

 After making his debut as a bowling all-rounder, Samaraweera scored a Test century in his very first match. However, the presence of Muttiah Muralitharan meant, the Samaraweera’s chances to bowl his mild off-spinners were limited. As time progressed, Samaraweera gave up on his bowling and only concentrated on his batting, despite having over 350 first-class wickets. After some shocking selection decisions, which left Samaraweera out of the team, even when he had an average in excess of 80, he managed to gradually work his way up the batting order.

The incident in Pakistan where terrorists attacked the bus carrying the Sri Lankan team resulted in Samaraweera getting shot in the leg. The recovery period was long and arduous yet, Samaraweera managed to once again find a place in the team due to sheer determination.

Recovery was slow and painful

   

Where most Cricketers would have given up hope in the face of such incredible odds, Samaraweera only went from strength to strength. Instead of his dogged style of play, Samaraweera opened up and began scoring at a higher tempo. Probably his greatest achievement was, scoring a test century in South Africa and helping the team to their first ever test win on South African soil.

After 81 tests, Samaraweera decided to end his career more to do with the lack of regular Cricket than to a loss of form. On retirement, Samaraweera had achieved a Test batting average in excess of 48. Limited opportunities in the one day arena resulted in a loss more for the team, which badly needed a solid middle order batsman after the exit of Ranatunga and de Silva.

For Samaraweera, nothing was ever handed on a plate. It was hard work and immense dedication that saw him rise as one of the top batters in the world.

Who Should Apply as Head Coach

I decided not to apply for the post of Head Coach, Sri Lanka Cricket. Apart from my obvious lack of qualifications, there still lingers a faint hope that the Sri Lankan administration will carry out at least this appointment with some sense of credibility, with the onus on improving Cricket in Sri Lanka.

The coaches who left in the recent past, have all left with feelings of frustration and anger. Tom Moody was the last coach to leave with sunny beaches and friendly natives on his mind. The likes of Trevor Bayliss and Stuart Law (and maybe Graham Ford) left/leaves unhappily due to the incompetent and autocratic nature of the SLC administration.

Hence, this begs the question, who should be the next head coach. As I write, there are six applicants, none of whom that posses a sound set of credentials. 

In my mind, there is only one man with the qualifications and has the respect of the whole Cricketing world to be appointed to the post: Aravinda de Silva.  

Technically sound, with an abundance of talent, no one can dispute the mastery of the man. In terms of talent, de Silva is probably the best that Sri Lanka has ever produced.

Pure class!

To add to Aravinda's resume, during the past few years, he has been extensively involved in conducting coaching camps all over the island for young, budding Cricketers. No other superstar cricketer in Sri Lanka, from the recent era, has given back so much to the game.

De Silva's brief stint as chief selector displayed the man's solid character and integrity. While there may be some criticisms about his selections, no one can doubt the complete transparency of those decisions.

To summarize, Aravinda de Silva is top draw when it comes to Cricketing talent. Hence, there is no doubt that he has an abundance of skill to impart on the current crop of Cricketers.

He's played at the highest levels as well as at the most important moments in Sri Lankan Cricket. He's been there; he knows how to handle any situation.

As for Aravinda's character, it is a rare sight these days, in times of corruption and political influences a man who encompasses the respect of the whole Cricketing world. 

Let’s hope that Sri Lanka Cricket does not make me regret missing a tea time anecdote about how I applied for the post of Head Coach Sri Lanka Cricket.

Why We Can Do Without the Politics of the DRS

The hottest topic in Cricket these days is the DRS or Decision Review System. It’s been talked about so much, that it now resembles a scruffy street dog that everyone’s taken a kick at. Instead of adding to the saturation, I decided to discuss it in a brief, succinct manner with the recently concluded Pakistan versus Sri Lanka series as my guide.

First of all, it’s important that we clarify exactly what the DRS is. The DRS is a set of technologies, such as Hawk Eye and Hot Spot, that are supposed to assist the umpires with the decision making process. The detractors of the DRS claim, that it’s not 100% foolproof. Hence, such a technology, with its imperfections, should not be used. Whilst that may be true, we have to cast a practical eye on the claim. Most technologies are not perfect. What about third umpire assisted run outs and stumpings? How many times have we seen “it’s too close to call, so the benefit of doubt goes to the batsman”? How about that one camera frame, which fails to separate the exact moment the ball dislodges the bails? Or when the umpire or a fielder somehow manages to come between the camera and the stumps?

Can we imagine an era without third umpire assisted run outs and stumpings? Yet, when the concept of the third umpire was first suggested, there was a similar set of people who wanted nothing to do with it.  

What do we expect from a DRS or use of any technology for that matter? The intention is to make the decision making process more accurate. The issue is that the critics of the DRS is comparing it with perfection (as an ideology) and not with the current umpiring circumstances. It short, we know that DRS or any such technology will probably never be perfect, but it will improve the current state of affairs. Falling back on my safety net, we saw how the umpires in the Test series between Sri Lanka and Pakistan struggled to consistently make the correct decisions and ended up making a considerable amount of mistakes. We even saw Simon Taufel, one time number one umpire in the world, making a couple of real howlers in quick succession. The DRS will prevent the obvious mistakes, like the third umpire did to the run outs and stumpings some time ago. If the TV viewers are in a better position to accurately judge the validity of an appeal than the umpires, who are the official decision makers, then there is something drastically wrong with the whole process.

No way forward for DRS?

Let’s take a look at the DRS as a law (or rule). In the broader sense, any law conforms to a certain set of principles. We like to think of a law as being consistent and applicable to all without any discrimination. Currently, this is exactly what the DRS, as a law, is not! It is not consistent; as the form of DRS used is left at the hands of the individual Cricket Boards (Hawkeye only, Hotspot only, Hawkeye and Hotspot, or nothing at all). A law should, ideally, apply to all. Here again the DRS is nothing more than an option, almost an afterthought, that the two countries involved in a series can choose or discard. A law should not be left at the discretion of individuals. It makes no sense to have laws that contract or expand or even vanish according to the wishes of a group of people. This is not grade or club level Cricket. We are talking about the highest levels of Cricket and the most prestigious tournaments. The ICC should not take such a lukewarm attitude towards the standards of the game.      

The next claim critics make is that the cost for these technologies are too high to bear, especially for developing countries. It seems, Hot Spot alone costs around $100,000. If we look at the series between Sri Lanka and Pakistan, there was no DRS, in any of its manifestations, in a single game. Hence, apart from the obvious fact that, not everything related to the DRS is India’s fault, we need to understand why the DRS was not made available. The answer is simple; Sri Lanka Cricket is broke! Whatever funds a country receives from the ICC and through the games they host, in the form of advertising and TV rights, ideally should go to the development of Cricket. During the last few years the administration of Sri Lanka Cricket has usurped and squandered, in millions, of funds that should have gone towards the betterment of Cricket in the country. The Cricket board hit rock bottom, some time ago, as they were unable even to pay the salaries of the Sri Lankan Team, which is ironical as the Cricketers are the very reason that the Cricket Board gets funds. What better way to utilize money, allocated towards Cricket, than to invest in a technology to ensure the highest standards in the highest format of the game? At this rate, there might come a time, when Sri Lanka Cricket declares that, they cannot afford a second set of stumps. What happens then? Do we play without changing ends? Thus, given the background, we should not take into consideration the financial statuses of such Cricket Boards when passing laws; because no matter how inexpensive the technology, they will not be able afford it in the future.

All is not however, lost as there are still ways of improving umpiring without having to invest in millions upon millions. There are very obvious aspects that every TV viewer can witness regarding LBW decisions without the aid of the DRS. By just putting the “mat” on the screen, the viewer can see where the ball pitched; hence can determine whether the ball pitched outside the line of the leg stump and see whether the ball hits the batsman in line with the stumps. Given a side angle, maybe even make a pronouncement on whether the ball will go over the stumps or hit them. The TV viewers can also see, without the aid of any DRS, those thick inside edges on to the pads that are sometimes given out LBW. Hence, there are quite a few practical ways of improving the standards of umpiring, without the ICC or individual Cricket Boards having to incur huge expenses.

It’s clear that there should be no debate regarding any technology that is used to improve the standards of the game. Ultimately, the pugnacity and arrogance of a few individuals should not govern the game. Also the standards of the game should not be compromised to appease sponsors and financial resources. Hence, this DRS issue has been festering, like a diabetic sore, for far too long without any treatment due to the pathetic stance taken by the ICC. At the end of the day, the question that remains is, does the ICC have the best interests of the game at heart?

Australia’s Fast Bowling Pool or Swamp?

Given the amount of Cricket played by International Cricketers these days, it’s no wonder that the coaches and management staff are casting a favorable eye on extended squads and player rotation policies. In a bid to keep their players fit and available over a longer period of time and get the maximum out of them, administrations are looking at implementing these policies, especially for fast bowlers, because they are the ones whose bodies are subjected to the most amount of stress. 

Australia is no exception in implementing rotation policies for their fast bowlers. Over the past few seasons they have built up a formidable pool of fast bowlers at international level. After the exit of McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicks, Bichel and co., Australian fast bowlers have been plagued with injury problems. The lack of quality players led to the current policy of building an extended fast bowling pool. However, the questions to ponder are, has this pool been practical and effective? Has it solved the problem of injuries to fast bowlers?

Listed below is the current crop of fast bowlers in and around the international scene over the past couple of seasons.

Lots of bowlers yet ... 

 As the above table suggests, Australia currently have in their ranks an amazing number of fast bowlers. It is true that not all of them have been claimed by injury and hence, was sidelined from national duty. The likes of Peter George have fallen out of favor with the selectors. However, the majority of these bowlers have been unable to make the team due to injury. Young, promising bowlers like Josh Hazlewood, James Pattinson, and Pat Cummins have suffered only after playing one or two matches. So it again begs the question, is this rotation policy solving the issue?

There are chronic cases, like Ryan Harris who are constantly plagued by injuries. If not for injuries, Shane Bond might well have turned out to be one of the greatest bowlers in the history of the game. To come back from injury, time and time again and deliver the goods is a challenge. Just look at what happened to the likes of Jeff Thompson and Ian Bishop. After injury, they were just not as effective as before.

The more you look at it, the more evident it becomes that this Australian injury issue, is not about chronic injury cases or too much Cricket or even about implementing the correct rotation policy for players.  The Australians were one of the first to establish a Cricket Academy. Afterwards, they seem to have fallen asleep. This academy is the key to attending to this issue. Fast bowling is about correct and suitable technique, not just in the sense of playing by the coaching manual, but also in minimizing injury. You have to look at the bio-mechanics of young bowlers and make adjustments to suite the individual. Weight training and physical fitness to perform at the highest level becomes essential. What Australia needs is to look at is how the West Indian greats, of the 1980s, outperformed most bowlers and also ended up having long careers. Australia should have experts analyzing every fast bowler coming through the ranks to minimize these unwanted injuries. Hence, the solution is not to have a ridiculously lengthy list of fast bowlers being selected according to a rotation policy, but making sure that the best bowlers are properly trained and looked after.