This league might be a bit of fun and showcase a host of big names, but the organisational process could be revisited

Firdose Moonda12-Oct-2012On face value, it is very difficult to take the Champions League T20 seriously.It is not, as its name suggests, a competition of winners. After all, the second, third and fourth placed teams in a league of nine are participating along with the runners-up of some tournaments and victors of others.Beyond the format, there are other oddities. The opening concert will be headlined by a person who calls himself DJ Earworm, a mash up artist. For those who don’t know that does not involve potatoes but mixing of sounds to form what the Billboard 100 charts say is very popular music. What that has to do with cricket is as much as cheerleaders and fireworks. So, in other words, a lot.Let’s not bemoan that cricket is not simply cricket anymore because it has been taken over by side shows. We’ve known that for a while and secretly a lot of us like it because it is, even if it is just a little, fun. Who doesn’t like a bit of dancing in between regular life? In the middle of all the fun, we could forget about the real issues that surround a tournament like this.The imbalanced nature of the competition is its greatest flaw. With four IPL teams, two South African franchises and two Australian gaining automatic entry into the event, the rest are right to feel a little left out. Of the remaining Full Member countries, two – Zimbabwe and Bangladesh – were not even invited to qualify while the other five were give two spots to fight over. Even those were not evenly handed out as England were allowed two teams in qualifying while Pakistan, New Zealand and Sri Lanka were only permitted one each.The result is a main event that just does not seem fair. If the marketing says the competition will be played between champions, why are so many absent?The answer lies where so many other answers do: in money. When a novel concept like the CLT20 was mooted, its intentions must have been to play a real league of champions. The boards of India, South Africa and Australia quickly realised the only way they could make money out of it would be if more Indian teams were involved to appeal to larger Indian audience, who the advertisers pay to target.That economic law of supply and demand was enough to steer the course of the entire tournament. Because more Indian teams need to be involved, fewer other teams can participate to avoid the event becoming much longer. Because South Africa and Australia are shareholders, they needed to see some benefit other than having a stake in it, so they get two teams. Because everyone else is not part of the administration of the tournament, they get what’s left over.Surely then some concoction of a tournament name like the ‘Ind-SA-Aus T20 with invited guests’ would be more appropriate and more honest. It would settle the question about who really owns the competition, who benefits from it and who dictates terms. It would be a private event and no-one would have any right to complain about it.Such a neat solution is not possible though, because the ICC endorses the CLT20 in its current form. Why else would they permit a window for it in every year on the FTP? No other multi-team tournament that is not a World Cup (even the Champions Trophy is at an end) and certainly no other domestic event has this right. The game’s governing body has rubber stamped the CLT20 and that would give it little reason to alter its composition in future.Perhaps ICC involvement could make a difference in future, if it assumes some governing rights over the CLT20. Take UEFA’s Champions League, which the CLT20 is often compared with, as an example. First of all, note that the top three leagues in Europe are allowed to enter four teams into the event, while some of the other countries are not even given a spot, so even the footballing equivalent is skewed.

Surely then some concoction of a tournament name like the ‘Ind-SA-Aus T20 with invited guests’ would be more appropriate and more honest. It would be a private event and no-one would have any right to complain about it.

The difference is that the system used in European Football is based on rankings, not ownership of an event. UEFA use a footballing coefficient to determine which leagues are placed where on the rankings system. The coefficient takes into account how the clubs from each country have performed in previous Champions Leagues, so those who have done better in the past have more spots in the future.A system like that would ensure that Trinidad and Tobago are rewarded for reaching the 2009 final and could even see a team like the Sialkot Stallions get some recognition for holding the world record for the most consecutive wins in the 20-overs format. It would mean that money does not control the entire organisation of the event, as it does now.Even moving the tournament to South Africa was, to some extent, driven by money. A Pakistan team could probably not have toured India with the current tensions, and religious festivals across the country would have made it difficult to host at certain venues. Instead, South Africa, default hosts for everything from the African Nations’ Cup that was due to be held in Libya to a Champions Trophy once destined for Pakistan, were asked to step in so money that would be made from this year’s CLT20 is not lost.CSA itself will not make much more money from the event. They will receive the same shareholding as usual and will have to pay the hosting fees to stadiums out of that cash. It could result in them getting less money. Additional income will stem from hotel, airline and restaurant revenue as a large number of people descend on the country for the showpiece.Make no mistake that it will be a showpiece. Despite the administrative issues, the tournament remains a home to some of the world’s best players. Almost every big-name player, be it in the 20-overs format or not, is participating. World T20 Man-of-the-Series Shane Watson will turn out for Sydney, Sunil Narine and Kieron Pollard will play for their respective IPL sides, exciting prospects like Chris Morris of the Lions, Gary Ballance of Yorkshire and Shahbaz Nadeem of Delhi will be able to make names for themselves.But even on the playing side, there is an strangeness. The player whose name is almost permanently aligned to a T20 competition, Chris Gayle, is absent. Gayle has played in every 20-overs competition besides New Zealand’s and England’s (he played for Worcestershire but not in the shortest format). Remarkably, none of the teams he represented made it to the main draw of the tournament.Gayle was due to play for Uva Next in the SLPL but had to withdraw because of injury, meaning even if they had got past the qualifiers, he would not have been in their squad. His absence is so extraordinary that Mahela Jayawardene, who will captain Delhi, was even able to crack a joke about it. “Obviously Chris has set standards and he will be missed,” he said. “But he has to lift his game and try and bring one of his teams to CLT20 next year.”Now that is something to take pretty seriously indeed.

The county season comes to a close with a pretty exciting match

Ali Merali16-Sep-2012Team supported
As a Middlesex fan I am used to being a neutral on Finals Day. Warwickshire seemed the better team on paper with England stars such as Ian Bell and all-round talent including Chris Woakes. However, Hampshire have a knack of winning closely fought finals against all odds and they were the team I decided to support.Face-off I relished
Woakes has been an instrumental part of Warwickshire’s success this season and his duel with Hampshire skipper Jimmy Adams always looked as if it could be potentially pivotal. Adams got the better of the early proceedings by flicking Woakes for a six on the leg side before getting a streaky single with a leading edge two balls later. It was Woakes who had the last laugh however. Returning 15 overs later, he bowled Adams for 66.Close encounter
I was sitting in the lower part of the Grand Stand therefore Warwickshire’s substitute fielder, Paul Best, who was fielding at square leg was right in front of me. In the 31st over Sean Ervine slogged one towards him, however, despite an acrobatic effort he couldn’t quite get a hand on it. The crowd jeered him and his embarrassment increased after it was given a four, suggesting it would have gone straight to him had he not moved forwards. In the second innings, Kabir Ali pleased the crowd by obliging with a wave and received a round of applause.Crowd meter
Having recently attended the Twenty20 Finals Day, I expected the atmosphere to be much more subdued since the venue was Lord’s and the format slightly longer, and I was not surprised. But while at first the crowd was quiet it soon picked up, and by the end everyone was captivated, cheering every delivery regardless of the result.Mad moment
With Warwickshire needing just one of the last ball it easy to understand that there was huge pressure on the bowler, Ali. However, his move to put fine leg on the boundary seemed illogical at best. Adams was furious at this and a compromise was soon met in which fine leg was halfway out of the inner circle, clearly giving a single. I don’t think team manager Giles White would have been too impressed had Neil Carter managed to take an easy single there of the last ball to win his side the game.One thing I’d have changed
This game can be described as the most exciting CB 40 final ever, however, it was sad to see both sides without their key players. Hampshire seemed different without the talismanic Dimitri Mascerenhas and missed left-arm spinner Danny Briggs who was already in Sri Lanka with the England World Twenty20 squad. Likewise, Warwickshire opener William Porterfield has already travelled with Ireland and Jonathan Trott was absent due to injury. It’s a shame that the final could not have been scheduled at another time so Hampshire could have fielded a better bowling attack.Marks out of 10
10. While there were periods of the game when the crowd was subdued and the cricket offered little excitement this was easily compensated for by the nail-biting finish. The weather was good unlike most of the season.

AB de Villiers, it would appear, just cannot wait to face up to and ease the memories of South Africa’s past misdemeanours at this World Twenty20

David Hopps in Colombo15-Sep-2012Anybody daring to ask Graeme Smith why South Africa routinely choked in major competitions was best advised to first check their life insurance. The word was on South African cricket’s banned list during last year’s World Cup and, when it was uttered, Smith bristled in a manner that suggested the conversation was best left unfinished.”So you have been out in the middle?” Smith railed. “You understand all that? Every time we walk into a press conference, it’s the question we expect to get.”It made no difference: South Africa were thrashed by New Zealand in the quarter-final in Mirpur, Smith retired as one-day captain, as he had always planned, after eight years in the job, and even such a redoubtable leader had failed to lead his shrewd, methodical and talented team to a major one-day prize.AB de Villiers, Smith’s replacement as one-day captain, tried a different tack as South Africa arrived in Colombo. Superficially at least, he does not possess Smith’s air of defiance, but he could not wait to face down South Africa’s past misdemeanours, so much so that if somebody had asked him about the price of mangoes in Pettah Market he would probably have said: “Ah, I know you are secretly referring to choking, and there is something I want to say about this …”Few cricket writers know the price of mangoes in Pettah Market but, rightly or wrongly, most think South Africa chokes are ten a penny.The question was framed innocently enough: “South Africa is a powerhouse when it comes to cricket but, when you enter big tournaments, does it play on your mind that the major trophy remains elusive?”De Villiers’s eyes narrowed. “I am going to be very honest with you,” he said. “I am going to put it out there straight up front. We have choked in the past and we know about that – if that’s the word you are looking for. It is as simple as that. We have had some really bad experiences in the past but I would like to emphasise that it is past.”We come in with a whole new look in this team. We have worked really hard with a whole new management team, who have given us a lot of energy and new ideas. We will approach this tournament differently and we would like to win the pressure situations. We are going out there to do exactly that.”Colombo was the scene of one of South Africa’s most bewildering defeats of all. Ten years ago, they faced India in the semi-final of the Champions Trophy and were 192 for 1, needing 70 from 14 overs, when Herschelle Gibbs retired with cramp in both hands. The game was theirs, but cramp spread to the entire batting line-up and they lost by 10 runs.Study a list of South Africa’s defeats in major one-day tournaments and there have been as many pseudo chokes as real chokes. Sometimes they have just been outplayed by a better side and the cliché has been levelled at them anyway. There seemed little appetite for bringing the subject up again. Then de Villiers did it anyway.Smith has surely never felt as much hurt as he did after that New Zealand defeat. He looked mentally and physically broken. “Hopefully in the future somebody will go all the way,” Smith said then. That hope now rests with de Villiers. But nobody will really believe it until they see it.

Modern coaches speak of the importance of executing plans, but Mike Hesson left plenty to be desired in the execution of his plan to split New Zealand’s captaincy.

Brydon Coverdale07-Dec-2012When Mike Hesson took over as New Zealand’s coach in July, he was lauded for his man-management skills. But it’s hard to imagine a clumsier handling of the team’s captaincy over the past month. Ross Taylor, New Zealand’s leader and best batsman, has been left feeling so alienated that he is taking a break from the game, Brendon McCullum has been thrust into a job that not even Hesson intended him to have, and Hesson must now find a way to unite the squad ahead of a series against the world’s No.1 Test side.The crux of the problem appears to be Hesson’s failure to communicate one key point to Taylor during a meeting on November 13. That was the day after Sri Lanka completed a 3-0 series victory in the ODIs, and four days before the first Test in Galle. Hesson was unhappy with the direction New Zealand had been heading in the shorter formats; they had slipped to ninth in the ODI rankings, below Bangladesh, and had been knocked out of the ICC World Twenty20 at the group stage.In Hesson’s mind, there was one obvious solution: splitting the captaincy. Taylor, who had taken over the leadership in the middle of 2011 and presided over the Test team’s first win in Australia in a quarter of a century, would retain control of the Test team. He would play in the shorter formats but would hand the reins there to Brendon McCullum, allowing Taylor to focus all his leadership attention on the Test side.It was a plan that might have had merit, but as modern coaches like to say, plans are only as good as their execution. Hesson’s execution was about as precise as a bowler who leaks 30 runs in the last over of a World Cup final. At that meeting on November 13 – remember, this is the Tests in Sri Lanka – Hesson told Taylor that he would recommend leadership changes after the tour. He meant in the short formats. But he didn’t tell that to Taylor.”The news and the timing was distressing,” Taylor said in a statement on Friday. He went on to lead New Zealand through the two Tests, presumably under the impression they would be his last as captain. In response to Taylor’s comments on Friday, Hesson attempted to clarify what had happened at the meeting in Sri Lanka, at which the assistant coach Bob Carter and team manager Mike Sandle were also present.”During that meeting I advised Ross that I would be recommending that we make change to the leadership,” Hesson said. “My decision to make him aware of that was the fact that I wanted to make sure he didn’t find out through another source. I was going to make that recommendation to the board, and I felt I wanted to be honest and up front with him in regards to that.”The meeting was a review of the one-day series, but I didn’t mention … whether that was one form, two forms or three forms [that would be changed]. I alluded to the fact that I would be making a recommendation to make change to the leadership. I’m unsure how Ross felt regarding that discussion. I certainly regret if he felt that that was in relation to the Test side. The review was following the one-day series.”The fact that Hesson was unsure how Taylor felt speaks volumes. Taylor was about to captain New Zealand in two Tests. Did Hesson not think to ask Taylor what he thought about a leadership change? Did he not think to clarify that his intention was for Taylor to stay in charge of the Test side. On Friday, Hesson went on to say that during the discussion Taylor had the opportunity to seek clarification and didn’t do so. But this wasn’t Taylor’s plan, it wasn’t up to him to do the communicating.”As soon as we returned to New Zealand, I advised Ross that the recommendation had been placed with the board and I would like him to remain on as captain of the Test side and to share the load and for Brendon McCullum to be captain of the one-day and T20 Black Caps sides,” Hesson said.As soon as the team returned to New Zealand? So, in other words, only Taylor had scored a match-winning 142 and 74 in Colombo, where he led New Zealand to their first Test victory in Sri Lanka since 1998. It’s easy to imagine how Taylor felt. If he’d spent the Test series thinking he was to be removed as Test captain, a post-tour offer to stay on might have felt a little insincere.What is lost in the confusion is that Hesson’s plan to split the captaincy between Taylor and Brendon McCullum might have worked. Since Taylor took over the leadership in the middle of 2011, he led them to only two one-day international victories from eight completed games, and both wins were against Zimbabwe. In Tests, he has now led them to wins in Australia and Sri Lanka, both extremely rare achievements for New Zealand.Ironically, McCullum now finds himself in charge of all three formats, the very burden that Hesson wanted to relieve Taylor of. But the messy process, and the way it played out in the public, has left Taylor unwilling to tour South Africa, leaving New Zealand without their finest batsman against Dale Steyn and Co, the world’s best attack. It will take some serious man management, and execution of plans, for Hesson to get everyone back on the same page.

After a year of tough travelling to secure their top ranking, 2013 will be slightly less demanding for South Africa but they are determined not to lose focus

Firdose Moonda30-Dec-2012Although 2013 holds less daunting challenges for South Africa than the previous 12 months, AB de Villiers sees it as an important phase for the team as they look to establish an era of supremacy. South Africa have seven home Tests and two in the UAE scheduled, contrasting starkly with this year where they competed in nine away matches in three countries and had just one at home.Their upcoming opponents, New Zealand, Pakistan and India are all ranked too far below them to make any of the contests a battle of No.1, which is what South Africa played for in every series in 2012. Unless South Africa suffer a recession-like slump, the ranking is safe throughout the year which de Villiers hopes will signify the start of their reign.”The last time we got to the No.1 spot we threw it away like it did not really matter to us,” he said referring to the four months South Africa spent at the top in 2009 after Australia lost the Ashes. Then the achievement was more a result of shifts in other teams’ positions, although South Africa won away series in England and Australia the season before.Now there is a feeling of ownership of No.1 because it was earned and defended in 2012. “There is a real sense of care in the team and an amazing team spirit,” de Villiers said. “If we can come through this year with solid performances, we’ve got a good chance to dominate around the world for the next four or five years.”With Graeme Smith deemed to have about that length of time left in his career, Jacques Kallis’ niggling injuries the only thing which could prevent him from the same and the bowling unit at their peak, de Villiers thinks South Africa have the personnel to establish a legacy. “We’ve just got a wonderful team at the moment,” he said.De Villiers has been identified as a key component of that success by Gary Kirsten because his taking over the wicketkeeper role has created an extra spot for a No.7 batsman. Although de Villiers was reluctant to do the job at first and went on record saying he would prefer to concentrate on being “the best batsman in the world,” he has since embraced both batting and keeping.He also said his goals are no longer personal. “I want to be in a successful team that keeps the No.1 spot for a very long time and that dominates world cricket for a very long time. That’s what I am after. If I can play my part in that doing that by doing well with the bat and the gloves, so be it.”De Villiers’ u-turn was the cause of some consternation because it forced the selectors to renege on a commitment they made to Thami Tsolekile, who had been told he would get a chance to replace Mark Boucher. It also created debate over de Villiers’ own ability to bat with the freedom and flair of old while spending hours bending his chronically bad back in the field.After the England tour, de Villiers suffered a recurrence of his back injury. Coupled with the fact that he had not scored a single half-century since taking the gloves, there were calls for him to give up the role but he silenced those with a classy 169 against Australia in Perth. Although those runs came in the match where de Villiers spent the least amount of time in the field, he said it was an indication that he is capable of performing in both departments.All it needed, he believed, was time for the adjustment of a dual role. “At first it was tough but I’ve got into a nice rhythm now,” he said. “It took me a while to get into that but now I feel I understand what my role is. I spend time on keeping and batting in training and I don’t feel tired after a day’s play. I don’t feel tired after a Test match. It’s more a mental thing than anything else. The fatigue factor is nonsense. It’s more a concentration thing.”To keep de Villiers fresh, Cricket South Africa agreed to his request to sit out the Twenty20 series against New Zealand, especially after he complained of tiredness following the domestic one-day cup play-off. De Villiers hinted there will be more of the same in future limited-overs contests, even though he captains in those formats.”It’s all about managing your energy levels and injuries and niggles and also keeping the passion for the game and the hunger to succeed and do well,” he explained. “We play a lot of cricket in the year and we are in a situation where we really need to manage it. Some of our guys are getting a bit older and we really have to look after them if we want to maintain the No.1 ranking in Tests.”De Villiers said the break has done him so much good that he is now, “refreshed, energised and hungrier than ever.” The Test team have not played in front of home fans since January and the players are particularly looking forward to this summer.”Playing at Newlands is as special as they come and I’ll enjoy this New Year’s Test even more,” de Villiers said. “We’ve got a good sense of confidence when we play there. It’s almost like we just free up and express ourselves.”South Africa have not lost a Test in Cape Town since 2006 and many of the squad call the venue their favourite because of the large support base there. As proof of that, only 3,000 tickets are still available for the first day of the Test.

From Chris Liston, United Kingdom
We’ve all got our views on past, current and future England captains

Cricinfo25-Feb-2013Chris Liston, United Kingdom
We’ve all got our views on past, current and future England captains. I disagree with Doug Perrins that Vaughan should have stayed as captain until after this test, as a “dead” match is a good opportunity to blood a new captain. The value of a good captain is enormous, as Vaughan showed throughout his reign, regardless of how many runs he’s scoring.I think that Mike Brearley was the best captain that I’ve seen before Vaughan and he wasn’t a prolific run scorer, but an excellent tactician. But KP as captain just because he’s about the only player that’s guaranteed to be picked for the next test match? When has Kevin ever showed that he’s got the responsibility and maturity to be captain? He (and umpire Dar) lost us the Edgbaston game because his ego demanded that he got his ton with a blow out of the ground, whereas a responsible player would have picked off ones and twos and waited for the loose ball. Brian Lara was a flamboyant batsman, but regarded his 100 as a stepping stone to the next one and the one after that. Another 30 minutes at the crease at Edgbaston would have won us the Test.I’d have liked to have seen Strauss picked as captain, as it could hardly affect his form, but he knows where to place a field and how and when to change his bowlers. What on earth was a deep mid-wicket fielder there for yesterday? Cook may well be the next captain and probably (like Mike Atherton) has F.E.C. on his bag, but we need a man with a good head on his shoulders and that certainly isn’t KP.

By Shahzaib Quraishi, USA

Nikita Bastian25-Feb-2013By Shahzaib Quraishi, USAAnother Twenty20 league has come and gone. While the Bangladesh Cricket Board did a decent job of putting on a good show – within a reasonably limited amount of time, and with just enough teams to make the tournament competitive yet not long-drawn – there were more cons than pros.The first news to come out of the Bangladesh Premier League threatened the integrity of the tournament itself, with Dhaka Gladiators’ Mashrafe Mortaza reporting an approach from a fellow cricketer regarding potential spot-fixing. Later on, there was an arrest made of a man suspected to be involved in fixing in the league. ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ and all that aside, this seriously put a cloud of doubt over the matches played.Payments to players had also been raised as an issue, but this is not unique to the BPL. The now defunct Indian Cricket League had similar problems and even the Sri Lanka board had been under considerable pressure until recently to release overdue payments for its contracted players.What surprised me the most, though, was the general lack of any serious contributions from young, unknown Bangladesh players. Here the unearthing of a ‘star in the making’ was woefully missing, unlike the IPL, which, for all its faults, has given India young hopefuls like R Ashwin, Varun Aaron and Rahul Sharma. Australia’s Big Bash League had some noteworthy local performers as well, like Travis Birt and Ben Edmondson. For sure, it brought some international careers that were considered as good as dead back to life, as in the case of Brad Hogg. But where was any of this in the BPL? Here are the stats:1. Only one of the top-ten run-getters was local (Shakib Al Hasan at No. 10), three of the top 15 (Shakib, Mohammad Ashraful and Junaid Siddique), and five of the top 20 (Shakib, Ashraful, Junaid, Mushfiqur Rahim and Nasir Hossain), none of whom are new to the national setup.2. Among the top 20 wicket-takers, there was only one Bangladesh bowler who does not bowl left-arm spin: Mortaza. Again, Mortaza is no stranger to the legions of Bangladesh cricket fans, and is in no way a “find”. This just highlights the dependency of Bangladesh cricket on left-arm spinners, the lack of variation in any prospective attack.3. No Bangladesh player scored more than one half-century in the tournament. At a time when more consistency is needed from the batsmen, this is as bad a piece of news as any.4. Perhaps the lack of big scores from local players could be attributed to this: in only three innings (for Chittagong in the tournament’s second match, and for Rajshahi in the fourth and ninth matches) out of a possible 66, were both openers local. That is a measly 4.54%.5. In the four semi-final innings, and the two innings in the final, only Barisal Burners had three local batsmen in the top six. All other teams had at least four overseas players slotted in from No. 1 to No. 6, with Khulna Royal Bengals playing four out of four foreign players from No. 1 to No. 4 in the second semi-final.The greatest good to come out of the BPL was young local players rubbing shoulders with players of the calibre of Chris Gayle, Sanath Jayasuriya, Muttiah Muralitharan and Brad Hodge. One can say that overseas signings like Ahmed Shehzad, Nasir Jamshed and Shahzaib Hassan were successful, but these players were themselves students in the BPL, not nearly experienced enough to impart any considerable knowledge. Shahid Afridi and Saeed Ajmal, meanwhile, were not available for long enough to have an impact.Any domestic tournament, like the BPL, looks to produce players for the national setup. Commercial success is usually a secondary aim. The BPL just might turn out to be a commercial success in the long-term but the current format, with five foreign players permitted in the playing XI, hardly allows any local players to make a name for themselves, grab the selectors’ attention, or push for a spot in the national team.

Plays of the day from the match between Kings XI Punjab and Chennai Super Kings, in Mohali

Siddarth Ravindran10-Apr-2013The mystery call
In the seventh over of the chase, with Super Kings coasting, Kings XI Punjab seemed to have found an opening when Ryan Harris arrowed in a throw from mid-off that seemingly had Michael Hussey run-out. Hussey had put in the perfect dive, stretching flat out but looked fractionally short. The third umpire watched endless replays and though there was no conclusive evidence that Hussey was in, the giant screen flashed ‘Not out’. Even Hussey and Chennai Super Kings coach Stephen Fleming were surprised by the decision. Rarely has a batsman got such a generous benefit of doubt. As Adam Gilchrist said at the post-match ceremony, “They’re not playing run outs any more”.The triple threat
On the fifth ball of the 11th over, Super Kings had three chances of getting a wicket. First up, the bowler R Ashwin belted out a loud lbw appeal against Gurkeerat Singh, only for it to be turned down. The ball rolled off the pads in the direction of square leg, and there was major confusion over whether to take a leg-bye. The non-striker David Hussey hesitated, and would have been run-out by yards if MS Dhoni had hit direct. Dhoni missed, and there was an overthrow. Hussey motored back for the second, and though there was a direct hit this time, he made it in time. Rarely has there been a more action-packed delivery.The drop
Super Kings pride themselves on being one of the better fielding sides in the tournament. With the likes of Suresh Raina, Dwayne Bravo, Michael Hussey and Ravindra Jadeja in the line-up, it is a well-earned reputation. M Vijay is also usually a safe fielder, but he put down a regulation chance at mid-off to reprieve Kings XI’s most important batsman, David Hussey. In the sixth over, Hussey moved away from the stumps and mistimed the ball towards Vijay. It went flat towards the fielder, but Vijay didn’t move forward quickly enough, and by the time he reacted it was too low for him to clasp the ball properly. Chris Morris, on IPL debut, was the unlucky bowler, and covered his face in disappointment at missing out on his first wicket in the tournament.The attempt
There have already been some spectacular catches this season, and Bravo nearly added to the list with a stunning effort. Ashwin bowled a legspinner which Gurkeerat hammered towards long-off, and the ball seemed destined for a six; Bravo, who was a few metres in from the rope, hared across to his left and towards the boundary before leaping with his right arm outstretched. While in mid-air, he nearly latched on to the ball, but his extraordinary effort only ended up saving his team two runs, as the ball dribbled to the boundary for four.The innovation
Towards the end of the innings, batsmen will run for everything, even for byes when the ball goes straight through to the keeper. To counter that, Dhoni decided to keep wickets with only his left glove on, allowing him to collect the ball and throw immediately. The strategy, previously used by Dinesh Karthik in the IPL, paid off for Super Kings in the final over. When Parvinder Awana failed to connect on his fourth ball in a row, Praveen Kumar decided to try steal a bye, but Dhoni’s dead-eye throw caught him well short.

Plays from the IPL game between Chennai Super Kings and Pune Warriors in Chennai

Sidharth Monga15-Apr-2013The shot
It is a reverse lap. It is a reverse flick. It is a reverse leg glance, or an off glance if you will. It is Steven Smith up to mischief. It is a huge six. In the last over of Pune Warriors’ innings, Smith switched the stance early, but not the grip. Dwayne Bravo bowled one that would have hit the top of off had Smith not sent it sailing over short third man and some 20 rows behind the boundary. The most incredible part of the shot: it wasn’t a switch hit.The crossing that wasn’t
In the 18th over of the match, Mitchell Marsh cut Bravo in the air and straight to third man, and was so consumed by his disappointment he didn’t bother to even look up. Smith, though, was alert and wanted the strike, but to his chagrin he was the only one making that effort. By the time the catch was taken, Smith had reached within diving distance of the stumps at the strikers’ end, but Marsh hadn’t moved, and the new batsman faced the next delivery.Smith would encounter similar disappointment in the last over when Manish Pandey would refuse to try a single and get bowled when slogging, leaving the new batsman to face a dot ball: no run off the last two balls.The introduction
You know a Twitter joke has overstayed its welcome when it has reached Ravi Shastri, admittedly not an admirer of the micro-blogging site. At the toss, after introducing the captains, he went on to the match referee, “… and not Sir Ravindra, but Rajendra Jadeja.” SMH.The drop
You are a batsman who has not been sent out to bat even though seven others have had a hit. You are unlikely to get a bowl. It’s not quite an evening you are enjoying, and in the second over of your fielding effort you have a sitter coming your way at mid-on and you spill it. M Vijay, the beneficiary of your benevolence, goes on to add 23 more. You are T Suman, and where is the hole you can hide yourself in?

This was expected to be a thrilling match between dominating superstars and everyone’s favourite underdogs in front of a packed, historic ground. Instead, the IPL qualifier was filled with moments of mediocrity

Abhishek Purohit25-May-2013This was a knockout match, a virtual semi-final. Teams that had finished second and third over the course of a 72-game league stage spanning 47 days clashed to decide which of them would take on the top-ranked side. This was expected to be thrilling, cracking Twenty20 cricket between dominating superstars and everyone’s favourite underdogs in front of a packed, historic ground. What we got was an astonishing meltdown by arguably the best T20 bowler in the world, a farce of a fielding effort from Rajasthan Royals and a near-choke of a batting effort from Mumbai Indians.All this was watched by a half-empty Eden Gardens. A week ago, on the day after the first arrests in the spot-fixing controversy had been made, a near-full house turned up at the Uppal Stadium in Hyderabad for the evening’s IPL game. During the past week, cricket has been tested, and continues to be tested, off the field in a way it has seldom been before. All the stress of that scrutiny seemed to have caught up with the game on the field, too, at Eden Gardens. And witnessed by a turnout that spoke volumes with its sparseness, it seemed to just cave in to the pressure.Lasith Malinga bowled such a huge wide down the leg side it made Steve Harmison’s Ashes wide look like a yorker on middle stump. In a premonition of just how poor the night was going to be, incredibly, Malinga slung in another mammoth wide to the fine-leg boundary. He was so shocked he stared at his right hand, the same one that had sent down stump-destroying yorkers on cue through his career. This was a night of shocks all right, off the field, and on it.One would have thought taking 18 runs off the opposition’s most successful bowler would have changed the momentum in favour of Royals. If it had, the Royals players refused to take it with an apologetic display on the field. Before the game, Rahul Dravid, the Royals captain, had said the franchise did not believe in fielding, and bowling, coaches. The Royals owners have never pushed it when it comes to spending money. One wonders if this effort in a high-stakes match would make them rethink their belief.Royals hardly appeared to be on the field. It appeared as if, along with their comfort zone, they had also left behind their fielding skills at home in Jaipur, where they had spent a few days after the spot-fixing arrests. Routine stops were fluffed. Boundaries were conceded when a single or at best a two was on. Backing-up to throws was patchy. Throws were off-target. Fielders did not run in from the deep quickly enough. For three-fourths of the chase, Royals were not able to build any pressure. And when Mumbai Indians created some late anxiety for themselves, Brad Hodge dropped Ambati Rayudu.That it went down to the penultimate ball was due to the inability of Mumbai Indians to shake off the impression that, for all their might, they choke under pressure. They had a start of 70 for 0 in nine overs in a chase of 166. And they had to depend on Harbhajan Singh and Rishi Dhawan to finish it. Wide long-hops and half-volleys on the pads were hit straight to fielders. Mumbai Indians captain Rohit Sharma came in at 125 for 2 with an asking-rate of seven-odd and proceeded to calmly defend ball after ball before missing an awkward slog to get bowled.It was like he had been batting in a parallel universe, ignoring and ignoring a pressing need till he woke up and saw something drastic had to be done, but messed it up in belated haste. Not unlike what was happening outside the ground.This was a match marred by some exceedingly mediocre play, even as surreal drama played out in the corridors of the game’s administration at the same time. After a week of tensions and questions that keep piling up, cricket seemed to tell those who bothered to watch that it was tired. Tired of having to go through what it had, and of what lay in store for it. Tired of still having to put on a show every evening and behave as if nothing had happened. Tired of living in a parallel universe.