RSS MAD

Sledgers Sledged???

Australians complaining about racial abuse on the cricket field is like Bill Gates cribbing about mal-functioning Windows or Jack the Ripper raising his voice against eve teasing or Hannibal ‘The Cannibal’ Lecter protesting against non-vegetarianism.
Having all but patented the art and science of sledging during cricket matches, they could have felt a glow of paternal pride inside themselves about the way their contribution to the realm of gamesmanship has been adopted by cricketers of other nations like Harbhajan Singh …

But, alas! They have never been too good at being at the receiving end of their own games.
Take the instance of Glenn McGrath, the great pace bowler and the great bully, who now takes a holier than thou look at the proceedings after having hung up his boots.
He felt that he was playing the game in the right spirits when, frustrated with the determined resistance put up by the gutsy Ramnaresh Sarwan, he went up and asked the batsman how a certain part of Brian Lara’s anatomy tasted.
However, he lost all his cool when the diminutive West Indian batsman responded “I don’t know, ask your wife.”

So, now, obviously Ponting and company are at a loss to decipher where they have gone away from the spirit of the game, although evidences of grassed catches being claimed and umpires being persuaded aggressively to lift their fingers and standing ground after being caught off the most atrocious edges, even in the first slip - are all there for the world to see.

Talking about the question of the ban on Harbhajan Singh, it is pretty evident that the world – the truly non-racial world – is finding it difficult to fathom how Mike Proctor passed the judgement on hearsay, with Michael Clarke’s word ultimately weighing more than Sachin Tendulkar’s. But, then, one must take into account that this very same Proctor had earlier gone on record saying that cricketers of certain countries should be given a greater leeway in terms of ‘gamesmanship’ since that is how they are used to playing the game.
Well, yardsticks redefined.

And as far as Bucknor is concerned, age has little to do with his bloomers. In 1992, he refused to ask for the third umpire when Johnty Rhodes had been short of the crease and India went on to suffer big time for that. In ’98 he was at the centre-stage during the controversial run out of Tendulkar at the Eden against Pakistan. In 1999, Down Under, he gave Sachin Tendulkar out helmet before wicket. In 2000, he got under the skins of the Bangladeshis in their first test match by asking the batsmen to avoid running on the wicket … to such a degree that after playing a shot, Aminul Islam was actually doing a lateral broad jump before starting down the wicket. In 2003, he upheld an lbw shout against Sachin even as the bowler was on his way back to the bowling mark for the next ball – Sachin was left with his jaw hanging. In 2005, at Eden again, he gave Sachin caught behind for 52 against Pakistan when an elephant could have passed between the ball and the outside edge. He made the 2007 World Cup final a farce with a sequence of his pseudo sagacious decisions.

In this context, if Bucknor is not banned, ICC can at least come up with a new official mode of dismissal – Bucknored.

The Aussies and the ICC chiefs are too used to walking over the cricketers of erstwhile colonies. They have got away with it way too often in the past, but it will be prudent on their part to realise that the times have changed. India is a major power in all spheres right now and can call the shots economically, politically and diplomatically. The earlier the world comes to terms with this fact the better it is for the international relationships and the game.

Sourav and a ThreeYear Jinx

Sourav Ganguly cannot be kept out of the news or blogs such as this. The left hander, making his comeback, fought his way to a gritty 51 in the first test, was back to his own unconvincing self in the second with a blob and an extremely streaky 26, and made most of a featherbed with a chancy 66 in the third.

So, two fifties will go down as a decent enough performance, and his legions of not too rational followers, especially in the vernacular media, are already asking questions about the rationale behind his unceremonious omission in 2005.

However, while even the most diehard of his fan following will agree that the few months in domestic cricket has really made him come back more determined, and somewhat more assured against pace bowling, these sorts of debates generally do not have any result with unreason and passion holding fort over stark facts.

However, it is definitely true that the Indian middle order has been bolstered with a better batsman in Ganguly, and he seems more solid than he ever has (barring the strange second innings at Durban). That is good news for the Indian team.
And whether or not that is a result of his being dropped may still be debatable, but what is not is a piece of awesome statistic.

In this series, Sourav Ganguly ends up scoring two half centuries. Barring the 2004-5 series against Bangladesh - where the maharaja over Minnows was in his element - the last time Sourav did happen to have two fifty plus scores in a series was way back in 2003, against Australia. And since 2000, he has scored two fifties in a series only four times, which includes one series against Bangladesh and a five test series against the west indies where he did manage two in 9 innings.

Startling fact that!!!
And, if someone failed to score two fifties in a series regularly for six years, was he not in line for unceremonious exclusion? Food for thought.

Greg - Wright or Wrong?

With so many of the small time cricketers and journalists suddenly voicing their ideas and opinions against the strategies and experiments of Greg Chappell, we tend to get the feeling that the former Aussie great has not yet had enough success to turn public opinion in his favor.

After all, success is the sole judge of right and wrong - at least when it comes to judging the methods.

However, proverbs and wisdom gathered through ages tend to lose weight and value when pitted against the current day yellow journalism and the techno gizmo armed modern man who has probably lost his ability to think for himself.

Let us use the available statistics to judge the effectiveness of Greg Chappell. We will not be using any esoteric statistical method like we have done earlier to measure consistency and match winning capability. We will just go by the available results.

And we will compare Greg with John Wright, who teamed up with Sourav Ganguly to become a universally accepted coach-captain success story.

Here are the facts.

In test cricket, India has undergone a huge transformation since Tendulkar entered the scene. No matter how much we debate over his matchwinning abilities, it is not for nothing that India's success rate has gone up by leaps and bounds during his playing days. India has won more matches in his 17 year career than in the 57 years prior to his debut.

Overall, India has a success ratio of 0.69, having won 89 and lost 129 of the 401 tests played.
Under John Wright's coaching, it is a very creditable 1.46, with India winning 19 and losing 13 of the 47 tests.
Under the controversial Greg Chappell, the ratio now stands at a staggering 3.5, with India winning 7 and losing just 2 of the 16 tests.

Taking the minnows out of the equation for better comparisons, Wright has coached India to 12 wins and 12 losses in 38 tests which did not feature Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Success ratio a neutral 1.00
Greg, on the other hand has won 5 and lost 2 of the 14 actual tests (I don't quite consider Zim and Bang to be actual test teams). His success ratio is 2.5.

I would say that is what is known as taking the team to the next level - from okay/good to brilliant.



The records of the two coaches are not so different in the ODIs. However, with the recent slump in the ODI games that India witnessed, the common man on the street will be happy with the opinion of the plummeting graph during the coaching of the Aussie professional, and ask cheeky, yet uninformed questions about the next level. A fact that has been harped on by the regional vernaculars, especially in the Eastern part of India, playing on the mass uproar at the highly justifiable exclusion of Sourav Ganguly on performance grounds.

However, the 'immensely successful' Wright managed a decent 78 wins and 67 losses in 151 ODIs, with a success ratio of 0.54.
Greg Chappell does not fare much different. He has 26 wins and 23 losses in 51 ODIs to have a success ratio of 0.53.
Here too, Chappell has not had too many matches against teams like Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Namibia and Holland.

The bottomline is that Greg Chappell has been the most successful coach of India till date. Whatever be the media impressions, he has raised the team to the much hyped next level by being instrumental in series win in WI and an unprecedented test win in SA - apart from the record breaking sequence of successful chases.

I hope, with a more determined, performing and sobered down Ganguly back in the side, the media attention will be more on results and the discoloring tint of yellow journalism will take a backseat to let the achievements of the coach get due credit.

Greatest Batsmen of All Time - followup

As someone mentioned about the Lords' test match of 1990. Gooch made 333 and 123, but I don't remember a single stroke. Azhar made 121 and so many of the strokes stick to my memory.

Making a case for Joginder Sharma

It is common knowledge that any team competing in the One Day format of the game would definitely hanker for one or more all-rounders.
The game has evolved over the years, but if we take a look at the three Indian sides which have won major tournaments, we will see them full to the brim with players who could both bat and bowl.

In 1983, the Indian team had Kapil Dev, Madan Lal and Roger Binny as accomplished all rounders, Mohinder Amarnath who did more than a little with the ball and Kirti Azad, a bits and pieces cricketer at the heighest level who nevertheless played his part as an attacking batsman and an offspinner. Added to them were the worthy contributors at the end including Syed Kirmani and Balwinder Singh Sandhu. (Incidentally Sandhu scored 71 on his test debut against a rampaging Imran Khan). Batting deep down and having lots of bowling options did play a crucial role in the Prudential World Cup triumph.

In 1985, the team’s balance was even better. Ravi Shastri opened the innings and played the sheet anchor, while his nagging left arm spinners were an asset to the side. No wonder he won the Champion of Champions award. Along with him Kapil Dev, Roger Binny, Madan Lal – all played as genuine allrounders. Mohinder Amarnath, as a matter of fact, played more as a bowler who batted in the lower middle order, bowling 26 overs in the tournament with an economy rate of 3. Sadanand Viswanath was as promising in front of the wicket as behind it. Even the number eleven batsman, Laxman Sivaramakrishnan had the poise, style and elegance of a middle order maestro.

In 1993, India won the Hero Cup. Again, the allround ability of the players was a key factor for the victory. Kapil Dev was past his prime, but definitely still a force to reckon with. Manoj Prabhakar, whatever his current image, was one of the rarest of rare cricketers who could open both the batting and the bowling with distinction. Added to that, in Sachin Tendulkar, India had a bowler who turned match winner in the solitary over he bowled in the nerve racking semi final. Ajay Jadeja also did a fairly decent – at times wonderful – job of turning his arm over. Vijay Yadav, the wicket keeper, was a very good stroke maker. Added to that, both Anil Kumble and Javagal Srinath were very competent lower order batsmen.

Not only have allrounders played a vital role in India’s ODI triumphs. All the world over across decades, they have been of utmost importance in the One Day format.
The 1987 World Cup Champions Australia had Simon O’Donnel as a competent all rounder, Steve Waugh who, apart from his obvious batting skills, was an excellent bowler during those days – especially at the death, Alan Border would regularly turn his arm over and Craig McDermott’s batting talents were utilized by sending him up as a pinch hitter.

In the 1992 World Cup, Pakistan triumphed as much due to the all-round balance in the side as because of the exploits of Inzamam ul Haq. With Imran Khan and Wasim Akram leading the way, they had a world class scrapper in Moin Khan and utilized Amir Sohail’s left arm spin to good effect.

In 1996, Sri Lanka almost revolutionized the art of One Day Cricket with Jayasuriya at the top. Their all round strength was enhanced by the determined Aravinda de Silva, who, when he was not batting like a man possessed, was bowling canny off spinners and picking up more than a few useful wickets. Kaluwitherna proved to be a worthy partner of Jayasuriya at the top of the order and Dharamasena was more than a worthy batter down the order. When asked to, skipper Ranatunga and Gurusinha could turn their arms over.

In 1999 and 2003, Australia dominated the World Cups with players like Adam Gilchrist, Setve Waugh, Michael Bevan, Andrew Symonds and Tom Moody playing major and minor roles.

So, as India gears up for the World Cup, they are in desperate need of all rounders for the balance of the side.
In all the sides discussed, part time bowlers and moderately good lower order batsmen were present, but were mainly in support of the genuine allrounders – Kapil, Waugh, Imran and so on.

Mahendra Singh Dhoni looks a match winner with the bat, and does perform like an accomplished batsman sometimes. But that is where it stops. Irfan Pathan, promising a lot, looks more and more like a batsman who occasionally bowls well. And the spin of Sachin Tendulkar, Sehwag and Dinesh Mongia can come in handy only when there are other players who add their genuine all round skills to the balance of the side, so that their overs become a luxury, not a necessity.

While there is a genuine concern regarding allrounders, it is a surprise that someone like Joginder Sharma is getting omitted in spite of regular performances that underline his all round skills.

The 23 year old Haryana cricketer hits the ball hard and also bowls fast medium with plenty of success in the domestic circuit.
In 34 first class matches, he has more than 1600 runs at 33 with 4 centuries and has taken 163 wickets at 19.92 with 4 ten wicket hauls. At least the figures speak for him as a genuine talent.

After two successive ten wicket hauls, he had been included in the Indian team to Bangladesh in 2004, and played three ODIs. He was not dismissed in the limited opportunities that he got, ending up with a highest of 29 not out and a strike rate in the 140s. While bowling, he was not really a success, finishing with 1 for 99 in the total of 21 overs that he bowled.

However, it takes time to get used to International Cricket, and that is why it was vitally important to blood him in South Africa.

His performances this season speak for themselves. In the Duleep Trophy, he scored 103 against the Central Zone attack of Murali Karthik and Piyush Chawla, and also picked up a couple of wickets. Against East Zone, he scored a blistering 122. In the finals against Sri Lanka A, he scored 72 and picked up 4 wickets.
In the Ranji Trophy, he started with 11 wickets against Andhra, following it up with 7 wickets and useful runs down the order in the next match.

What is heartening about this youngster is that he performs consistently in both the departments, unlike the current Pathan who tends to forget one art when obsessed with the other.

I am not implying that he will be an overnight success, or that he is India’s answer to all the questions raised in the dismal ODIs in recent past. But, he is one allrounder who can add immense value to the stability of the side and an option the selectors should definitely keep in mind.

Sudeepta commented:

"Well, his latest effort is a 10 for against UP at an average of 6 runs per wicket and strike rate of 15.3 balls. That surely strengthens his case.

Sudeepta"

It sure does. Are the selectors listening?

All Time Best Batsmen of the World

Taking our theme of judging consistency of batsmen across nations and across time, the next natural step will be to turn our attention to the most consistent batsmen ever.

I have carried out the analysis and taken it a bit further, to arrive at the best batsmen of all time in terms of prolificacy as well as consistency.

Let us complete our consistency discussion first.
For this analysis again I used the same measure: nos. of innings for per fifty plus contribution. Here too, the performance of this measure is amazing if we compare the results with the accepted stature and quality of batsmen.

I have performed the analysis on 152 batsmen across the world and eras. The qualification criteria are a trifle fuzzy.

On the whole, I have gone ahead with at least 3500 runs as the minimum requirement. However, for certain players I have relaxed the criterion for a number of reasons.

For example, I included Bill Ponsford in the analysis in spite of his 2122 runs since he played just 29 tests , handicapped by the frequency of test matches at his time. In fact, if Bradman was just a very good batsman instead of being the freakish phenomenon that he was, in all his 52 tests and 70 completed innings, he might have scored just 3400 runs at a very impressive average of nearly 49 and would not have qualified if I had maintained a strict criteria for selection.

Kepler Wessels is another person I have included because although he scored less than 3000 runs, he did so in spite of a long gap in his career between his days in Australia and South Africa.

I have considered batsmen and allrounders. For some of the allrounders/wicket keepers, like Hadlee and Jacobs, I have relaxed the bar a bit … because of mere whim.

I have included Clem Hill and Victor Trumper, but the reader is well advised to stick to the analysis of post world war 1 batsmen, since before that pitches were vastly different to merit comparisons and even the best of batsmen, including WG and Trumper, had an average which would seem ordinary today.


A lot of South Africans figure in the list … great players all, having truncated test careers because of the long 22 year ban on them.

How do we proceed to rank these batsmen now?

We have already shown that number of iinnings per fifty plus innings is a very good way of separating the grain from the chaff. It is a very good judge of the consistency of the batsman. Generally we would go ahead and say people with less than 3 innings per 50+ innings are great players, 3-3.6 very good ones and so on.

Ranking these batsmen according to consistency does produce excellent results. Don Bradman is definitely at the top, with a phenomenal 1.9 innings per fifty. What is amazing is that while we are trying to equate greatness with a less than 3 innings for each 50+ innings, the Don takes 2.76 innings to score each century. His conversion rate – 29 centuries to 13 fifties is another awesome statistic.

Just behind the Don, although not quite on his heels, is the English opener of the ’20s, Herbert Sutcliffe. He also has a stupendously low 2.16 innings per 50. The top consistent batsmen read like a roll of honor, with Greame Pollock, Ken Barrington, Everton Weekes following the top two. However, it has its share of surprises, with Saeed Anwar at number 8 being an example.

As for the Indians in the consistency list, Dravid comes in at number 9 followed by Gavaskar at 18, Tendulkar at 23. They are followed by Visvanath (49), M. Amarnath (58), Hazare (59), Sehwag(73), Azharuddin (80), Laxman (93), Vengsarkar(95) and Umrigar (100) in the top hundred.

We have already done an analysis for the modern day batsmen, so I am just listing the ones who make it to the 100 most consistent batsmen of all time –
Yousuf(8), Dravid(9), Ponting(12), Kallis(15), Inzamam(19), Sachin(23), Lara(24), Hayden(32), Jayawerdene (37), Martyn (39), Younis Khan ( 43), Gilchrist and Sangakkara at 55 and 57, Greame Smith (63), Trecothick (70), Langer (71), Sarwan (72), Sehwag (73), Gayle (84), Fleming (87) and Laxman (93).

The measure of 3.6 innings per 50 as an indicator of a consistent performer is vindicated by the last three names in the list who make it under 3.6, Gower(97), Boon(98) and Hanif(99). They are followed by Umrigar(100), Hussain(101), McMillan(102) and so on as the less consistent players.

Incidentally, Sourav Ganguly makes it at 112.

Now the question is how to rank the batsmen in terms of overall rating. Consistency is definitely a big factor, but the average is a defining measure as well – capturing the run scoring ability, ability to play a big innings and so on. So, I have made a simple rating scheme based on consistency and average.

For players playing on different teams, affecting the result of the match with his scores will never make sense, since Simon Katich will always be a better match winner than Brian Lara, since he played for a much better side. So, match winning capability, with its complexity in measurement, has not been considered in the rating.

In ranking the batsmen, I have gone by the standardization concept of the ICSE board examinations. The best batsman in both categories is obviously Sir Don Bradman. In both the categories we consider Bradman to be the ideal or 100. Next we try to place the others in terms of Bradman in the area of average and consistency. Having done this, we place 65% weightage on average and 35% on consistency.

Where did I get these numbers? 65 and 35? Out of thin air, really. It seemed to me they would be a good ratio in which run making ability and consistency will be appreciated in a batsman.
So, each batsman is rated on this and here is what we get:

Sourav Ganguly finishes with 44.14 points at number 111, between Chris Gayle and Mike Atherton. Well … so it goes.

The Driving Force behind Dravid, Ganguly, Chappell and Vengsarkar

With all the talk, muck and controversy surrounding the main stage of Indian cricket, with its cast of main characters in the form of Dravid, Chappell, Ganguly and Vengsarkar, one is led into endless discussions about who is right and who is wrong, what are the differences in opinion between the coach and the ex-captain, the coach and the chief selector, the present and the past captain. So much so, that one tends to forget that ultimately it is the wonderful game that we are all concerned with.

And talking about the wonderful game, the principal characters of today’s controversies are bound together by perhaps the most sublime sights of the sport – the drive.

No matter what their current relationship dynamics are, these four are perhaps four of the best players of the drive the history of the game has ever witnessed.

The drive as a stroke has a charm of its own. While perfect execution is all about timing and less about brute force – with the possible exclusion of players like Andrew Flintoff and Mahendra Singh Dhoni – it is that stroke that brings to the fore all the poise, elegance and balance of a batsman. A properly executed front foot drive which beats the cover or mid off or mid on and scorches the turf to the fence is a sight for the gods and the best advertisement for the connoisseur of cricket.

While there have been superb drivers of the cricket ball from Hammond to Gower, from Graveney to Tendulkar, the four in question were and are masters of the stroke in their own right.

Greg Chappell, with the handlebar moustache he sometimes sported during his playing days, looked a bit savage in appearance, but there was no savagery in the clinical perfection of stroke making. He was elegance personified, especially when playing the on-drive, perhaps the most difficult stroke in the game. And it is a tribute to his excellence that he could play the on drive anywhere from the left of mid on to right of square leg. The secret was that he could play the ball late, as late as possible, and could delay the drive enough to play it as square as he wished to.
On the offside too, he was peerless. To use a Cardus cliché, he never seemed to force the ball away, but simply dismissed it from his presence. He brought a certain lazy elegance to his stroke making as he could repeatedly find gaping holes in the crowded cover regions and plug them with strokes to the boundary.

For someone who was detected with a bottom hand grip unsuitable for off side strokes by the numerous pundits that flood Indian cricket, Dilip Vengsarkar turned out to be a great player of the cover drive – perhaps the best in the world in his time. The image of his six foot one inch frame going down to almost sniff the ball, the bat completing its elegant swing and ending up facing the bowler in follow through and the ball disappearing between cover point and extra cover was perhaps the picture that symbolized the great Indian batting strength of the eighties. His cover drives were probably at the peak during the enormously successful English tour of 1986 during which he won two test matches with his bat.
However, Vengsarkar’s drives were not restricted to the cover region. He was also the best on driver of his time and his characteristic strokes between mid on and mid wicket were aptly nicknamed ‘rifle shot’ by the hapless English bowlers in keeping with his nickname, Colonel. The on-drive was perhaps what became his signature shot. When Allan Border’s Australia played against him, there was always an orthodox mid on stationed to cut off his favorite stroke. He also played some brilliant straight drives. One off Wasim Akram during the Calcutta Test in 1986 is unforgettable, the timing so impeccable that it looked little more than a defensive push as it raced its way to the sight screen. The straight drives were perhaps perfected through years of gulli cricket in the Mumbai lanes.


Unlike the others, Sourav Ganguly’s drives are limited to one part of the ground, in the area between point and mid off. According to Rahul Dravid’s famous quote, he is next to God on the off side. There are two things that characterize a Ganguly drive. One is the natural grace of a left hander and the other is his sublime timing that does away with the need of a follow through.
While the slashed square drive that he plays past point and gully does bring him a lot of runs and also causes his downfall every now and then, he looks distinctly more solid and elegant when he drives through the covers. One can recall many such strokes from his debut innings, as also from his century at Brisbane, but one cannot really recall his edging or snicking to the keeper or slips while executing a cover drive. The reason for this is probably his movement prior to the off and cover drives which ensures strokes close to the body and also controls the possible away movement of a swinging ball. However, it is precisely the lack of this adjustment which makes the slashed square drive so vulnerable a stroke for him, most often played away from the body.

The difference between the other three batsmen with Rahul Dravid when it comes to drives is that while the others, especially Vengsarkar and Chappell, were technically correct in the execution of the strokes, they also brought with them a personal flourish which characterized the strokes and lent their own signature on them. Rahul Dravid, on the other hand, does lend his signature to his drives, but in a different manner. He does away with almost the last remnants of personal innovation and plays the drive through the covers or through mid off or past the bowler with the stamp of the MCC Coaching Manual firmly embossed on the stroke. Perhaps no other batsman has ever played the drive with such unbelievable technical correctness and this is perhaps what lends a Rahul Dravid signature to the strokes.
What contributes to Dravid’s enormous success is perhaps his balance while playing the shots, which has reached new heights of stability after the turn of the century and keeps improving every day. However, it is while playing the on drive that perhaps Dravid goes beyond the coaching manual and lends an oriental majesty that makes it a delight to watch as the ball disappears either past mid on or past mid wicket.
The reliance on the coaching manual is not a result of shortage of skill or ability, for he has plenty of both and in rare matches – mostly domestic – he does display some of the free flowing strokes that would have made him a more exciting, if somewhat less successful, batsman. Sometimes, these strokes do grace the international stage. A back foot on drive in his third test match at the Kotla, an on driven six off Donald in 1996 and a cover driven six against Sri Lanka during that mammoth partnership with Sourav Ganguly are the ones that stick to memory. However, by choice, he has become the technically correct player that he is today, and no one complains for he has proven to be the greatest match winner with the bat that India has ever witnessed.

Looking at the career averages of the four, one sees a distinct gulf between Chappell/Dravid and Vengsarkar/Ganguly. The experts agree on the easier task of batsmanship nowadays, so perhaps we can rate the levels of success as Dravid, Chappell, Vengsarkar and Ganguly in that order with reasonable gap between the second and the third. The reason for the difference in success is perhaps that while all four were brilliant on the front foot, Dravid and Chappell were distinctly more assured and comfortable on the back foot as well.

Chappell was a compulsive hooker, and a superb exponent of the horizontal bat shots. The biggest testimony to this is the fact that his best series finds no mention in the record books. He scored over six hundred runs at an average in the high sixties against the fearsome pace attack of Holding, Roberts, Garner and Croft during the World Series Parallel Tests organized by Kerry Packer. Brought up on the fast pitches of Australia and with the in-house sessions with Lillee and Thomson, he was one of the foremost players of fast bowling.

Vengsarkar’s career can be divided into three parts – pre 1983 stability, 1983-1987 greatness and post 1987 decline. During the pre-1983 days, he enjoyed the hook and it also often brought about his downfall. While the West Indies were in India in 1983, he got two hundreds against Marshall and Holding and topped the averages. During that period, he used a lighter bat and played the square cut and the late drive off the back foot past point very profitably. He also pulled a lot; a short arm pull during his 159 at the Kotla went to the boundary on first bounce and is still remembered with awe.
However, with his enormous success in the mid eighties, mostly in England and India, and his lordly driving, he dispensed with the hook, which he considered too risky. He also started using a heavier bat. His two centuries against Patterson, Walsh and Davis in 1987 were comparatively much slower and the scoring strokes were mainly off the front foot. While this did work in India, it made him a very slow accumulator of runs in Australia in 1986. He suffered from the same malaise as the current Indian batsmen in South Africa, who seem to have only the backfoot defensive prod as the stroke against short ball. Although he managed an average of 60 against the Aussies down under, he came a cropper against Ambrose, Walsh. Marshall and Bishop in the Caribbeans in 1988. As his form deserted him, he went back to the hook as a scoring option, but in spite of all his success in domestic cricket, could not carry it off on the fast wickets of Australia in 1991.

Sourav Ganguly has the same shortcoming against the short ball and that is why his performances in South Africa and Australia have been abysmal. True, he did get a century in Brisbane, but that was against an attack without McGrath, Lee and Warne, with Gillespie and Bracken sharing the new ball. He looks distinctly, almost embarrassingly, uncomfortable against the short ball, and although he sometimes brings off the pull shot, it has none of the elegance associated with his drives and more often than not brings about his downfall. His cut is a more profitable stroke, but he tends to play it in the air, especially on wickets with appreciable bounce, and it is never a safe scoring option for him.

Rahul Dravid’s strength is his technique, and as in his drives, his backfoot play is characterized by the adherence to the coaching manual. For someone who plays as straight as possible – with a minor adjustment in technique with the face of the bat turned towards mid on to negate the chances of an outside edge – Dravid is surprisingly also the best player of the hook and the pull in the current Indian side. Only VVS Laxman comes somewhat close, while Tendulkar, being shorter, tends to play the pull shot more in the air.
Dravid’s pull and hook shots are also technically correct, with him bringing the bat down from above the ball so that in the case of a mistimed shot the stroke generally goes to the ground as a bottom edge rather than flying up as a top edge. However, the most famous top edge that I remember was the one that went for a six to take him to his century during the match winning 233 down under.
Apart from the leg side shots, Dravid is also an excellent player of the square cut and the back foot cover drive, which are the reasons why he succeeds in all those wickets on which it is a tradition for the Indian batsmen to struggle.

However, whatever be the shortcomings and plus points, let me reiterate that the four batsmen discussed in the post are four of the best players of the drive the world has seen. Whenever the topic involving them turn towards controversies, experiments, sitting ducks against the short ball and so on, let us remain focused on beautiful cricket and remember their exploits in playing the most elegant stroke of the game.

The World's Most Consistent Batsman

Since we discussed the most consistent batsman in the history of Indian test cricket in my last post, let us take one step further and try to find out the most consistent batsman of the world in the present day.

Again we use the same statistic as we used in the last post, namely the number of innings taken per fifty plus innings.

Again, the results that we get are very predictable in terms of ranking of the class of batsmen, and the method proves to be a great way to come up with comparisons.


The statistics and results shown here is a good way to distinguish class from mere hype and perception.

I have considered 39 batsmen of the modern era (current players) who have been recognized as a batsman or an allrounder and has at least 1500 test runs to his credit.