Third Umpire: Pakistan Team Overhaul

Let it be said straight up, India outplayed Pakistan in every department of the game. More than batting, bowling or fielding, India had a game plan, rehearsed over the past five odd years down to a science; players groomed for the event well before rather than just slotted in a few weeks before. In an earlier blog I framed England and India as the two strongest teams, and Pakistan with a slim chance to make it to the last four depending on which side showed up for each match.

In honesty this clash with India was lost by Pakistan in the match before where they lost to Australia in a game they could have won. What Pakistan lost in the game against the Aussies was also the temperament to play the close hard games. If the Aussie game had been clinched, which it could have, then a more positive Pakistan would have turned up.
owl
We hear the pundits tell us that individually the players in green have the talent and the skill to play top class cricket, but collectively it somehow just does not gel! Three essentials lack in the Pakistan camp, leadership on the pitch, lack of a game plan, and a haphazard selection to the playing XI.

Lack of Leadership:

Captaincy is not merely barking out orders to the fielding side, its all about reading the moment, the situation and making the right tactical  choices to gain an advantage on the field of play. Lets take Hassan Ali as case in point. School team coaches will tell you that his is not approaching the task with any conviction other than to bowl fast and all over the place. On average in each over he barely managed to put the ball in the right place other than once, if that. The leadership was so absent at these moments when he was leaking runs that the captain never really told him t adjust his line and length. Leadership in terms of setting the right field and the right players in the positions they field at best was highlighted when in the Aussie game Asif Ali replaced Babar Azam (a specialist slip fielder) in the slips and presto he dropped a sitter of a catch!


Lack of Game Plan:

Okay admitted that reading the pitch wrong and electing to field first can happen to most captains. But Sarfaraz should know that chasing against India, apart from the emotional pressure is not one of our key points. Once having put India in to bat and only Amir had a thought process to his bowling. Hassan Ali, to some extent Wahab Riaz and Shadab had no plan to their attack. Shadab's first over was pedestrian to say the least and it became clear that if there was a plan only Amir read it. As for the others it was simply turn up, throw the ball where it lands and call it a day.

In the batting both against Australia and India, if there was a plan it was more a matter of individuals etching out short durations of such a plan. While selection of the team may be questionable, the ones playing on the day were touted for their experience. Surely knowing that having just lost two set players a three to four over consolidation phase would be in order?


Selection:

Since the tour to England started the whole approach of the selection committee has been a joke. We are into the fifth game of the World Cup and still there is not set playing XI with changes coming match after match. If people like Sohaib Malik were selected for their experience even though their performance in the past year or so have been terrible, where did that experience show in the matches thus far? If you want experience call Yunus Khan out of retirement, or perhaps Inzi himself can don some pads on?

Prior to the England tour the main playing XI should have been finalized and then during the tour final adjustments should have been made. In the batting side it is clear we do not have a finisher who can take the game to the end with power hitting, but backed by a technique so its not just slogging. Asif Ali was meant to play the role and in a sense given the on and off approach to each match, he has not had a place in the team. Our middle order is brittle and that is where Harris Sohail should have been retained in the main XI. These two should replace Hafeez and Sohaib who would come in only if there were injuries to others. Hassan Ali should either be given a final outing to see if he has the intelligence to bowl to the conditions or not. While I am not sure why an untested Husnain was taken only on the basis he has speed, given the team is what it is he cannot do worse than say Hassan Ali?

The truth is that the selectors have to bear the burden of this imbalanced side they have sent to the World Cup. They have to answer for the fact that why was the team selection put in place a year earlier and then groomed into playing as a team and not individuals. None of the mature teams who are  serious contenders for wining the World Cup cut and chop their team on a match by match basis.


For the remainder of the World Cup with very slim chances to make the last four, the Pakistan camp should be brave and bite the bullet and let there be changes they will stick to through the rest of the tournament. On the side lines we must see how England and India have planned their campaign and how a year before they were pretty certain of the 15 or 18 players they would take and who would be the core back bone of the team.  For Pakistan we should not pride on the label of being mercurial, to me its a polite way of saying 'lost' and 'living on hope'. The only hope I have is after this world cup a true rebuilding process starts and this trial and error approach needs to be buried with the hope we had of reaching the last four, which was always hanging by its finger nails.


 

Third Umpire: Logos and playing conditions

India, given its enormous financial muscle in the world of cricket, has always felt it deserves a special ticket, not necessarily available to others. The fact that on the pretext that their IPL just finished a couple of weeks before the current World Cup, they were allowed to commence their current campaign much later than other teams. South Africa has already played two matches when they met indicates the extent to which that India muscle (off the pitch) can and has been used. One forgets that a number of players from other countries also played in the recently concluded IPL and perhaps those teams should also have been given a reprieve in the time table of the current tournament.

While the cricketing world put aside the scheduling issues and just wanted to get on with the game, the controversy over the logo on M S Dhoni's gloves emerged. Sporting a logo of one of the Indian Army regiments, of which he is an honorary Lt Colonel, caught the eye of ICC and he was told to remove the logo. The uproar in the Indian media and in general is unbelievable as they argue that its a sign of patriotism and not a political or religious message.

Well the ICC rules are very straight forward on this, both in terms of generally having such a logo displayed and also that the rules expressly state that wicket keeping gloves can only sport the brand logo of the manufacturer. The Indian camp should show some maturity and simply accept that rules are rules and they cannot stretch exceptions each time. One must not forget that recently Indian players in a match against Australia in Ranchi work military caps in support of the army and they were sanctioned by the ICC on that. So there is a recent precedent of the rules and clearly Dhoni and co should know that.

On a broader front other players from different teams have been asked to remove logos and even wrist bands with messages that violate the rules of the ICC. An exception to India will turn international cricket into an advertising board with each player professing a tribute to some cause or the other. At the end of the day the patriotism is well expressed, and allowed, by having the countries logo on various gear that is used.


On another note it would seem that ODI cricket has almost deliberately been shifted to favor batsmen. Yes the host nation always have the prerogative of preparing pitches to suit their own teams but with scores over 300 almost the norm one has to ask the ICC to rethink the game to bring back some balance between bat and ball. For instance in ODI cricket, where the white ball is used, there are two balls used, one from each end, on the pretext that the ball does not get too discolored. This has really resulted in fast bowlers losing the ability to have some effective bowling in the latter part of the game, largely because they are deprived of reverse swing.

If the sole reason for a two ball rule is to prevent discoloration, then when a ball is discolored it can be replaced just as a ball is replaced if it is hit far out of the ground. Why should the same not apply to a ball that is discolored?

I believe to make the game more entertaining and give some balance to the game it is important that a such rules should be changed. Seeing the recent West Indies match against Australia, one has to wonder if there is a third umpire there and he does look at the no ball on his monitor when a wicket falls, why cannot he point out if the umpire has missed a no ball. (as it happened when West Indies was batting). After all run outs, catches, boundary decisions (which are 50-50) are all referred to the third umpire, why then cannot he also look at the no balls?


I am all for the use of technology but it must be applied fairly to all playing conditions on the field, not just a selective process of referral. The game is getting more competitive and it needs all the necessary tools to administer the conditions of play on the field.

Third Umpire: My view of the World Cup Cricket 2019.

Cricket evokes passions comparable to any other sport, especially when it comes to the sub continent, from where four of the countries play in this years World Cup Cricket. As the first few matches of the current World Cup have got underway, with easy wins for some of the more predictable sides, we are reminded that the setting of a World Cup is always going to be one where there will be surprises. Interestingly, unlike a few decades ago, the style and technique of the one day game has evolved to the point where one cannot really consider and of the countries competing as minnows. On their day Afghanistan, as an example, can surprise one of the big power houses.

That said what does the outlook emerge for this World Cup.

England:

Clearly dubbed as the favorites based on their current form and the home ground advantage. But delving deeper into the side one cannot over look the fact that not only is the English team brimming with talent, its perhaps one of the best balanced sides. In all three departments of the game, batting, bowling and fielding, they have excelled in recent months. While one may argue that they peeked too soon with their comprehensive drubbing of Pakistan just before the World Cup started, I do believe they have more than enough in their tank to carry them into the last four.

Jos Butler and Joe Root anchor the batting well enough to be sure that till number 7 they have the strength to set high totals when batting first and yet deep enough in their batting to chase down totals. Their bowling attack is suited for the conditions and does not depend solely on the performance of one or two stars, giving them the variety to pin down most oppositions.

India:

Perhaps the only side which can claim the pedigree to take on England and be capable staking a claim to not only the final four but also perhaps winning the title this time. As much as the Virat Kohli is the talisman for the teams fortunes they do have a formidable batting that can cover for the team should Kohli have a bad day. Their bowling has been touted as one of the best, however, under pressure it can become brittle and it would be interesting to see how they tackle players like Jos Butler (England) or Chris Gayle (West Indies).

Yes the format of the tournament allows them a hiccup or so on the way to the final four. India knows too well that after the final four stage form and statistics are put aside as each team lifts their performance to another level (as they learned in the Champions Trophy final against Pakistan two years back). If India can hold their own on the big moments of this tournament then they would be worthy winners.


Australia:

While David Warner and Steve Smith return to the squad and bring in valuable experience, the Aussie batting does not seem to impress one as much as it would have four years ago. Their bowling is decent with Starc being the key 'go to bowler', and one would be curious to see how Nathan Lyon handles the conditions and the pressure. Yes there is Aaron Finch and Usman Khawaja to add to the batting but somehow I do not feel they are deep enough in their batting to make make a huge impact if Warner or Smith were to get out early.

Indeed, the experience of their bowling attack is good enough to handle the fifty-fifty matches, but facing the likes of England, India or West Indies top order batting onslaught the verdict is still out on how their attack would manage. If Australia have some lucky breaks they could make the top four but might be through the skin of their teeth.

South Africa:

On their day South Africa can be impressive in all departments of the game. The question is will they have enough of those good days. England's drubbing of them in the first match showed some serious chinks in their armor. Indeed it was perhaps the toughest match for them and its out of the way, but a batting that revolves around three main players, Amla, du Plessis, and de Kock, and a smattering of middle order sloggers cannot, in my opinion assure them of a strong showing in this tournament.

That said, with Rabada in their bowling line up, and the guile of Imran Tahir, and the experience of Steyn, South Africa provides interesting options to turn matches on their head through their penetrative bowling attack. On his day Rabada can simply change a game single handedly.

New Zealand:

I have always believed that balanced sides have the best chance to win the World Cup because of the format of the tournament is extended and individual performances from one or two stars can just carry you so far. The Kiwis have perhaps the most balanced side in the tournament after England. Their batting is strong and can set an early pace to an innings that assures them very respectable and challenging scores. Kane Williamson, Guptill, Nicholls, Munro can set the score board ablaze allowing the likes of Ross Taylor and other middle order players to pile on the pressure. The one failing of the side is that a failure at the top tends to trickle down the ranks.

The Kiwi bowling is a very balanced and attacking line up. While I do not consider their spin bowlers to be a serious threat, they could help in checking the run rate and tie the opposition down backed by one of the best fielding sides. I do feel if their batting performs at crucial moments they could make the last four.

Pakistan:

Its all a question of which Pakistan team will turn up not only for the tournament but for each of the matches. Mercurial and temperamental the team has both the bowling and batting talent to win this. But talent alone is not a guarantee for success as it needs planning an execution to get the job done. Babar Azam, Fakhar Zamman, Imam ul Haq can all be star players, the problem is can they all star on the same day, and match after match? In fairness in the past Pakistan's achilles heel was the failures of their batting which seems to have been fixed with very respectable scores in the recent English series. What let them down was their bowling much to the surprise of everyone considering their strong suite was always their bowling.

In my opinion the problem with the team has been a lack of direction and leadership. In the recent series against England the fast bowlers; known of their toe crunching yorkers, only managed 3% of their deliveries as yorkers! In addition the absence of an attack plan for each game showing up in operation suggests the bowlers were left to their own when in the middle of the track.

I personally doubt Pakistan will make the top four on their current form. However, should they have the right team turn up on each of the days ahead, then having made the last four, they could up their game to cause problems to any of the sides in this tournament.


Sri Lanka.

I would tend to think that the Sri Lanka team is in a rebuilding phase and while their bowling would be well above par, their mercurial batting line up will remain a chronic problem in this tournament where none of the bowling sides will give room for mistakes.

I doubt the team will make the last four though in this tournament do not rule out one or two upsets caused by the Lanka Lions.


Bangladesh.

A young side, passionate about their game suffer from a brittle batting and a bowling attack prone to leak runs. On the plus side their fielding is energetic and perhaps one of the best in the tournament. The format starts for them playing three of the strong sides England, South Africa and New Zealand, and losses against them could set the tone for their recovery.


Afghanistan:

Perhaps counted as the weakest side of the tournament, I would consider them worthy of one big surprise in the tournament. Their batting is moody but if they get a decent total on the board they have an excellent bowling attack to make the game interesting. One of the biggest things going for the Afghan team is their lack of fear against any of the teams and a team that is hard to rattle.

To sum up I feel the final four could be England, New Zealand, India, South Africa. Australia and Pakistan may just slip into the final four at the expense of New Zealand and/or South Africa. While its hard to predict from then on what would happen but my hunch is that England would be the final day winners.