The former USMNT star called on MLS leadership to make changes to the league's season schedule ahead of the FIFA World Cup
Zimbabwe cricket is facing another poential crisis and it is all of its own making
Steven Price06-Sep-2005
|
|
|
Zimbabwe Cricket’s announcement that it was introducing performance-related contracts seemed, on the face of it, to be a sensible move in an attempt to bring an end to the team’s repeatedly below-par displays in both Tests and ODIs.But, as with so many things concerning cricket inside Zimbabwe, the move has backfired, causing serious unrest among the players and raising suspicions that there is more to it than meets the eye. Rather than acting as a rallying call, it has dumped Zimbabwe, already in seemingly rapid decline, with another unnecessary potential crisis.For almost any other country, getting tough with players would probably work. But Zimbabwe has so few decent cricketers, let alone international-class ones, that it cannot afford to be choosy. There are five first-class sides inside the country and that means only around 70 players. These are funded, either directly or indirectly, centrally, and the side that keeps getting heavily beaten represents the best of them.The board might have got away with its initial move had it not immediately scored a string of own goals. The decision to announce arbitrarily the ending of the careers of four players – Stuart Carlisle, Craig Wishart, Barney Rogers and Neil Ferreira – over the issue of contracts needs to be weighed up against the board’s earlier action against Brendan Taylor. Reportedly slapped with a long ban for disciplinary reasons, that was rapidly overturned or overlooked, depending who you believe, as Zimbabwe’s need for decent players came to the fore. Four other senior players, Trevor Gripper, Doug Marillier, Mark Vermuelen and Mluleki Nkala, did not even make the initial list of 27 players. On purely playing grounds – and the board said that was what had been behind the selections – some of the names left out are perplexing.A side-effect of this latest move is that it will do little to encourage players currently overseas to return. Ray Price, Sean Ervine and Travis Friend are clinging onto their Kolpak deals with English counties because they are not guaranteed a future in Zimbabwe. With more uncertainty, they are even less likely to move back home.The players are also angry at the way the board made assurances about the funding of a players’ representative – Clive Field – which it appears to have reneged on, and some have suggested that some ZC officials have deliberately leaked false information regarding player remuneration and benefits to the media. One explained that he believed this had been done to undermine their position in a country where so many have nothing. “We are the lowest paid players in the world,” he said. “Some of us do not have our own houses and some players still stay with their parents, I do not think that would be the scenario if we were well paid.”And the criteria used by ZC was also queried. One of the players implied that the people making the decisions know nothing about the game. He questioned how Douglas Hondo, with 56 ODIs and nine Tests under his belt, could be rated alongside Chamunorwa Chibhabha, who has only played one ODI.The rebel strike last year divided loyalties among the players. The word on the ground is that almost all the players are united this time round.Behind the scenes, it seems a power struggle is emerging inside ZC. Recent articles in the domestic media have hinted at this, and battle lines appear to have been drawn. Ozias Bvute’s power has been increasing since he was elected as managing director last August – he has been seen for some time by many as being the real power behind the board – and those on the inside believe that sooner or later a move by him to replace Peter Chingoka as chairman is on the cards.Were that to happen then the ramifications could be serious. Whereas Chingoka is well respected overseas and within the ICC, Bvute is an unknown force whose track record will not initially open many doors. Internally, he is not well regarded by many players, and his latest manoeuvre has hardly helped improve his standing.Last month he dismissed Zimbabwe’s two-day Test debacle as a one-off. Yesterday he said that the contract dispute was not a crisis. Sooner or later, if he is to be the new force in Zimbabwe cricket, he needs to accept reality and start addressing the facts and not the picture he prefers to paint.
From the Faisalabad saga to the “subterfuge” of reverse swing to the crowd violence of the nineties, England v Pakistan has always been more than your garden variety cricket contest
Osman Samiuddin10-Jul-2006
|
|
|
It is in cricket a rivalry unique. It does not rely on the conventional ingredients that form the undercurrent of most traditional rivalries: geography, religion, a tainted historical antecedent. Yet it has been as fractious, as heated, as packed with history, incident, drama, plots and sub-plots as any. Contests between Pakistan and England, by rule, have not been dramatic; often they have been direly one-sided, often deathly dull. Yet, always they have been loaded. It isn’t, as with India and Pakistan, a matter simply of love or hate, moulded by prevalent political winds. It isn’t, as with the Ashes, tied inexorably to a history that has shaped the game itself.Although there is considerable emotion, some history, and even a colonial legacy, there is a whole lot else that is more compelling. And precisely because the strength of antagonism is dictated by unconventional sources, it is maddeningly complex.Barring a handful of contests – the 1954, 1971 and 1996 tours to England by Pakistan – nearly every series, irrespective of venue or decade, holds something: controversy, theatre, intrigue. Even the mostly friendly 2005-06 tour of Pakistan produced at Faisalabad two controversial dismissals, a blast during play, and a ban for Shahid Afridi for scuffing the pitch. Each series has added a layer of subtext, some acrimony, some implication, some “previous” onto the next. As a relationship, progressively through the decades this one has mostly worsened, interrupted only sparingly by clashes which have merely left the status quo unmoved.In 1955, when Donald Carr’s MCC toured Pakistan, a template of umpiring mistrust and discontent was set. The tourists complained about umpire Idrees Beg, then infamously doused him with cold water in Peshawar – allegedly as a prank. The series would have been abandoned but for diplomatic intervention; the tourists claimed Beg came voluntarily. Beg and other Pakistani officials asserted he had been kidnapped.Ted Dexter’s tourists in 1961, on what was an amicable enough tour, came across, according to reports, “reasonable umpiring, although criticism came here and there”. The sending back of Haseeb Ahsan from England in 1962, at his captain’s behest after Haseeb’s action was whispered to be less than legitimate, unfurled its significance two decades later when he toured as manager in 1987. That tour, of course, was steeped in confrontation and Haseeb was widely condemned by England as the instigator.In 1967 and 1974, Pakistan rumbled about inadequate covers allowing water to seep through at the English grounds. Even in between, in the Pakistan of 1969 and 1973, in encounters relatively free of rancour, there was the embellishment provided by political turmoil. The first of those series was played against the backdrop of Bangladesh’s impending birth and abandoned after riots in the third Test at Karachi; Wisden called the tour a fiasco. The second went ahead after extra security was arranged for the tourists. The British mission in Islamabad had received a hand-written threat from a group called Black September promising to harm the team.From there on, the rivalry has spiralled: through the late seventies travails of the Packerites and the felling of Iqbal Qasim by Bob Willis at Edgbaston. It reached its confrontational peak, of course, in the spectacularly raucous mid-to-late-eighties and early-nineties contests, when familiarity bred hatred (the sides played 11 ODIs and eight Tests between December 1986 and December 1987, in those days considered overkill).What makes it what it is? Pakistan and England ostensibly provide cricket’s affirmation of Samuel Huntington’s thesis of the clash of civilisations. Huntington’s treatise of the same name, which examines potential ideological and cultural conflict post-Communism, serves to explain, superficially at least, the incendiary nature of this rivalry.Javed Miandad, no two-bit extra in these dramas, sagely substantiates this in his autobiography: “Underlying cultural differences are always a fertile ground for misunderstandings.” Certainly, as Simon Barnes argued before England’s 2000 tour to Pakistan, two more culturally divergent sides on the field are difficult to find.Barnes wrote, “The fact is that Pakistanis are not only different to the English, but they really don’t mind. They don’t see their culture clash with the English as a personal and national failing; they suspect that there might be problems on the English side as well. Like arrogance and xenophobia and Islamophobia, just for starters.”
|
|
|
The behaviour of administrators further augments this line of thinking. The planning and method which seems to infuse every action of the British is anathema to Pakistan, where only the last minute is the most important – as was learned by, for example, the English tourists of 1968-69, who were disgruntled more than once by the inconvenience of last-minute venue changes.Both sets of players collectively and individually are, inevitably, subjects of caricature-ish, sometimes rude, profiles in the other’s backyard; if Pakistan is the abrasive, deviant child, inclined to deception and erratic behaviour, then England is the uptight, grumpy old man, moaning about anything and everything, bringing his own food, and unwilling to mingle.Pakistan’s heroes are portrayed as geniuses – sometimes mystical as in the case of Abdul Qadir, and sometimes warrior-like, as in that of Imran Khan and Wasim Akram. Imran, aware of this flimsy characterisation, prompted Qadir to grow his hair and a goatee to further heighten his numinous aura. Pakistan’s villains have been devious, conspiratorial and antagonistic, as Javed and Haseeb were deemed.Simon Heffer’s remarkably distasteful piece for The Sunday Telegraph in 1992 – “Pakistan – The Pariahs of Cricket” is the best example. Miandad was likened to a rickshaw driver and card-sharp; Pakistan was labelled a country of cheats, capable of fair play only when their grounds were “turned over to their other popular use, as stadia for public flogging.”England’s heroes have been plodding, but with innate goodness and uprightness of spirit – a Colin Cowdrey or a David Gower. Their villains have been pantomime – racist, colonialist and obnoxious like Mike Gatting and, of course, Ian Botham. The latter is remembered not so much for his 8 for 34 in 1978 as for his mother-in-law. Nothing has existed in between, and it is a seductive contrast.Add to this superficially enhanced clash considerable colonial residue and you have the beginnings of a dysfunctional relationship. Imran and Javed argue that the atmosphere only soured once Pakistan began asserting itself as a powerful Test nation in the late seventies and early eighties. As the one-time subservient colonised – tolerated for one-off successes like the Oval in 1954 – challenged at the very top, asserting a regular authority over the supercilious coloniser, the clashes became increasingly fraught and disputatious. A fundamental relationship was overturned.In a Daily Telegraph column about his retirement, Imran writes about how breaking free from mental “colonial shackles” and ridding Pakistan of its inferiority complex – where the ultimate ambition of every manager of a tour to England was to be elected to the MCC – was one of his most cherished achievements. Javed, naturally, was blunter. “For years, Pakistani teams on foreign tours found it difficult to shake a sense of inferiority. Perhaps we were embarrassed to be from a Third World country that not too long ago had been ruled by white colonialists.”Although, like with the cultural clash, there is undeniable truth in this argument, it too lacks depth. Revenge, colonial-style, was certainly on Aamer Sohail’s mind when he directed Botham to send his mother-in-law to bat next after a cheap dismissal in the 1992 World Cup final. But it overlooks, one, a quintessentially Pakistani paradox and two, a legitimately questionable English outlook, that have together added, if it was needed, a little extra zing. Now it gets complex.In broad swathes of Pakistan there is a deep-rooted contradiction towards the English (and Western civilisation). For a pot pourri of reasons – colonial, religious and cultural – they generate animosity. Post 9/11, this has intensified. Yet in this same country it is a widely held and cherished ambition to move westward and seek opportunity, fortune, and a better life.Similar paradoxes exist in cricket. One disconnect is exemplified best by Imran’s own experience of, and attitude towards, England, as Ivo Tennant hints in his biography. Imran was seen by many in both countries as a product of English society. He had studied there but more importantly had attuned himself socially; he was accepted. Yet publicly he spared no chance to express his distaste for “parochial English attitudes”.
|
Imran writes about how breaking free from mental “colonial shackles” and ridding Pakistan of its inferiority complex – where the ultimate ambition of every manager of a tour to England was to be elected to the MCC – was one of his most cherished achievements |
Given his background, the contests of 1982 and 1987, over which he presided, should not have been as thorny as they were. In the event, Imran at least managed to emerge unscathed, being careful enough in 1987, as Tennant outlines, to ensure that Haseeb did his bidding on contentious issues such as umpiring. Haseeb was demonised, Imran tolerated. Javed rationalises this with a thinly veiled dig at Imran: “Those who try to conform are better tolerated… if I too had gone partridge shooting… or had been photographed in morning dress at the Ascot, people would have found me more palatable.”The other inconsistency is related but afflicts the Pakistani cricketer in general. For all the alleged resentment he bears, and the perceived injustices he has suffered at the hands of the English, he has traditionally held performing well in England in great regard as a benchmark of achievement. Performances against England in England guarantee folklore, acclaim; Zaheer Abbas’s double-hundreds, Fazal Mahmood’s 12, Asif Iqbal’s 146, Mohsin Khan’s and Javed’s doubles. Javed, who skippered the cantankerous 1992 tour and was persistently demonised there, is reverential. “There is something special about playing in England, because you really have to do well against England, in England, to get the stamp of accomplishment in world cricket,” he writes. He’s not alone; Pakistani autobiographies are rare, and rarer still are those without a chapter on England and the English. Akram gives them five chapters.Further, for many Pakistani cricketers, county and league cricket have long been considered the ultimate education. Imran praised, exultantly, the county system, saying, “there is no better school in which to learn how to play cricket and to polish one’s talent”. In the last three decades, many Pakistanis have spent summers in England, improving both their game and socio-economic status.Shouldn’t familiarity with the players, the country, its norms and traditions, make for less fractious encounters at the international level? But barring 1996, when Lancashire team-mates Akram and Michael Atherton ensured a refreshingly cordial series, and 1973, when Majid Khan and Tony Lewis, ex-Cambridge and Glamorgan mates, skippered a dull but friendly one, the majority of encounters in which Pakistan had a sizeable contingent with strong county ties have been riddled with misunderstanding and suspicion.Undoubtedly these inconsistencies at the heart of the Pakistani approach to England have contributed to the nature of the relationship.Almost as much, perhaps, as a beguiling yet genuine duplicity in England’s approach to the relationship. Take umpiring for instance, which forms, outwardly, the basis for so much. When a former England player remarked after Faisalabad 1987 that Pakistani umpires had been cheating England for 35 years, it was a comment born of a systemic, rigid belief – unwavering as any in religion – that Pakistani umpires were biased. As Martin Johnson explained in Wisden of Faisalabad, “At best, they had come to regard the home umpires as incompetent; at worst, cheats.”Even Scyld Berry, in Cricket Odyssey, a diary chronicling the tumult of that tour, portrays the appointment of Shakeel Khan, and later Shakoor Rana, as part of a byzantine conspiracy designed solely to cartwheel the English, deliver victory, and assuage a nation baying for blood. Rare has been the Pakistan tour to not contain some reference, snide, muttered or public, about the umpiring.Two points must be raised here. One is generic; in the days before extensive, super slo-mo TV replays, how much conviction could be invested in the belief that a decision wasn’t just wrong but deliberately so? Even today, with all the technology available for lbws, thin edges and line calls, definitive judgments remain dicey. How credibly can we treat the belief that a majority of past decisions have been incorrect on purpose?
|
|
|
The other, more pertinent point is this: much indignation was expressed in 1987-88 when the Pakistan board refused to accede to the tourists’ request to remove Shakeel Khan from the umpire panel. They felt he was incompetent and biased. Yet when Pakistan as tourists had made a similar request to the England board asking for David Constant to be replaced not six months earlier, their request was declined and leaked to the press as evidence of their gall. In contrast, India’s request five years earlier to have Constant removed had been accepted.Constant had officiated at Lord’s in 1974 and had decided Pakistan had to play on a pitch on which inadequate covers had allowed water to seep through. Derek Underwood took eight wickets, and although the match was drawn, the Pakistani management lodged a bitter complaint with the English cricket board.At Headingley in 1982, Constant contentiously adjudged Sikander Bakht out, potentially costing Pakistan the match and the series – a decision that has riled Pakistan more than any other. In Cricket Odyssey, Berry admits that appointing Constant was instigatory but cannot quite bring himself to believe Constant would ever cheat. Constant may be “abrasive” in his officiating, but Berry is convinced it is the manner of his decisions rather than the decisions themselves which so enraged Pakistan.Could the same be said of the brothers Palmer, Ken and Roy? After the latter was involved in the Old Trafford fracas with Aaqib Javed in 1992, elder brother Ken (never a favourite of Pakistan’s, and accused by Khalid Mahmood, Pakistan’s manager in 1992, of ball-tampering during his playing days), adjudged Graham Gooch not out when he was run out by at least three yards in the next Test, at Headingley. Pakistan appealed themselves hoarse during that Test and not much of it, noted most newspapers, was frivolous. Irrespective of evidence, England’s suspicions of Shakeel were similar to Pakistan’s of Constant or Palmer, and yet, we’re given to believe, they were somehow not.In fact, appealing itself sheds light on England’s attitude. For years, Pakistan have been derided for their appeals on the field. Politely, their excessiveness has been “energetic”, but it has also been a source of friction and resentment. Bob Willis, England’s captain in 1982, chastised Pakistan for their incessant appealing, proclaiming it “was histrionic and Imran should have controlled it. Pakistani cricketers adopt the attitude of press-ganging the rest of the world in what they want.”Willis’s ire stemmed from thinking of it as an affront to the umpire and to the spirit of the game. Yet two of the most dramatically insolent acts, by far, against officials on the field have been perpetrated by two Englishmen, on the infamous 1987-88 tour. The circumstances were extenuating in Chris Broad’s refusal to walk for a whole minute after he was given out at Lahore, but he was neither the first nor the last of his species to have felt hard done by at the hands of an umpire. Why he snapped then and there we don’t know, for he had received poor decisions against Pakistan – from Australian and English umpires – through the year and had protested only meagrely then.
|
Faisalabad, as Simon Barnes argues, revealed nothing more than an absolute refusal by an Englishman to bow to a Pakistani authority. The English cricket board punished each player of that touring party with a “hardship bonus”, thereby officially endorsing the view that Pakistani umpires, at least, could be affronted with abandon |
And how many captains have, like Mike Gatting, vigorously indulged in a finger-pointing slanging match with an umpire? Faisalabad, as Simon Barnes argues, revealed nothing more than an absolute refusal by an Englishman to bow to a Pakistani authority. The English cricket board punished each player of that touring party with a “hardship bonus”, thereby officially endorsing the view that Pakistani umpires, at least, could be affronted with abandon.Neither is this duplicity time-bound nor restricted to umpiring. Lord MacLaurin, then chairman of the England cricket board, suggested before the 2000-01 tour, significantly the first by England for 13 years since Faisalabad, that Pakistani players implicated (not proven guilty, mind) in Justice Qayyum’s report on match-fixing should be suspended from playing. When Alec Stewart was named during the same series for alleged involvement, was Pakistani resentment at his continued participation through the series not understandable?What, too, to make of reverse swing? Righteously condemned as an illegal concoction of bottle-tops and fingernails in 1992 when Wasim and Waqar were rampant, it is now an art form to be marvelled at. In 13 years, like an ex-con it has undergone a complete and successful rehabilitation. On the back of reclaiming the Ashes, it has become legit.Given this overbearing context, the rivalry cannot be anything but unique. And, as Kamran Abbasi has pointed out in recent years, with the continuing evolution of the expatriate cricket fan, clashes aren’t likely to get any simpler.There was a time in the sixties when Pakistani-origin fans were mildly exuberant, never disruptive. Occasionally they would foray into the rowdy, as when mobbing Asif Iqbal at the Oval in 1967 when he reached that hundred. Even in 1987, when racial trouble flared at the Edgbaston one-dayer, clouding over a breathtaking contest, the incident was a relatively isolated one. But over the decades, as a second generation of Asian Briton has matured, Abbasi found that “a new Asian cricket fan had emerged, one passionate in support of a faraway land”.In 1992, a pig’s head had notoriously been thrown into a Headingley stand full of Asian supporters. By the NatWest Series of 2001, against (and perhaps fuelled by) a backdrop of racial violence and, in Abbasi’s words, “provocative National Front and British National Party posturing”, overt enthusiasm had given way to perturbing acts of defiance. The media, predictably, heightened the tension by stereotyping the fans as thugs.A link between the difficulty the Pakistani-Briton, as opposed to his Indian counterpart, has faced in integrating effectively into Britain, and the growing volatility of the fans can be argued, especially if you consider that one of the bombers involved in the July 7th bombings in 2005 was of Pakistani origin and loved cricket. But certainly the second generation has volubly expressed its alienation and sense of dislocation in British society, more so than their predecessors.In any case, the support prompted Nasser Hussain to balk at the number of young Asians supporting Pakistan during the 2001 series; it prompted Old Trafford, home to a large Pakistani community, to market the Test as a virtual home game. And this was, remember, before 9/11 and 7/7, two events so cataclysmic for the Pakistani immigrant that it is impossible to predict how their impact will play on relations in the long term. Suffice to say, during Pakistan’s current tour of England, the various fundamental equations governing the relationship between the two are likely to enter a different and possibly more volatile realm altogether.
With Irish cricket at a crossroads, Cricinfo talks the CEO Warren Deutrom about the next steps for the game
Andrew McGlashan25-May-2007
|
|
|
Irish cricket is at a crossroads. Their trouncing of Canada in the Intercontinental Cup final brings the curtain down on the most successful period of international cricket in the country’s history. In the last three months they have beaten two Test nations and tied with another at the World Cup and retained the Associate four-day crown. But the hard work starts now.The Irish Cricket Union certainly can’t be accused of a lack of ambition. It realises that if the game is to grow and become a serious contender in the country – and the national side to become a consistent performer on the world stage – it has to grab this opportunity. The initial post-World Cup excitement has already started to dissipate and the challenge is to keep cricket in the headlines.Since returning from the Caribbean there have been indications of the difficulties which lie ahead. Three of the leading players – Eoin Morgan, Boyd Rankin and Niall O’Brien – have county contracts and haven’t been available for Friends Provident Trophy matches, although Morgan was released for the Intercontinental final. Another, Ed Joyce, was lost to England last year. Currently there is no way for a player to earn a living by playing cricket in Ireland. However, plans are being developed to bring a professional structure to the game, soon enough for the country’s current generation of leading players to be enticed back to their homeland.”There’s a golden chance for us to capitalise and make sure the team continues to perform at the highest level,” Warren Deutrom, the ICU’s chief executive, told Cricinfo during the Intercontinental Cup final. “The best way to do that is by making sure we have some form of keeping them loyal to us. We need to look at whether the plan is to have a great team per se or are we aiming at the World Cup in 2011 which means we need to target the qualifiers in 2009.”
|
If we believe central contracts are the best way forward, which I believe most people in Irish cricket do, then we need to work out how we’ll pay for it and the best model to use |
“If those are our objectives what are the best ways to achieve that. If we believe central contracts are the best way forward, which I believe most people in Irish cricket do, then we need to work out how we’ll pay for it and the best model to use. What may be right for Boyd Rankin, Niall O’Brien and Eoin Morgan who have country contracts may not be right for the other players who won’t have other careers to look forward to.”For a country like Ireland to move from amateur to professional cricket is a massive undertaking and Deutrom is aware decisions can’t be made lightly. “What we don’t want to do is rush into it, get it wrong and waste money that has been provided to us by commercial outlets, the ICC or Irish Sports Council,” he said. “But conversely we can’t take too long over it because it’s a World Cup year, and what better time to take advantage. Also, the likes of Boyd, Eoin and Niall won’t be making decisions about their contracts in March or April but in the middle of this year.”Sadly for the ICU money doesn’t grow on trees, so the major challenge will be find funding. This is one of the main reasons behind the decision to host the India-South Africa series in June, which has upset the ECB and means Ireland are likely to discontinue their participation in the Friends Provident Trophy. The three-match series, however, will provide vital revenue and allow the national team ODIs against both teams. In July they will also play West Indies during a quadrangular event including Netherlands and Scotland .
|
|
|
“As a full member of ICC we have the right to raise our own revenues and this is way we can see it in the short term,” Deutrom said on the decision to stage the ODIs. “We have brought on board a professional TV sales person to help sell the rights on our behalf and are keen for some sort of broadcast into the UK and Ireland . But we are also keen to make as much money as possible, not just for the sake of it, but to invest in the players. There hasn’t been any formal notice from ECB as yet but from the ICU point of view we would need a lengthy discussion about whether we’d want to continue in the FP Trophy in any event.”This is a clear sign that the health of Ireland’s future lies in playing international and top-level Associate cricket. Already this year they have played 23 ODIs, but it is vital that they can continue playing a high volume of matches outside of World Cup years.”The key thing is, if we were to have a professional structure, would there be enough cricket for them [the players]?” said Deutrom. “We’d be looking to move into an arena where we could participate in overseas tours to other Full Member countries. Whether we play their A teams or the full side for a couple of full ODIs is yet to be seen. Then there’s the domestic programme. We want to have as many ODIs as possible and a situation where we continue to play as many of the top Associates as possible.”Deutrom concedes that he has a tough task ahead of him to enable Ireland to build on their recent success. “At the moment the Irish Sports Council, who are an enormously generous supporter of the game, are our biggest source of funding and commercial revenues very small. We need to reverse that trend and it is one of my key jobs to enable us to stand on our own two feet through sponsorship and broadcasting.”Given what has been achieved in the last few months you wouldn’t say it’s beyond Ireland, but the next challenge is greater than anything before.
A selection of the best quotes from the ICC World Twenty20 2007-08
Cricinfo staff25-Sep-2007
|
|
|
“I don’t think there’s really time to choke, everything happens so quickly.”
“Our top-order batting has been diabolical even in the practice matches and it was again tonight. It is a mental thing for us and we have to start respecting the game.”
“Once we’ve won again then they can have a full go.”
“We have made the Super Eights in two big tournaments this year and it is about time they stop calling us a minnow. There is more to come from Bangladesh.”
“There’s a possibility of us humiliating Australia.”
“Unless you can back them up they don’t mean anything at all. If anything they were the ones who left humiliated today.”
“I told him to be free, and control his mind. He’s like a computer, he just has to bowl one ball but he might be thinking of bowling 100 different deliveries.”
“When the match ended in a tie, only then did we come to know that this [bowl out] would happen.”
“The opening was a rude awakening because we didn’t think there would be too many fours and sixes, then first ball and we were dancing.”
“I hope Twenty20 cricket will only be part of the landscape and not the future of the game. But I suppose we guys have to take this game seriously too.”
“When I got hit for five sixes I got so many phone calls – nobody called me when I used to get a hundred and I got load of them making fun of me so I thought that wasn’t right and I wanted to give it back.”
“Shane Watson seems to have recovered very well from his hamstring injury.”
“I guess we do find ways to get out of these tournaments.”
“We have to find out a solution to get over the line, I don’t have a magic answer but I know we’ll be ready the next time the chance comes.”
“A bit stuttery for us, wasn’t it? A bad start and then a win and a loss and a win … We never really got into a great rhythm.”
“Before I start I should say I read an article by you in Cricinfo. You’d said Australia were the favourites. Today I think me and the boys, we proved you wrong.”
Fazeer Mohammed on West Indies’ continuing injury concerns
Fazeer Mohammed27-Jun-2008
|
||
There is a rumour going around that the rash of boundary-related injuries in the West Indies team has something to do with a particular sponsor keen on gaining as much mileage as possible from its recent association with regional cricket.Although not even the barest shred of evidence has been unearthed incriminating the people associated with the ‘Know Your Boundaries’ campaign and its attendant boundary advertising, conspiracy theorists – of which there are about six million in these parts – are wondering aloud if there is a considerable degree of duplicity involving players who are only too eager to take a fall for the cause of greater revenueIn any event, West Indies cricketers now seem to get injured as a matter of course, so if they can get richer for what happens normally in a day’s play, then there’s no big thing with that.
So, as ludicrous as it sounds, everyone should keep an eye on Caribbean fielders dashing towards the boundary today when West Indies and Australia meet in the second match of their five-match series at the Queen’s Park Stadium in Grenada.Ramnaresh Sarwan started the ball rolling when he tumbled awkwardly on the opening day of the second Test against England in Headingley last year. He played no further part in the match, continues to have a weak throw from anywhere, and is now nursing a groin strain that he picked up on the opening day of the third Test against Australia in Bridgetown two weeks ago.The same match also claimed fellow Guyanese Sewnarine Chattergoon, who wrenched his left ankle badly at the start of Australia’s second innings, while Xavier Marshall will have an MRI scan on his damaged shoulder following a diving effort during the first ODI in St Vincent.It’s getting to the stage where management should mandate that West Indians return to their previous unwritten policy of only diving when there is a swimming pool full of bikini-clad babes in front of them.All jokes aside, these lingering and increasing injury concerns – with captain Chris Gayle and his ten-week-old groin strain as the current poster boy of the walking, or limping, wounded – must again raise questions over fitness, an issue that is so fundamental to any sport that it should not be a talking point at the elite, professional level.This is not to say that injuries can never happen. It is, by the very nature of sport, an occupational hazard, and every so often, a player or a team seems to go through a period when they are blighted by a rash of ailments.Once in a while is understandable. When it happens every match, every series and every tour, the lengthening pattern leads you to the inescapable conclusion that most contemporary West Indian cricketers don’t work hard enough on their fitness.Of course, we can expect any number of qualified persons, or at least people in management or with some stake, financial or otherwise, to suggest that this is just one of those things and we shouldn’t come down on the players too hard because they are putting in all the requisite effort at practice and training.Well, this is one case where the evidence is clear and cannot be shrouded by all sorts of fancy explanations and interpretations, especially as most of our opponents, playing in the same conditions as us, don’t seem to suffer as frequently or as seriously as we do.And, of course, this has been one of the many recurring decimals in our game and reinforces just how monumental the task is for West Indies to get anywhere close to the top-three in world cricket in the foreseeable future, to say nothing of the board’s strategic plan that envisions achieving that objective by 2012.Getting back to a competitive level with the best in the world is taking such a frustratingly long time, and even if recent series in South Africa and at home to Sri Lanka and now Australia have offered considerable encouragement, the continuing handicap of injuries emphasises just how much work needs to be done on and off the field, and in the mind, before there is any suggestion of a return to the glory days.West Indies’ 84-run loss in the first ODI is not by itself a major setback in the quest to effect the turnaround that everyone has been waiting for. It is a combination of factors, relating as much to temperament, attitude and work-ethic as raw talent, which explains just why all of the optimistic forecasts about being ranked among the big boys again very soon is on the same level as politicians’ promises on the eve of an election.For the last two months, we have been carrying on with a virtual non-playing captain and a non-fielding vice-captain. Now, the most senior player and most successful batsman by far has missed the last two matches, while an exciting young prospect could miss the rest of the series.
Forget ‘Know Your Boundaries’ and consider instead ‘Know Your Body.’
Throughout the series Ricky Ponting has spoken proudly and defiantly about only one team playing aggressively and wanting to win at all times. That didn’t happen on Saturday when Australia, who must win to level the series, batted in the most subdued styl
Ali Cook08-Nov-2008
|
||
Throughout the series Ricky Ponting has spoken proudly and defiantly about only one team playing aggressively and wanting to win at all times. That didn’t happen on Saturday when Australia, who must win to level the series, batted in the most subdued style. Ponting’s team is behind 1-0 in the series, and the display almost felt like surrender.India bowled incredibly defensively, especially in the morning, but during the first two sessions the visiting batsmen did not look for ways to break free. Forty-two runs came before lunch, when the off-side was usually crowded with eight men, but as the fields relaxed after the break and the bowlers moved their line towards the stumps only another 49 were added. It’s about half the rate they usually aim for.Only when Cameron White lifted the tempo after tea did Australia escape becoming an entrant on the top ten list for the fewest runs scored in a day’s play. When the innings ended at 355, leaving India one over to bat before stumps, Australia had collected 166 in 85.4 overs. It must have been like this in the 1950s with England.Yet the performance came from a team that batted like it was a Twenty20 on the fourth day in Mohali, and had breezed to 189 in 49 overs on the second afternoon in Nagpur. The side that knows only how to play aggressively.Naturally, the slow progress wasn’t Australia’s fault. It was because India posted an 8-1 field and the bowlers directed their line well outside the off stump. It wasn’t fun to watch, but it was what India needed to do.Simon Katich, who was dismissed for 102 in the morning, was so upset by a question after play about why Australia was so defensive that he challenged the knowledge of the interrogator. “You’re kidding, aren’t you,” Katich snapped. “We were defensive with an 8-1 field?”Both teams were. Nothing was done to try and force changes in the field or the bowling once a couple of edges had headed towards the slips. Balls were left and left in a way that would have earned the batsmen taunts about Geoff Boycott or Chris Tavare from Australian crowds.Katich added 10 runs in 69 balls on Saturday while Michael Hussey collected 45 in 121. Hussey performed capably and confidently during his 90, employing the method that has made him, and the situation was under control while he was there. Usually someone more attacking is at the other end and the batsmen feed off each other. On the third day things were slower than a crawl.”Huss and I were pretty content to try and wade it out and reap the rewards later on, but it didn’t happen due to both of us getting out,” Katich said. “When that doesn’t come off, it doesn’t look great.” As the wickets started to fall – they lost 4 for 37 when Katich departed – Australia did not have enough support in their platform to fulfill their aim of matching India’s 441.The amusing thing about the batting suffocation was Australia have been trying to bore India’s batsmen out throughout the series by using cluttered fields with short and deep men. Indian players have called that defensive – something the attacking visitors reject – but the tourists have been unable to restrict the runs with any method.With India’s settings and immaculate discipline, they showed their opponents how to do it. With each hour the visitors’ task to save the series became tougher as the walls and fielders closed in. In India’s case, winning means drawing.”It’s a good strategy if you can execute it,” Katich said. “If you don’t get it right you can pay the price. They executed it well, that’s the bottom line.”Katich maintained a popular view on tour that only one team was playing for victory. The difference is India will be happy with a stalemate, which will give them the series and regain the Border Gavaskar Trophy.”They know they don’t have to win the Test match,” Katich said. “Judging by the scoring rate today we’d have to keep them to around 300 on the last day. We’ll have to bowl well tomorrow and take our chances.”The last time Australia needed to win the final Test to save the series was during the draw at The Oval in 2005. Strange decisions were made in that game too, especially when a bad light offering was accepted during the first innings.At the moment of most importance, they were unable to lift or find another answer. The current outfit looks confused and unrecognisable from Australia’s previous team. Even supporters with just a little knowledge of the game knew they had been tricked into being defensive.
A rapidly maturing Pandey plus a relaxed Dravid equals a near-perfect chase
Sriram Veera at the Wanderers23-May-2009In the end discipline prevailed over flair. The only really tense spell in the chase came when Muttiah Muralitharan operated. On either side of his spell there was such calm, composure and skill from Royal Challengers Bangalore, led by Rahul Dravid and Manish Pandey, that the victory seemed almost a formality if they held their head. And they did.Pandey seems to have grown a year in a couple of nights, from the time he made that hundred. Dravid, it seems, has lost a few years since the IPL’s first edition. It was a perfect tango between a rapidly maturing Pandey and a relaxed Dravid. What stood out was the absence of the mid-pitch conference between the veteran and the novice. When Dravid joined Pandey one expected there would be moments where Dravid would guide the youngster through constant chit-chat to kill the adrenalin rushes. Sure there were talks, but there wasn’t anything visually dramatic. There was no need either: Pandey was eerily cool and in control.The start set the trend. Albie Morkel got his deliveries to curve away in the air, but Pandey showed class. It’s risky to foist such an adjective upon one so young, on somebody who has just played two fine innings at this level, but it was unmistakable tonight. He waited that extra second for the swing to play out before threading two pretty square-drives through point. It was in direct contrast to how he started in his last knock.On Thursday he started off with a few big hits, which came with a touch of desperation in them, to give himself some breathing space. Understandably the pressure on him to deliver was more then. Understandably he was yet to find himself at this level. Cricketers often talk about how one innings can turn things around. Things seem to have turned around for Pandey.What caught the eye was how late he played. There was a delightful late-cut off Manpreet Gony, and a lovely little battle with Shadab Jakati, who actually bowled really well to Pandey, despite what his figures show. Time and again he slowed it up, hoping the youngster would go hard at him. Pandey refused to take the bait. He was made to wait by the bowler, and he waited. There were several little taps past cover before he won that contest with a forcing shot off the back foot to the cover boundary. Jakati was taken off.In the meanwhile Dravid was just being Dravid. Rock solid. A wicket at that time could have set the cat among the pigeons. He not only made sure it didn’t happen but kept the runs coming too. The outstanding shot was his signature classy on-drive. It wasn’t a bad delivery from Morkel who landed it on a length and on the stumps. Dravid leaned forward fully, and wristed it gorgeously through wide mid-on, uncorking his wrist – as is his wont – in an exaggerated fashion at the completion of the stroke.From unpredictable to classy, Manish Pandey seems to have grown a year in two nights•Associated PressAll along Dhoni had delayed the entry of his trumpcard Muttiah Muralitharan. Perhaps he left it for a bit too late. You knew Chennai Super King’s only chance was Murali. And he bowled beautifully. It was a fascinating phase as he did his utmost to strangle Bangalore. It was the only time the Bangalore fans in the crowd got edgy. At the grass banks, they oohed and aahed. In the middle Chennai fielders repeatedly cleared their throats to appeal.Matthew Hayden, at first slip, and Dhoni, at leg slip, defined appealing. Blood-curling cries, the full arch of the body and the extension of arms right behind over their bodies. Murali screamed as well. The tension was palpable, and indicative of their desperation and their state of mind. They knew this was the last and the only dice. Simon Taufel remained impassive, though, till he finally lifted his finger to send Dravid back.It was here, at this moment, where the game paused for a brief while. The Chennai section of the crowd was finding themselves. It was here that Bangalore showed how far they had come through in confidence levels. Virat Kohli and Ross Taylor don’t generally need an invitation to go for their shots, but the clinical fashion in which they hunted down the remaining runs must have given a lot of heart to Kumble.The bowling must have already given him great joy. Though Kumble didn’t do anything magical tonight, the rest of the pack stood up to be counted. Again it wasn’t anything sensational; there were no magical balls but simple old-school discipline. Chennai ended up at least 30 runs short and it made the difference in the end. Bangalore against Deccan in the final. Who would have thought?
After 79 ICL players decided to withdraw, it has become obvious that the league, in its original avatar, is no more
Ajay S Shankar02-Jun-2009It is a question that has been snapping at their heels ever since the momentous launch in Mumbai two years ago. And now, it’s a question they can no longer run away from. Will the ICL survive? Tony Greig, the face and voice of the private venture, says the battle is not over; Himanshu Mody, the brain behind it, says the league will emerge stronger. But after 79 of its Indian cricketers decided over the last month that they don’t want to be tagged as rebels any longer, it has become obvious that the Indian Cricket League, in its original avatar, is no more.Of course, cricket might still spring back to life under the ICL banner, possibly this October. But that would, at best, be a diluted version of what was once hailed as a revolution in world cricket. For now though, it looks like it will be a long haul back, if at all.What are the options?
ICL officials say that the current exodus of players is part of a larger plan where they will first trim the losses – running costs, including a wage bill that runs into millions of rupees – and then start with a clean slate. They say that they still have around 40-odd players on the rolls and can recruit new talent whenever they need to. In the meantime, they are hoping that the economic recession will let up, and that they will also succeed in getting the courts in London to force the ICC into granting the ICL recognition, citing restrictive-trade-practice clauses, as it happened in the famous Kerry Packer-versus-the-establishment tussle in the 1970s. Such an outcome, they claim, will lead to two things: sponsors will be back with money, and the players will only be happy to sign up for the official version.But for now this is just a scenario. The reality is that the official IPL, and the BCCI’s sponsors, are mopping up whatever money is left in the market; and the players are now wary of signing up for a league that will shut them out of all official cricket, thanks to the BCCI’s all-pervading ban. In fact, in the middle of the last ICL season, a senior player revealed the trauma and frustration he was going through, after even his local college refused to let him use net facilities. As for the players who are still with the ICL, only a handful are Indian; the rest are foreign players, most of whom, as Greig admitted, have retired from international cricket and so are driven by a “different motivation”.What went wrong?
The ICL claimed that their mission was to promote domestic Indian talent, and they did succeed to an extent, at least in shining the spotlight on talented players like like R Sathish, G Vignesh and Alfred Absolem, who may have slipped under the radar otherwise. But overall, the league’s cricket was inconsistent, and the foreign players failed to sparkle – Brian Lara, their biggest signing, failed to even turn up after a season. They were unable to sustain the initial buzz, having struggled with sparse crowds in the first season, and found comfort later only in Ahmedabad, a cricket-crazy city that was kept out of the IPL loop. Besides, the league, which was launched with a projected three-year budget of Rs 100 crore (US$ 21 million approximately), struggled to evolve a profit-making model.Then again, within months of the ICL’s launch, the IPL swept through cricket, with the full backing of the powerful BCCI and their sponsors, drowning whatever hopes the ICL may have had of carving a niche for itself in the business of Twenty20 cricket. More than anything else, it was the vindictive attitude of the BCCI that finally broke the ICL’s back. Players were banned, and the dues they were officially entitled to from the BCCI were kept on hold; sponsors were aggressively persuaded to stay away; and the ICC network was used to ensure that other national boards shut their doors on their ICL players. Not only did the Indian board ignore worldwide protests against their aggressive and monopolistic crackdown, they also pushed the ICC’s board to refuse recognition to the ICL, leaving the world body vulnerable to a legal challenge.The BCCI even led David Morgan, the ICC president, to believe that the issue could be sorted out amicably but ended up having two “compromise meetings” with the ICL that yielded nothing. The BCCI’s offer? Shut down the ICL and take up an IPL franchise instead, or similar variations, including a suggestion that the ICL operate as a veterans’ league. The ICL, not surprisingly, rejected these offers.Walking back into their state Ranji teams may not be so easy for many•ESPNcricinfo LtdWhat does this mean for the players?
Some of the ex-ICL players that Cricinfo spoke to were confident that they would be selected to play for their states again. This could be true for established players like Bengal’s Deep Dasgupta and Abhishek Jhunjhunwala, Hyderabad’s Ambati Rayudu and Uttar Pradesh’s Shalabh Srivastava. But it may not be such an easy road for others. Some state officials are still seething at the way these players walked out on them two years ago – the Hyderabad Ranji team was almost wiped out. Return tickets, obviously, will be at a premium. Besides, as one state association official asked: what will they do with the players who stepped up to fill the breach two years ago?Then there’s the IPL. The BCCI initially said that those who returned from the ICL would be eligible to play domestic cricket immediately (the IPL is a domestic event), but seems to have developed second thoughts since. They have clarified that the norms for IPL eligibility will be revealed later, and suggested that they may apply a year’s cooling-off period on these players before they are let into the official league. But according to some ICL players who have returned, the event that they are really hoping to be a part of is the BCCI’s soon-to-be-launched inter-corporate tournament, to be conducted in 50-over and Twenty20 formats – the winners will take home Rs 1 crore (US$ 213,000 approximately), and the runners-up half that amount.The word on the street
Naturally, the ICL’s willingness to release their players without much fuss, and the BCCI’s open welcome, have led to intense speculation in Indian cricket circles. An ICL official privately suggested that these moves are part of a compromise that could see Zee TV, ICL’s parent company, get a share of the official broadcasting pie when the BCCI’s TV rights come up for renewal next year. Zee TV is currently blacklisted by the Indian board, and one of the reasons why Subhash Chandra, the owner of Zee, started the ICL was that he was denied the opportunity to broadcast India matches in 2004, which led to a long-drawn legal battle with the BCCI. Incidentally, Chandra also shares a good personal rapport with Sharad Pawar, the former BCCI president, who still has the final say in Indian cricket matters.The buzz doing the rounds among ICL players, meanwhile, is that they will be part of an IPL auction now, with a cap of US$ 50,000 per player. But, of course, all these suggestions have been dismissed as “wild speculation” by BCCI officials who claim that the ICL is simply crumbling under its own financial burden.
One of the stalwarts of India’s batting talks about playing Australia, being a match-winner, and rediscovering the middle order
Interview by Greg Lansdowne02-Nov-2009Not that anything will top Kolkata 2001, but for the Lancashire faithful VVS Laxman’s 113 in the final Championship match of the 2009 season was Very Very Special. Needing victory to be certain of avoiding the drop, the Red Rose county had slipped to 45 for 3 after dismissing Warwickshire for 148. By the time their Indian overseas player left the crease the score had moved on to 282 for 6 and the home fans at Old Trafford could breathe more easily.Yet that was only half the story, as Laxman injured his back while batting towards the end of day one, eventually deciding to call upon the use of a runner on day two after suffering a spasm while running. There was no chance of this particular batsman retiring hurt, however, as he battled his way to 113 before departing the scene – survival all but secured.Once again VVS proved that cometh the hour, cometh the Laxman. He spoke to during his county summer about his career so far and a few remaining ambitions.Your early Test career started as an opening batsman – do you have regrets that you could have established yourself much earlier in your favoured middle-order position or were you just pleased to be picked anywhere at that stage?
Actually I started off my [Test] career as a middle-order batsman because I got my first opportunity to bat at No. 6 when Sourav [Ganguly] was injured. So the first four Tests I played were in the middle order at No. 6 or 7. But the middle order was very packed with experienced players in Sachin [Tendulkar] and [Mohammad] Azharuddin and then you had Rahul [Dravid] and Sourav who had done well in the matches they’d played. So I got an opportunity as an opening batsman and took it as a challenge because right from my childhood I’d always been taught that you have to do whatever the team requires. I thought, “The team requires me to open and I’ve got an opportunity to play for my country,” which is a dream for all of us, so I took it up as a challenge.It was a tough phase for me – the first four years from 1996 to almost 2000. Not because of the cricket but it was just that I used to get runs, then two or three failures, and then people used to brand me as a non-regular opener. It really hurt me because I was trying my best to do well for the country as an opener, even though it didn’t come naturally. That was when I decided that I would not open anymore for the team because the ultimate aim is to score consistently, and to do that you have to be a regular member of the side. I decided that the best chance for me to do well for the country was in the middle order, so I took that decision, and luckily for me, once I took that decision, I got a lot of runs in first-class cricket. I got 10 or 11 hundreds on the trot, and I then got my chance in the middle order [for India] and I grasped it.When you made the decision not to open anymore did you accept you might not get an opportunity for India again, or at least for a long time, if the players in the side all scored consistently?
Absolutely. That was a factor that was definitely there in my mind. But the decision was taken after the South Africa Test match in Bombay when I was dropped. In the previous Test in Sydney against Australia I got 167. After the next Test – I didn’t get many – I was left out of the side and that’s when I decided. Luckily for me, my coaches and my uncle helped me in making the decision because I was not enjoying what I was doing. You want to be a regular member of the squad. It really is disappointing and discouraging when you are dropped frequently and then again being branded as a non-regular opener. It was a tough call because there was a risk that I wouldn’t get an[other] opportunity.And I remember once I made the decision, Sourav was the captain and we played a Test match against Bangladesh in 2000. We played with five bowlers and Sourav asked me to open, because he wanted me to play in the XI, but I told him that I wasn’t keen to open, so I was dropped for that Test match and also two Tests against Zimbabwe. But I stuck to my decision because of what had happened over the first four years [of my international career]. By God’s grace everything went well with me getting consecutive hundreds [at first-class level] and then getting an opportunity in the middle order and then establishing myself.You always did excellently against Australia when they were the leading Test nation by a distance. When you retire do you feel your legacy will be that you were able to perform against the best of the time?
Definitely. Most of my hundreds came against them. What I would most like to be remembered as is a match-winner. Not only against Australia, I played match-winning knocks against other countries like New Zealand, West Indies and Pakistan. But I do think my best performances came against Australia, which was a satisfying thing because they were the best side in world cricket and had the best bowling attack.Getting runs consistently against them – not just in one series but probably four or five series that I’d been involved against them – is definitely a great feeling. But the most important thing for me that has given me a lot of satisfaction is that I was able to play match-winning knocks – especially under pressure situations. Whenever the team was under pressure I came out and played knocks that helped to bail the team out of the situation and win the game for the team.
“Post the 281, post the Calcutta Test, the team has done really well – not only in India but overseas and we take a lot of pride in that and we took a lot of confidence from that Test match in the sense that irrespective of the situation we are in in a Test match, we can bounce back”
No matter what you achieve in the remainder of your career you are likely to be chiefly remembered for your 281 against Australia in Calcutta – does a day ever go by when you aren’t asked about it?
Yes, people definitely remember that because it was one of the best Test matches that I have been involved in – in fact the whole series, because it was so intense. The Australian team were on a run – they’d mentioned before coming to India that it was the “Final Frontier”. The whole series was so intense that in every session the game shifted from one team to the other.Obviously the situation when I went in to bat in Calcutta was quite a tough one, so bailing the team out of that means people will remember that knock, and it gives a lot of satisfaction to me and the entire team because post the 281, post the Calcutta Test, the team has done really well – not only in India but overseas, and we take a lot of pride in that and we took a lot of confidence from that Test match in the sense that irrespective of the situation we are in in a Test match, we can bounce back. And I think that has happened three or four times since, when we have been in similar situations but fought back. So I think the Calcutta innings and Calcutta match gave a lot of confidence and changed the mindset of the Indian team.Did that innings of 281 become a millstone for you for a while with people expecting you to produce that kind of performance on a regular basis?
It’s natural and that’s why you play for your country – people expect you to get big runs and especially someone like me who has got a lot of big hundreds in first-class cricket. Before my 281, in the previous domestic season I had got a triple-hundred and two double-hundreds. So people expect me to play such knocks, and I’m happy that I’ve done so – if not to the magnitude of 281, in other similar situations. It’s not the [amount of] runs but bailing the team out of tough situations. That gives me a lot of encouragement, confidence and satisfaction.We’ve mentioned your pride at succeeding against Australia but would you say playing, and doing well, against Pakistan is even more special due to the rivalry between the nations?
The 2004 series was very intense because we were playing Pakistan after a long time. In fact, that was my first Test against Pakistan in years because I last remember playing them [before that] in 1999. Whenever we play Pakistan the pressure is a lot more because the spectators and the public from both countries expect their team to win. Both are very passionate about the game. So there are a lot of expectations, but having said that, it always remains special playing against Australia and our cricket has always gone to the next level whenever we’ve played against Australia because when you play against a top side like them, you have to be at your best or probably better than your best.We were able to do that whenever we played, and in fact during that era with Steve Waugh and the so-called Invincibles it was always the Indian team that challenged them [most], so we take a lot of pride in what we have done against them.On to one-day cricket: do you resent the fact that critics say you are not suited to that format due to a perceived slowness in running between the wickets and when fielding?
Yes, definitely. I was not the quickest fielder in the Indian team, but a safe fielder. Having said that, in whatever opportunities I got – I played 80-odd one-dayers – I was able to contribute and play some match-winning knocks for the team. I was disappointed that I didn’t play more one-dayers for the country.”I do think my best performances came against Australia, which was satisfying because they were the best side in world cricket”•AFPIt’s been a long time since you’ve played, but can you see any circumstances where you could make a return to the Indian ODI team?
No, not at all. I’m focusing totally now on Test-match cricket, and I think the Indian team is moving forward where there are a lot of youngsters who have come up and done well in the one-day format, and that’s the way to progress.Do you see that you seem to be the exception that proves the rule at the moment, where several players have given up Test cricket to concentrate on ODI cricket, whereas you’ve gone the other way?
For me, representing the country is a great moment and I would give up anything to represent my country. Test-match cricket is really special to me because as a kid I always dreamt of playing for India in Test matches. I take a lot of pride in representing the country and always will do.In terms of Test cricket you were the eighth Indian to reach 100 Test appearances. What did it mean to you to be among those legends?
It was a great feeling because representing India in even one Test match is a dream for any youngster in the country, so doing so 100 times was very satisfying. It also shows that I have performed consistently over a period of time – which was a very pleasing moment for me. I’ve been involved in an era where we’ve played a lot of one-dayers as well as Test matches and I’m quite satisfied that I’ve performed consistently over a period of 10-12 years, and the result is representing [the country] for more than 100 Test matches. It’s definitely a great feeling to be in the same bracket as some of the greats who have represented the country in the past.Sunil Gavaskar was the Indian batting hero when you were growing up – was he someone you admired?
As a kid I always used to look up to Sunil Gavaskar and Kapil Dev because they were the true match-winners for the country while we were growing up. I think we all learned from watching Sunil because he was so perfect in technique, and most importantly he was a run machine for the country. And he got runs consistently against all the countries – including 13 hundreds against West Indies, which was a great feat in itself – so I think all the cricketers of our generation grew up watching Sunil Gavaskar play. It was a great moment for me meeting him in person and interacting with him over so many years while I’ve been playing for the country. He used to be there to help the lads from the Indian team – especially when we were travelling overseas. We took a lot of advice and guidance from him. So he’s been a great help to the entire Indian team and he’s been the role model for a lot of kids in our generation.Do you have any particular goals you still want to achieve in your Test career?
I have personal goals but the most important goal for me is being part of a team that becomes the No. 1 Test-playing nation. We are very close to that at the moment and the dream of the Indian team is to become the best Test-playing nation. If I can be there when we achieve that, I’ll be really happy. So that’s my [main] goal and I want to perform consistently and play some knocks which will help us to achieve that target.Do you have a date in mind to retire or is it a case of you’ll know when it’s time when it comes?
Exactly. I’m still enjoying my cricket at the moment and have hunger to do well for my country, or wherever I’m playing, and the desire is still there, so I’ve not really thought about retirement at the moment. I’m only 34.