...howwwzattt... my heart bleeds...

India v Sri Lanka, Asia Cup final, Karachi

Mendis spins Sri Lanka to title triumph

The Bulletin by Dileep Premachandran
July 6, 2008

Sri Lanka 273 (Jayasuriya 125, Dilshan 56, Ishant 3-52) beat India 173 (Sehwag 60, Mendis 6-13) by 100 runs Scorecard and ball-by-ball detailsHow they were out

Eight years ago, in Sharjah, Sanath Jayasuriya scored a magnificent 189 before Sri Lanka's bowlers sent India tumbling to 54 all out, and a humiliating 245-run defeat. At Karachi's National Stadium, Jayasuriya, now 39, smashed another superb century before Ajantha Mendis, the mystery spinner still classed as a slow-medium bowler, bamboozled a highly rated batting line-up to finish with astonishing figures of 6 for 13.

Virender Sehwag's blistering early onslaught was rendered irrelevant as Sri Lanka stormed to a 100-run victory, retaining the Asia Cup and extending India's miserable record in tournament finals.

With Sehwag hammering an exhilarating 60 from just 35 balls, India had romped to 76 from just nine overs. Muttiah Muralitharan prefers not to bowl during the Powerplays, and it was to Mendis, who the Indians had never faced before, that Mahela Jayawardene turned as he sought to staunch the flow of runs.

Even he couldn't have predicted the impact that Mendis would have. Like a combine harvester scything through a field of corn, Mendis sliced through a line-up that has quite a reputation when it comes to playing spin. Sehwag charged his second delivery and watched helplessly as it drifted away from him. Kumar Sangakkara did the rest. Two balls later, Yuvraj Singh was utterly befuddled by one that skidded on. Suddenly, 274 appeared a long way away.

Yuvraj Singh was one of Ajantha Mendis' six victims © AFP

That Sri Lanka got anywhere near that was down to a man who refuses to bow to Father Time. India picked up four wickets in the first 12 overs, with Ishant claiming three of them, but Jayasuriya's 114-ball 125, and a 131-run partnership with Tillakaratne Dilshan utterly changed the complexion of the game.

It's perhaps no coincidence that India haven't won the Asia Cup since Jayasuriya became a regular at the top of the Sri Lankan order, and his mastery over the opposition was best revealed in the 16th over, bowled by RP Singh. RP had managed to escape relatively unscathed in his opening spell, conceding 24 from five overs, but when he returned, Jayasuriya took to him like a bull that had been riled by the matador's cape.

Sixes on either side of the sightscreen were followed by two wallops over cover, and after a one-ball lull, he pulled one over midwicket for six more. With Dilshan then taking three successive fours off Irfan Pathan, Mahendra Singh Dhoni had no option but to turn to spin, with Pragyan Ojha and Sehwag managing to have something of a fire-extinguishing effect.

India had started poorly, with RP conceding two boundaries to fine leg in the opening over, but a mix-up between two experienced hands gave them the opening they so desperately needed. Jayasuriya tapped one to short mid-off, and Sangakkara had already hared halfway down the pitch before he realised the striker had no interest in a single. Suresh Raina's underarm flick was the ultimate punishment.


Ajantha Mendis got a career-best 6 for 13 © AFP

But with two maiden overs bowled in the first five, India wrested back a measure of control, despite Jayasuriya's sporadic bursts of aggression. With the pressure building, it was Ishant who struck, as Jayawardene slapped one straight to Rohit at point. No bother for Jayasuriya though. A swivel pull sent an Ishant delivery for six, and Pathan's introduction was greeted with three fours in the over.

The problem was at the other end, where Ishant was wreaking havoc with the extra bounce he extracted from a comatose pitch. Bounce and a hint of lateral movement had Chamara Kapugedera playing one off the leading edge to point, and two balls later, the other Chamara - Silva - inside-edged one back on to the stumps.

Jayasuriya's version of consolidation involved a pull for six off Ishant and a slice of luck as a as a miscue off Pathan evaded RP, who ran around in circles and failed to get his hands to the ball. Dilshan contributed only four to the first 50 the pair added, from 30 balls, but he did his part, turning the strike over to allow Jayasuriya to inflict maximum damage.

With Sehwag and Ojha - Rohit contributed three tidy overs too - taking the pace off the ball, it was a different story. With the field spread, the boundaries dried up and the runs came mainly in singles. India missed a couple of run-out opportunities and Dhoni put down a sharp chance offered by Dilshan when he was on 37, but the helter-skelter pace of the Powerplay overs soon gave way to relative calm.

Eventually, the lack of action got to Jayasuriya and a flat slog-sweep off Sehwag only found Ishant at deep midwicket. After that, Sri Lanka lost their way. Dilshan eased to 50 from 68 balls, but when Pathan returned to bowl round the wicket, he popped a catch to Dhoni. Vaas, back in the fray after missing the last game, square-drove Ishant for the first four in more than 20 overs, but was castled by RP soon after.

Nuwan Kulasekara flailed the bat to finish with an unbeaten 29, but a target of 274 was expected to be well within reach for an Indian side that had included seven specialist batsmen. But after his extraordinary first over, Mendis soon set about making a mockery of the predictions.
Raina had been fortunate to survive a vociferous leg-before shout before he decided to play the worst shot of the evening, an ugly pull to a delivery that pitched on middle stump. Rohit soon followed, struck on the back pad by one that deviated away a touch, and by the time Jayawardene decided to take him out of the attack, Mendis had stunning figures of 4 for 8.
No one including the umpires knew quite what to expect, and the batsmen appeared unsure whether to play him as a slow bowler or a medium-pace one. That indecision was to prove fatal, especially against the carrom ball that was being propelled by a flick of the middle finger. As eye-catching was his accuracy. There was no width for the batsmen to work with, and hardly a loose delivery. Only Dhoni, who played the ball as late as he possibly could, showed any signs of coming to grips with him.

With Mendis casting such a spell, Murali's introduction went almost unnoticed, but with him in parsimonious mood, the tourniquet was tightening around India. Robin Uthappa and Dhoni added 38 in attritional fashion before Murali struck from round the wicket. Uthappa missed a flick, and the appeal from the bowler was just a formality.
Jayawardene waited a while longer and then brought back Mendis for the 30th over. India somehow survived that, but the game was up in his next. Pathan's attempt to flick through the leg side ended up at slip, and RP walked off bemused after one deviated away to take off stump. He should have had the hat-trick too, only Simon Taufel was as perplexed by a ball that pitched in line as Ojha was.

Dhoni had watched it all from the other end, defending stoutly and striking the odd four when he could. But once he inside-edged Chaminda Vaas to the keeper, the Sri Lankan dressing room readied for the celebrations. When Kulasekara cleaned up Ishant with 63 balls still to be bowled, they could begin in earnest. The combination of the six-hitting veteran and the six-wicket carrom-ball spinner had been far too much for India to handle.

Dileep Premachandran is an associate editor at Cricinfo

...howwwzattt...

New life for a young rivalry
Australia v India has, over the last decade, grown into cricket's premier face-off, and on the evidence of the current series there's plenty to come

January 20, 2008

Ian Chappel wrote:

The intense rivalry that now exists between Australia and India kicked into high gear in 1997-98, appropriately initiated by a wonderful contest between two champions Shane Warne and Sachin Tendulkar in Chennai.

With Warne now more interested in straight flushes than turning legbreaks, and Tendulkar's glittering career winding down, it was easy to assume this rivalry had been a sprint rather than a marathon. However, the startling events in the current Test series have shown that the contest has had a second wind. We're in for many more years of intense competition between these two proud cricketing nations.

The once great divide that characterised these two teams, the inability to compete away from home, has closed like an unhinged door over the last few years. Under Ricky Ponting, Australia broke their hoodoo and won a series in India for the first time in 35 years. Now Anil Kumble has led a vibrant side to an inspired win at the WACA, the bouncy graveyard of many touring sides, not just India.

For Australia, talented young cricketers like Michael Clarke, Mitchell Johnson and a revitalised Brett Lee are providing the spark for a continued run of success. On the other side, RP Singh, Irfan Pathan and Ishant Sharma are inspiring an Indian side that has for long been top-heavy in batting. The successful injection of new blood into both teams provides ample evidence that this rivalry is far from a dwindling affair.

The fact that India has been able to shrug off a turbulent loss at the SCG and disregard the ridiculous hyperbole surrounding the WACA pitch to bat first and dictate terms in the third Test is indicative of a changing mindset in the team. India is unearthing a new breed of Test match player, more competitive and resilient. Kumble has embraced this trend and Mahendra Singh Dhoni embodies its spirit.

The resurgence of Irfan Pathan is a particularly pleasing aspect of India's determined performance. Pathan has always been a talented and smart cricketer but that doesn't make him immune to the peaks and troughs all players have to endure. The good signs at the WACA suggest he's been to the valley and is now on the ascent, as a far stronger character.

His grit and strokeplay when batting was encouraging but it was the sight of him swinging the new ball at a reasonable pace that suggested his confidence was returning. He knew his bowling was needed in Adelaide, but just so the selectors would have no doubts about picking him, he strode to the wicket as a night-watchman and after outlasting four illustrious partners, returned to the pavilion a bonafide top-order batsman. He won't always have good days but this Test should have given him the confidence to avoid slipping back to the dark times he has just endured.

On the other side of the ledger a young Australian fast bowler will have learned a good lesson after a few demoralising days at the WACA. With so much talk about the pitch being fast and bouncy, Shaun Tait was sucked into making an ill-advised comment about bowling the fastest ball ever delivered. This comment was delivered before the match started but he was unable to deliver on the field and finished low on confidence, bowling in the 130s, and couldn't even erase the tailenders at a crucial time in the match. Tait should now know that it's wiser to let your deeds do the talking and that Test matches are a far cry from the wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am razzmatazz of Twenty20 cricket.

Test cricket can be an absorbing contest when bat and ball are evenly matched. And in a game that can be sheep-like in its ability to follow meaningless trends, it's to be hoped the impact of swinging deliveries on recent Test series has been noted. The fate of the Ashes in 2005 turned on England's ability to swing the ball, and last year India turned the tables on Michael Vaughan's side in the same way. Now we've had the result of a wonderful contest at the WACA determined by the swinging ball. It's a timely reminder of the importance of this often undervalued skill.
Twenty years ago talk of an intense rivalry between Australia and India receiving a boost on the bouncy WACA pitch would have been sufficient grounds for certification, followed by insertion into a white gown and a padded cell. There's nothing like a healthy rivalry and a keen contest to quickly erase any thoughts of madness and conspiracy.

© Cricinfo

...howwwzattt mr. umpire???

Cricket crisis a long time in the making
Tim LaneJanuary 12, 2008

A FRIEND who knows little of cricket enquired of the week's unrest: "What was it all about?"

It's a good question and one that would be answered differently by different observers. Peter Roebuck, who earlier in the week called for the sacking of Ricky Ponting as Australian captain, saw the Sydney Test match as a specific conflagration. I would suggest, having followed the match from afar, it was more a culmination.

The public intervention this week of John Bertrand, Herb Elliott and Rob de Castella was, I suspect, not the result of a spur-of-the-moment reaction but of a growing frustration.

The same applies to the letters that have filled the correspondence columns of newspapers.

Four years ago, a story appeared in The Age reporting that Cricket Australia had confronted its players with the division of opinion they

were arousing in their community.

A CA switchboard operator was summoned to describe the sort of uncomplimentary feedback she was regularly forced to deal with.

At around this time the players committed to their Spirit of Australian Cricket manifesto. Since then they have consistently asserted that their conduct is governed by that commitment.

It refers to "playing hard but fair", describes "banter between opponents and ourselves as legitimate tactics", but also states that "we do not condone or engage in sledging".

This was undoubtedly well intentioned, but such black-and-white documentation was never more than an invitation to competitive young men to find their way around it. Apart from the fact that distinguishing "legitimate banter" from "sledging" might test the best legal minds, how do you define the spirit of a game?

This is what has brought Australian cricket undone this week. It has been playing by its own book. It lays down its rules and then stretches them. The events in Sydney that sparked the week's crisis are but manifestations of an established attitude.

An example is the matter of appealing. The Spirit of Australian Cricket refers to the acceptance "of all umpiring decisions as a mark of respect for our opponents, the umpires, ourselves and the game". But what of the matter of appealing for decisions players know, or at least suspect, would be unjust?

Did the Aussies really believe Rahul Dravid edged the ball to Adam Gilchrist on the last day in Sydney? It might have won them a 16th straight Test but was it worth it? Apart from anything else it has led to the sacking of a distinguished umpire for the next Test.

The other matter that has inflamed India is Ricky Ponting's decision to report Harbhajan Singh for using racist language.

The Australian captain did as he had been encouraged to do by officialdom. He may also have been influenced by his awareness that indigenous AFL footballers have been urged not to hesitate in making a complaint if they are racially vilified.

Unlike the AFL, though, the ICC has no mediation phase within its process. Upon a complaint being lodged, it lays a charge. A guilty finding brings a penalty from two to four games. Harbhajan Singh received three.

Presumably, Ponting failed to realise that within such a volatile environment this could have serious consequences. How the hard-nosed Aussies would look complaining against their underdog rival appears also to have escaped the skipper.

Being an international cricket captain these days requires some sophisticated thinking.
The crisis that was unleashed has produced other unedifying responses.

The CEO of Cricket Australia, James Sutherland, opted for unity over statesmanship and took issue with Bertrand and company. He sought to justify the team's behaviour on the basis that it is not playing tiddlywinks. Neither, though, is it fighting a war.

India's reaction to the issues of Sydney was equally unworthy.

Amid all the cultural differences within, international sport has always stood one universal truth: the role of the umpire as impartial arbiter is inviolable. That the tourists breached this by refusing to play under Steve Bucknor in Perth is to their shame.

Then, of course, there was the International Cricket Council. It assured us that Bucknor was not replaced for the third Test "due to any representations made by any team or individuals".

Is it any wonder cricket's players are less than perfect when its bosses treat them, and us, as fools?

*Note: The piece was taken from Australian's The Age.