Self-respect above all considerations

There is a concerted attempt by certain people to say that the Kumble-fiasco is not unique in Indian cricket, it has happened before. I am sure the serious followers of Indian cricket will not be misled by such atrocious suggestions. The reason for penning these lines is to make the casual follower of cricket aware of exactly what has transpired over the years in the parade of Indian cricket.

Anil Kumble’s resignation from his post is an unique achievement in the annals of Indian cricket. He resigned. He was not omitted. He finished his first term of one year in style and splendour. The moment he was reinstated, he resigned. No one dropped him. He took his own decision on the context of the prevailing environment. A brave decision considering the enormous amount money and fame he was sacrificing. Not an easy decision. But then Anil Kumble is an exceptional individual.

Please do not allow yourself, dear reader,to get misled by what happened between the coach Greg Chappel and the captain Sourav Ganguly. Ganguly did not resign. He was omitted from the team and Chappel stayed on. I hope the reader would appreciate that there is an ocean of difference between resignation and omission. Kumble and Ganguly issues are different and not to be confused.

Relationship between coach or manager and captain has seen ups and downs over the years all over the cricketing world. Indian cricket certainly is no exception. But to relate that Bishan Singh Bedi, Ashok Mankad, Abbas Ali Baig, Sandeep Patil, Madanlal Sharma, Ajit Wadekar and Kapil Dev, to name a few coaches of the India team, were at loggerheads with the captains is stretching the issue a bit too far.

To find a similarity with the Kumble-fiasco is not the true picture. None of the above-mentioned Indian coaches were dropped. Nor did they resign from their post. All these gentlemen were appointed for a particular tour or for a specific period. At the end of the term, they just left. No one resigned. To resign one needs a different level of character.

Kumble happens to be the first India coach to have resigned on a point of principle: self-respect.

 Congrats, Kumble

Congratulations, Anil. Well done. For an upright person like you this is the most appropriate decision under the prevailing circumstances. Believe it or not, just a few days back I mentioned over All India Radio (AIR) in a live broadcast that if I know Anil Kumble the man, then he might contemplate resigning.

Just for the sake of fame and fortune, Kumble will not sacrifice his self respect. An erudite gentleman like him will never be a ‘yes man’. He resigned right on time. Great to find that we in India still have such conscientious men.

For about a year as coach, he has helped India to be highly consistent in all forms of the game. In Test cricket, which after all is the real test, India regained its number one position with Kumble as coach. But the moment he realized that to get along with a younger man he has to sacrifice his self-respect, he decided to go out in style. Head held high. Outstanding  attitude. Unique execution.

In India cricket unfortunately the three roles of captain, coach and selectors have over-lapped each other in a most awkward manner.  Ideally they have distinct roles to perform. And their responsibility is to carry out their own duties. But today in India it appears that some people instead of doing their own duty, wish to meddle in the work of others.

In this unhealthy atmosphere, there is bound to be ego clashes and conflicts. And that is exactly what has happened. It seems the captain cannot get along with the coach. A few days back, captain Virat Kohli mentioned that he had no problems with the coach. The fact is, if you really do not have a problem with anybody, do you go around the world shouting that you have no problems? By mentioning that he had no problems with coach Anil Kumble, captain Virat Kohli merely revealed that he was harbouring grievances against the senior man.

On the other extreme, Kumble did not say a word. Why should he? He had no problems, so he had no urge to say anything to anybody. This obviously is the natural thing to do. Kumble was given an opportunity by BCCI to carry out some responsibility and he concentrated only on that role only. Moreover he was extremely successful over the past year.

Sad to relate that today in Indian cricket it seems that the captain is the man in total authority. It appears that the student (captain) decides who should be his teacher (coach)! Even the examiners (the selectors) appear to be in awe of the student! To keep their own places, it seems the selectors are very concerned to keep the captain happy! This is a most unhealthy scenario.

For about three decades, Kumble has contributed to Indian cricket as a player, captain, administrator, mentor and coach. He has been associated with ICC in various responsible committees. He has been a rare talent being highly successful in every role. Never once did he try to draw attention to himself by resorting to controversial statements and actions.

I honestly doubt if we have anyone of his character and integrity to replace him. An unblemished individual left with his head held high. Kudos to you, Anil.

 A Tribute to Vinoo Mankad on his birth centenary               

“An all-rounder is a cricketer who is equally bad at both batting and bowling” was the observation of a cricket wit years ago. The idea was not entirely incorrect. Players who are not very proficient in either discipline are normally considered to be all-rounders.

Drawing on this issue, Sai Baba devotee Colonel Bose of Puttaparthi came to the conclusion that only a player who can be in the XI both for his batting ability as well as for his bowling skill can be regarded as a genuine all-rounder. Absolutely to the point, he was.

The erudite civil engineer, now the curator of the Parthi museum he helped to construct, relentlessly pursued the topic to assert that the genuine all-rounders were far too few. The majority were ‘bits and pieces’ players who were neither top quality batters nor outstanding bowlers. Some were of course magnificent in one of the two disciplines.

According to Col Bose’s logic, Abid Ali could well be an all-rounder for the Hyderabad team where he probably deserved a place both for his batsmanship as well as his bowling skills. But when representing India in Test matches he should be regarded as a medium pace bowler who could bat. His pace bowling was good enough to put him in the India Test XI of the 1970s but most certainly not his batting. Similarly, with Madanlal and Roger Binny among many others.

How would one rank Mohinder Amarnath and Ravi Shastri using the same logic? Shastri was an able batsman who could hold his own in any company. As a bowler, too, he may not have been a match-winner but was certainly a capable left-arm orthodox spinner in the defensive mould. During his playing career, he proved he was good enough to be in the Indian team both for his batting and bowling.

Mohinder made his Test debut as a medium pacer and captured vital wickets in the match. But he was certainly not a quality pace bowler in Test cricket. Yet, we must readily admit that he was a very intelligent bowler in one-day matches. Obviously, the nature of one-day matches is entirely different from Test matches. Hence the yardstick of evaluation differs substantially. Whereas Mohinder was an outstanding all-rounder in one-dayers, he would be considered primarily as a batter in Test cricket.

Now our vision opens up to see the contributions of Abid Ali, Madanlal and Roger Binny in an entirely different perspective. All of them were extremely effective in the one-dayers both with the bat as well as with the ball. So Col Bose’s logic stands very convincing. We can most certainly consider Abid Ali, Madanlal and Roger Binny among the prominent all-rounders in the Indian one-day teams.

Now let us turn the page back and discuss only Test cricket which after all is the actual TEST of a player. In Tests we generally rate Garfield Sobers as the ultimate all-rounder. No two opinions on that. Some of the greats who followed him were Wilfred Rhodes, Aubrey Faulkner, Learie Constantine, Vinoo Mankad, Keith Miller, Salim Durani, Ian Botham, Imran Khan, Richard Hadlee, Kapil Dev in earlier eras and more recently Jacques Kallis.

Outstanding players of the all-round calibre of Frank Worrel, Trevor Bailey, Richie Benaud, Alan Davidson, Chandu Borde, Mike Procter, Clive Rice among others also delighted us with their undoubted capabilities. Worrel’s languid elegance riveted our vision to his batting elegance. Little attention was paid to his bowling which was very effective whenever required by his strong team. Trevor Bailey was a disruptive influence to the opposition but to his own team he was an asset whether bowling or batting. Benaud and Davidson were considered primarily as outstanding bowlers but the batting strength of Australia rarely required their services. Whenever called upon to bat, they responded with valour and emerged victorious.

Chandu Borde was primarily a batsman for sure. But in the early 1960s, for a while he was a very capable leg spinner who helped India to win the series against Ted Dexter’s England. But his right shoulder injury finished his leg-spinning ability for ever. His exceptional all-round skills died an embryonic death.

Procter and Clive Rice did not get the opportunity to play enough. But in the limited scope they got, they showed the cricket world what they were capable of. Both were among the very best.

The most prominent all-rounders in the annals of cricket are worth their weight in gold. In the early decades of the last century, leg spinning South African all-rounder Aubrey Faulkner and England’s Wilfred Rhodes exhibited the intrinsic value of men who could bat and bowl with the best on view.

Then arrived on the scene the lissome figure from the Caribbean, Learie Constantine. Playing for a weak West Indies team, the magnificent all-round skills of Constantine made the world sit up and take notice. The ebony-skin fast bowler hurled the ball at fearsome speed at the batman’s throat and then rattled the stumps for good measure. Disdainful of coaching-manuals, he enjoyed smashing deliveries around the ground with audacious shots.

He was the first international cricketer to hit a six off a front foot square cut!   Hardened critics rubbed their eyes in disbelief, but gradually realized that Constantine was nature’s bounty to humanity. As if this was not enough he was considered to be the best ever all-round fielder. Truly he would rank among the best ever all-rounders. What would he have done if they had ODIs and T20s in his time boggles the imagination.

Keith Miller was another who was a natural athlete. The strikingly handsome fighter pilot of 2^nd world war fame had the world at his mercy. Soft as a kitten, he would roar like a tiger when needed. Batting, bowling, fielding, captaincy, authorship you name it and he was at the helm. Playing for a very strong Australian team, he never cared to concentrate unless it was imperative. And then in a crisis the real Miller would emerge to take the opposition by the scruff of the neck.

Salim Durani was a genius in whatever he decided to do. The handsome face and the lazy grace took our breath away. Time and again as he strum on his guitar, we heard the soft mellow tune of the bail dropping from the stumps. He was an artist with Afghan blood and blue eyes. Drew inspiration from nature. Had no clue about averages and stats. Never bothered about fame and fortune. A genuine artist who lived for the moment.  Never got his due recognition. Did not even bother.

Botham, Imran, Hadlee , Kapil  and Kallis are of recent vintage. All of them have been exposed to both Tests and ODIs and performed to the highest degree of excellence. Their worth have been recorded for posterity in no uncertain manner. For all time to come these outstanding contributors to cricket would have their names embossed in gilded letters.

Now, to come to two who paraded in two different orbits altogether. Vinoo Mankad played for a weak Indian Test team who were content just to draw matches. The fielding support was pathetic generally. Hardly any worthwhile total to rely on. Too much of petty provincialism influenced the environment. Sobers belonged to a West Indies team which dominated the cricket world. Strong batting and fielding support he had, while exceptional bowlers helped him from the other end. Inter island rivalries had subsided to a substantial extent.

Superbly athletic Sobers –sinuous grace and splendid grandeur – moved and performed like a champion. Rotund Vinoo Mankad did not have the athleticism of Sobers or his elegance, but he too performed like a champion. Sobers dwarfs Mankad with the sheer magic of his statistics but Mankad beats Sobers hands down in one significant aspect. Mankad has a Test named after him, while Sobers does not.

The Lord’s Test of 1952 is hailed by cricket connoisseurs as ‘Mankad’s Test’. In 1952 India crashed to a dreadful loss to England at Leeds in the 1^st Test being 4 wickets down for 0 at the start of the 2^nd innings! The Indian selectors, in their egoistic wisdom, had dropped the world’s foremost all-rounder Vinoo Mankad from the touring team for a petty reason. In a dramatic gesture, team manager Pankaj Gupta without bothering to inform anybody invited Vinoo Mankad, then in England to play club cricket, to play the following Test at Lord’s!

 Mankad opened the innings with a whirlwind 72, came back to take 5 wickets, returned with the bat to score a magnificent 184 and then bowled 24 overs for just 35 runs in a desperate and futile effort to save the match for his country. In the history of cricket no individual has been able to replicate such an awesome all-round performance in a Test. And all this from a man from the losing team!

Today when we sit to discuss the greatness of all-rounders, the name of Vinoo Mankad appears only in the footnotes. It is unjust to say the least. We need to repent at our own folly. Every Indian cricket follower should feel proud that the greatest all-round achievement in a Test match was achieved by a man of our own genes. Mankad is certainly among the greatest of all-rounders the world has ever seen.

Unfortunately in India we do not have any time for our cricketing grandfathers. Men not fit enough to tie their shoe laces are in power and are enjoying the benefits. The great pioneers have been forgotten while the petty agents are reaping fame and fortune. This is the actual picture of Indian cricket.

                                   

 Coaches for senior cricketers

Do senior Test cricketers really need coaches? I wonder what does the Team India coach exactly tell Virat Kohli about batting?  And why is it that the Hazares and the Gavaskars never needed any coaching while they were getting those centuries for India? Or, for that matter the Chandrasekhars and the Duranis when they were running though the oppositions?

Honestly, I fully agree that in any sphere of life there is no end to the learning process. But then after a time that kind of learning comes from personal experience and not through verbal advice. What was it that Greg Chappell taught Tendulkar which the 10,000 plus batsman was already not aware of.

Or, is it that the modern Test cricketers are so very unintelligent that they cannot rectify their own mistakes?  Is it really true that today the experienced Test cricketers find no motivation in wearing the national cap? Do they really need to be goaded into doing their routine jobs by a coach with a cane in hand?

In Test cricket the first ever officially declared coach was Bobby Simpson. The chief reason for his appointment was that Australia had lost their best players to Kerry Packer in the late 1970s and that the new players were woefully short on experience of international cricket. Men like Alan Border, Graham Yallop, Peter Toohey and Rodney Hogg were just about starting off at the first class level. Bobby Simpson came out of retirement at the age of 40 to lead these rookies to a resounding series victory over Bishan Bedi’s much-vaunted Indians, including Gavaskar, Viswanath and Mohinder Amarnath.

Then with Packer and the Australia Cricket Board signing truce, the prominent Australian players like Denis Lillee, Greg Chappel and Rodney Marsh returned to the side but created internal dissensions to such an extent that the image of Australian cricket reached an all-time low: Marsh and Lillee placed bets against their own team; a weeping Kim Hughes resigned from captaincy citing lack of support and Australia came a distant 3^rd in their own group in the 1983 world cup.

Australian cricket had reached the nadir. Around this time the Australian Cricket Board appointed Bobby Simpson as the team’s coach to help rebuild the young team. Actually Bobby Simpson was not a coach but a mentor to inexperienced, young Aussies. By the next world cup in 1987, the Simpson-Border combine brought the world cup to Australia for the first time. This was the period when teams around the globe got into the trend of appointing coaches. The cricket administrators thought that just because Bobby Simpson had worked wonders, so would the other former players as well.

Generally these coaches were former Test cricketers with little or no experience of coaching. Invariably, the turnover of coaches became very high and only the best ones survived. Ironically the best ones happened to be either average Test cricketers like Dave Whatmore, Intikhab Alam and Geoff Marsh or just first-class cricketers like John Buchanan.

Coaching is certainly very essential. But not for Test cricketers. The best of coaches should be involved with the young players, especially between 13 and 19. That is the time when a young cricketer really needs to have the best of guidance.

                                               *    *    *

By the time a young player makes his Test debut, he would generally have played 5 years of representative cricket at various levels, beginning from school, college and age-based cricket tourneys. His actual process of learning would be over before he plays first-class cricket. Thus the best of coaches should be with youngsters during their formative years, especially till they are 19. This is the time when the talented youngsters need real guidance, encouragement and proper training. After they reach first-class and Test levels, which is generally between 20 and 25, the effect of coaching is considerably reduced.

The chief reason is that by the time a player is good enough to be a first-class player his technique and style are more or less ingrained. The first-class and Test cricketers too are not too keen to change their technique because they have already found success with the technique they have been used to. Thus if you had asked Sehwag to doggedly defend, he would have been a disaster. As would Dravid have been, if you had asked him to go for over-boundaries. The technique and temperament of players do not undergo any substantial changes after they have played cricket at the highest level for quite a while. No amount of Greg Chappell’s guidance could improve Ganguly’s leg side strokes.

It is time that we become pragmatic enough to realize that coaching of senior cricketers is only an eye-wash. Whatever coaching that can be imparted, can only be done up to the under-19 levels. This observation and assertion can lead to the obvious question: why do former Test players vie for jobs to coach current Test players?

The answer is very simple. Money, glamour and lack of effort. Today, at the highest level of cricket, the monetary benefits for coaches are astronomical. Most former cricketers after retirement find that they are not fit enough for any other well-paid job. Hence they make desperate efforts to become coaches of senior teams.

The second issue is glamour. After retirement, most former players face an identity crisis. They miss the glamour of the centre-stage. Hence getting hold of a coach’s job at the international level gives them the wide exposure that they crave for.

And thirdly the issue is that at the highest level there is hardly any effort involved in coaching. Since a coach is basically dealing with top quality players who are already well established, he has hardly anything worthwhile work to do. What novel concepts about batting did Greg Chappell taught VVS Laxman and Rahul Dravid? For that matter, is Kumble really teaching the finer points of batting to Virat Kohli today?

 Frankly, at the highest level no serious coaching is required at all. A coach just goes on repeating the same age-old ideas from time to time. The modern coach has however acquired a new baggage: he carries psychologists, physiologists and other people from various walks of life to stun and stagger gullible people. The blah-blah of these people has nothing to do with the development of a cricketer. All this is for media publicity and nothing more.

 If representing the country cannot motivate a cricketer, nothing can. For men like Polly Umrigar and Pankaj Roy the national cap was the highest recognition. They would have given their lives for the honour of representing the national team. They were normal, intelligent people and had no time to think of themselves as psychic cases.

The Nissars and the Merchants, the Mankads and the Guptes, the Pataudis and the Viswanaths thankfully did not have to tolerate this irrelevant modern trend of having a headmaster with a cane in hand. Was it that they were far more intelligent and knowledgeable than the modern stars and were capable enough to look after themselves? 

Gama Pehelwan

Gama Pehelwan                                           

The first Indian sportsmen to become world champions were the wrestlers. Formidable men like Karim Bux (1892), Ghulam (1900), Gama (1910) and Gobor Goho (1921) brought unprecedented honour to India under colonial shackles. They strode the world by sheer blood and guts in an environment of hostility and humiliation. These men relied on themselves. They possessed phenomenal strength, skill, courage, determination and self-belief. Totally devoted to the ideals of their deity, Lord Hanuman.

Among them was Mian Ghulam Mohammed, more popular as Gama Pehelwan. Born in Datia in the princely state of Holkar (Madhya Pradesh) in 1880, his skills at the ankhara were phenomenal. Every opposition was decimated with clinical precision. The fearsome wrestler of massive girth was as handsome as he was modest and generous.

 Early in life he came under the generous patronage of the Maharaja of Patiala. In 1910, Gama set sail for UK to pit his strength against the best of European and American grapplers. The other wrestlers in the squad were Imam Bux (his cousin), Gamu, Gobor Goho from Calcutta and Ahmed Bux.

The western wrestlers of superior height made fun of the short-statured Indian grapplers. Within days however, the reality dawned.  Just 5 feet 7 inches in height and about 200 lbs in weight, Gama’s immense strength combined with his technique had the white-skinned wrestlers in total disarray.

The world champion at the time was Stanislaus Zbyzsko of Poland. On 12^thDecember, 1910, the two giants fought each other with no quarters given, none asked for. At the end of more than two hours of grueling duel, it was decided to stop the fight for the day and a re-match was scheduled.

But next time Zbyzsko did not show up. The organizers had no option but to crown Gama with the world title. For more than a decade he was unrivalled. None quite came close to defeating him. He remained the undefeated champion of the world.

Close on Gama’s heels came his cousin, Imam Bux. In fact Imam’s father, Aziz Bux, was the person who coached Gama and Imam. Imam was indisputably among the greatest ever, but he never received the world crown because he constantly refused to fight against his elder cousin out of a tradition of respect prevalent among certain wrestlers in India.

 In Gama’s later years he would probably have lost the world crown to Imam had the younger cousin duelled with him. But not only did Imam not fight Gama, Imam also let it be known that whoever wanted to fight Gama, would have to defeat him first. Since no wrestler was able to beat Imam, the reign of Gama continued till his retirement.

The great Gama retired as the undefeated heavy weight champion of the world. After partition he settled down in Lahore, where he expired in 1960. Unfortunately the art of wrestling has lost its way in urban India. But the legend of Gama Pehelwan, as the Rustam-e-Zaman still continues to reverberate among the rural masses of the sub-continent. Today these hardy, brave jawans from rural India guard India’s borders just as Gama Pehelwan once guarded India’s self-respect.

                                       

  Umpires go scot free

Now that the dust has settled, hopefully the genuine cricket followers can make their voices heard. The hullabaloo that followed the Smith incident at the Bangalore Test completely derailed the main issue.

Ironically for days together the cricket experts, commentators and writers et al went to town discussing the Decision Review System. To begin with, no one asked for the DRS and the procedure was not in operation.

Some critics decided that it was a case of Smith versus Kohli. While others thought it was an issue between BCCI and ICC. Cricket connoisseurs around the country were quite aghast to find that the primary consideration was blown off in the whirlwind of one-upmanship.

Thanks to repeated television coverage everyone saw that the Indians appealed for a leg before wicket decision against Smith and the umpire ruled in India’s favour. Smith looked towards his non-striking partner for his view. The non-striker gestured to him to look towards the Australian dressing room to confirm the decision.

 Accordingly Smith did look towards the Australian dressing room as both Kohli and umpire Llong rushed towards him to warn him that it was against the spirit of the game.

It goes without saying that what Smith did was against all norms and codes of cricket. Thankfully Smith apologized as did his batting partner for their misdemeanor.

BCCI sent a note to ICC as a charge as is the procedure. But within a few days BCCI withdrew the charge as well!

Here the point to note is that the umpires should have laid a serious charge against Smith for what he did. And on receiving the charge the match referee would have acted on it and penalized the Australian captain.

Whether Smith has apologized or not is not an issue at all. Why the umpires refrained from raising a charge is the primary and the only issue. A conscientious match referee would have asked the umpires to put up a charge and acted on it.

If some people have seen the shadow of racism in the outcome I personally cannot blame them because over the years the ‘white’ players have got away with murder. If an Indian cricketer had done something similar hell would have been created.

 No ‘white’ critic has found any serious fault in Smith’s behavior. This typically racist approach is an obvious off-shoot from a group that includes Darren Lehman, the Aussie coach. Lehman, if one cares to remember, was charged for making a serious racist allegation in the past.

Neither the umpires nor the match referee have been hauled up for avoiding their respective responsibilities. This is a matter of serious concern. Is this also a case of racism to save the failures of ‘white’ match officials?

                                             

India's acceptance of DRS

Would like to highlight two cricket issues for genuine cricket followers. One on India’s acceptance of DRS and the other on ‘ball going out of shape’.

After retirement from active cricket, Sachin Tendulkar has had a rethink regarding the functioning of the Decision Review System (DRS).Today he has acknowledged that the DRS may be accepted. This is indeed strange. All along during his playing career he was insistent that the DRS should not be allowed.

DRS, as all cricket followers are aware, is for the players on the field to request the field umpires to refer their own decision to the 3^rd umpire for a review. In other words, the team which is unhappy with the field umpire’s original decision can appeal again for the 3^rd umpire to take another look at the original decision.

 The 3^rd umpire on his part takes his time to have a good look at the incident from various camera angles. He has the advantage of observing umpteenth replays on the television screen in the privacy of his own room. Then he conveys the final decision through the use of lights or through the field umpires.

 Both the batting and the fielding sides have recourse to two positive decisions. That means if the team is successful in its appeal for a review, then the scope to appeal remains at two as before. But if not successful, then the scope to appeal is reduced by one. Whether batting or bowling, no team can have more than two unsuccessful appeals.

 India and Sri Lanka were the first nations involved when the functioning of the DRS came into operation in 2008. But the Indians were not happy with some of the decisions going them. They had every right to feel hurt. If the system adopted is not in proper order, why should we accept it all?

Sachin Tendulkar’s and his mates contention all along was that hot-spot, snicko-meter and ball tracking devices were not hundred per cent foolproof. Hence there was no reason to adopt a system that that had inherent flaws in it. Sachin’s view, later endorsed by skipper Dhoni, was accepted by BCCI. BCCI informed ICC that India would not accept the DRS in any of its series, whether at home and abroad.

So powerful was the Indian lobby at the ICC at the time that the latter immediately complied with BCCI’s wish. Thus cricket around the world came to be played under various special regulations. While other Test-playing nations accepted to play with the DRS in operation, in matches involving India the DRS was dropped!

There are of course many pros and cons about the system. This is not the platform to discuss its merits and demerits. Suffice is to say that BCCI’s recent change of heart has confounded the cricket followers.

Personally I have always felt that DRS, if accepted at all, should be restricted between the umpires only. If an umpire has any doubt about any decision, the concerned umpire should refer to the 3^rd umpire on his own and ask him to review the appeal. In that way the field-umpire would get the clarification and the correct version. There should not be scope for any appeal from any player whether batsman or bowler.

The player’s job is to appeal just once and wait for the umpire’s decision. The umpire’s job is to adjudicate. For adjudication the umpire may take the help of the 3^rd umpire as and when he wants to. Moreover there should not be any restriction in number of reviews. Why should the review be restricted to just two per innings? An umpire, whenever in doubt, should be able to take the assistance of the 3^rd umpire without any numerical restrictions.

The business of allowing the players to have the recourse to a 2^nd appeal is ridiculous in the extreme. The sooner it is done away with, the better it would be for all concerned. The time has come for the former Test stars in the technical committees to go deep into the issue with their thinking caps on.

                                                               *******

Recently received a very thought-provoking piece from a passionate cricket follower, Col SK Bose. Mr Bose happens to be the director of the Chaitanya Jyoti Museum, Prasanthi Nilyam at  Puttaparthi. I thought of sharing his view with other lovers of the game.

BALL GOING OUT OF SHAPE

            A common sight in cricket matches at all levels is a ball going out of shape.  The bowler carries the ball to the umpire, who consults his colleague and both wise men agree that the ball has indeed gone out of shape and needs to be changed.  Whereupon old balls are brought and the wise men make their decision and another ball is handed to the bowler and the action resumes.

            I remember an occasion, some fifty years back, when the peerless Pearson Surita, the prince among radio commentators, observed that the batsman had more to fear when a ball went out of shape.  The bowler should exult and not protest.  When the ball goes out of shape, it indicates that its centre of gravity has shifted.  The consequences are difficult to predict because nobody has given the matter sufficient thought, but one thing is certain that the trajectory of the ball will be altered in an unforeseen manner.  I am sure that there would be a plethora of ‘out-of-shape’ balls in any cricket centre.  What is needed is a study carried out at the earliest with various seam positions, including the ‘Barnes’ ball.  Old timers would recall the incomparable Sidney Barnes delivering a ball with the seam horizontal, which bamboozled the best of batsmen.  He could make a ball swing away in flight and come in sharply off the pitch.  He still holds the record of 49 wkts in a series of 5 tests, in which he missed one Test Match. 

            I feel this study would throw up unexpected and unforeseen results.  I feel that a number of cricket centres could carry out their own studies.  It should be overseen by competent coaches, who could correctly evaluate the results.  Such studies could open up vast possibilities. 

I personally feel the observations are very original. I am sure conscientious cricket lovers would appreciate it as much as I did. Thank you, Boseda.