On the one hand, I am happy to see such a deep relationship with test cricket but I think that, as a cricket fan, I would be more inclusive and acknowledge the skills of the T20 cricketers as well.

See my comment to Pope Paul VII above.

Basically, would you say that the 100m sprint champion is a poor athlete because he is not the marathon champion?

I love test cricket myself but to rubbish T20 in this manner is grossly unfair.

I think limited overs cricket is a form of cricket that threw up new challenges before cricketers. First, it was ODI cricket and now, T20 has made those challenges even tougher.

In test cricket, a batsman has far more leeway to not be aggressive with good deliveries. Now, I am not saying there is no skill involved here. It is a profound skill indeed to display patience and not attack good deliveries and wait for the not-so-good ones to score runs off. Furthermore, it is an even more profound skill to be able to survive the good deliveries in test cricket, in which pitches are more supportive of bowlers. So, there is no taking way of the greatness of those who perform at the test level. However, my initial comment about the freedom of being less aggressive with good deliveries still holds. Just like there are several batsman who do well at limited overs cricket but fail at the test level, the opposite is also true. Of course, there are those who excel at both.

My message is basically about the West Indies as a T20 team.

Furthermore, I disagree that test cricket is the only yardstick to judge cricketing skills.

I say again, my message is not focused on test cricket. What I am saying is that the West Indies will be a strong T20 team from this point on. It may get a bit better in test cricket or it may not but my message is basically about the West Indies as a T20 team.

I did not say that they are back as a test-playing nation. I said they are back as a cricket-playing nation and I have emphasized this is specifically and only in the T20 arena. At the same time, it gives them a glimmer of hope in test cricket as well but it remains to be seen if their test cricket is impacted or not. But I definitely see them continuing to remain a strong T20 team from this point on.

That’s the point I am trying to make. This time it’s different.

Boole,

You seem to be the sort of guy who draws conclusions to suit himself. Read carefully what I wrote…”On the issue of captaincy, again, had this issue been raised some years back, the answer would have been a no-brainer in favour of Ponting…”. So, I am well aware that when Tendulkar was made India captain, he had a sub-par stint including a home loss to South Africa.

But two things changed, Ponting was exposed as relatively poor captain who merely enjoyed success earlier on the back of an exceptional team and presided over Australia slide to as low as no. 5 in the world and Tendulkar regained some (not all) respect as a captain when he helmed Mumbai Indians. What the IPL captaincy merely proved was that Sachin could take the right captaincy decisions, only the stage didn’t happen to be international cricket. Not that IPL captaincy is trivial in any case what with cartloads of advertising dollars and big prize money being at stake all at once in this fiercely contested and competitive cricket league.

Hence, it can be said there is no material difference in captaincy skills. Neither is a Brearley and importantly, not too different from the other.

Hi Vas,

Let us understand that, regardless of how the ONE Sydney Test is viewed, my OVERALL view based on SEVERAL other facts, holds good.

Let us get the big picture here and not fret about the one Sydney Test.

That is what I was emphasizing to John and would to you as well. I am not interested in winning any argument about the Sydney Test. That does not matter much to me in the current context.

Sailosi,

One did not claim that India was always competitive historically in Australia. One is only meaning to say that, since quite a while, India has been competitive overseas, starting sometime in the previous decade.

It is a well-chronicled fact that India turned things around in the last decade and were the only team to challenge Australia, both home and away. The 2003-04 and 2008 series bear testimony to that.

Citing the series in the 90s is irrelevant. You may as well cite the 80s, the 70s or go back even further and you would always find India to be mostly rubbish in Australia. But all of that is irrelevant.

John,

Get the big picture here. The India-Australia series in 2008 or the Sydney Test is just ONE among SEVERAL data points I have cited.

Even if one were to concede India lost 2-1 fair and square in 2008, the overall conclusion I am pointing to does not change. Prior to the recent England series, India has been competitive overseas.

Thanks a lot, Venkat.

Hi Disco,

I think Sailosi was probably being sarcastic when he said “England’s woes”. He feels that England have done well despite being “exposed to 20-20 for the maximum time”.

However, I explained in my response to him (in the last paragraph of my response), that it is the nature of exposure to T20, in particular, and limited overs, in general, that matters. Time of exposure to 20-20 is irrelevant.

Thanks a lot, Captain.

Thanks a lot, DC.

Regarding what the selectors’ could do, I have aired my view to Matt above.

Regarding Pathan, I think the panacea to his problems is that he stops concentrating on his batting, becomes the incisive bowler he used to be and, “optically” becomes a more useful player. I have discussed, in my article on Tendulkar on 5th Dec, 2011 on The Roar, that focusing on one cricketing skill is more noticeable and also often useful from a team perspective. Not everyone can be a Jacques Kallis. Even Tendulkar wisely stopped whatever little bowling he used to do which, I dare say, was one of the factors in helping revive his batting!

Thanks a lot, Tom.

Yes, on evidence of his performances in the ODI opportunities he has got, he probably makes the cut in ODIs too. I suppose it is uncommon to find an Indian youngster focused mainly on tests.

Pujara is a likely exception. Not saying he cannot perform in limited overs but he didn’t look like he was the best guy for the IPL shootouts. But, then again, he will bring most joy to people like me if provides the much-needed fillip to India’s test batting.

Also, not saying I do not watch or do not like limited overs cricket. Just that test cricket needs to be taken good care of as well.

Renegade,

Kindly read my response to Sailosi above.

There is no doubt that Australia’s domination earlier was both prolonged and ruthless and they may well be back to their old ways soon (they never really played badly, just became a bit less ruthless in their test cricket and other teams caught up as well) but you are partisan in your view about India. Hence, I stress again that you read my response above to Sailosi. One is better off having a balanced view of things.

Sailosi,

It’s true that has not won in Australia before. However, this fact can lead to the erroneous conclusion that India were not competitive in Australia before. I have written a related article on 9th December, 2011 on The Roar which you may read but let me spell out some of they key facts again.

In the last series in 2008, India would have won the series 2-1 (not lost 2-1) had 7 blatantly wrong umpiring decisions not gone against us (fact, not exaggeration) in the infamous Sydney Test. Also, India won in Australia’s bounciest, Perth.

In the series prior to that in 2003-04, Australia saved the series (1-1) by the skin of their teeth due to Steve Waugh’s 80-odd rearguard in the series, also his last test.

In the last series in South Africa, India tied the series 1-1. Again, notably, India won on South Africa’s bounciest, Durban.

In the series prior to last in South Africa, India were competitive and lost the series 2-1.

In the series in England prior to the recent one, India won 1-0.

In the series proior to the one above, India tied the series 1-1.

You may draw your own overall conclusion about India’s overseas’ ability, till things genuinely began to deteriorate from the recent series in England.

Regarding England and 20-20, you have to understand key differences. Test cricket remains wildly popular in England. Also, the economics associated with limited overs, whether it is T20 league paydays or brand endorsement monies (driven mainly by limited overs’ eyeballs), is significantly different.

Thanks a lot, Matt.

Yes, there is pressure now on the selectors to chop and change. However, they have to be very careful as the replacement themselves need to be up to speed. Then again, they might need to be a bit bold and get in a few new people and then give them a decent run to develop them for the future.

Thanks a lot, Brett.

Thanks a lot, Vas.

Yes, I was conscious not to make the article too long and hence, have not discussed everything.

Among other steps, BCCI will need to develop a program of having bouncy pictches in domestic first class. Also, they need to develop an academy dedicated to pace bowling.

Did go looking and found this in a heartbeat (and didn’t look more):

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/sports/lorgat-says-tendulkars-feat-ashes-show-test-cricket-is-on-top

Didn’t go looking for this but thought should paste this here:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/sachin-tendulkar-eyes-his-favoured-scg-for-hundredth-ton/story-e6frg7uf-1226232897117

It says “The Melbourne match attracted a record crowd for Australia-India Tests”

Ian,

I am not an authority on Australia but if test cricket is popular in England and survives in India, it is enough really. In any case, India is more than 1/6th of humanity. If you are suggesting test cricket (and cricket as such) will meet with its demise in Australia, maybe someone should be bothered about that and maybe it can be prevented. Remember England invented cricket but it is more popular in India now that it is over there. Test cricket, if marketed properly, might be able to save itself. Golf isn’t an intrinsically spectacular sport but it has no shortage of revenues. Maybe test cricket just needs to change and evolve. And, as I said, it needs specific and monetary attention and needs to be marketed appropriately and to the right people.

In any case, I have made no claim about the future of test cricket. Who knows, it might indeed get wiped out. All I said was that I like watching fast bowling and I reckon there are a decent number of blokes who do as well. Now, don’t ask me how many.

Ian,

I do not misunderstand you. I am only trying to have a balanced view but you are not budging an inch from your viewpoint, which you are entitled to if you feel you have enough reason. I fully understand the importance of understanding the context of cricket performances and not getting carried away with stats. I have already said that in my comment below (in the thread on stats). I know fully well, for example, why the term “flat-track bully” evolved. But do read my comment below as to how stats can be more important than you think. Sometimes, certain players are more “visible” and certain others don’t otherwise get as much credit. For the latter, it is the stats that come to their rescue.

And I am not delusional about the decline of test cricket’s popularity. I am only saying there still are some people who would like to watch it. Remember the decline is from its own former glory. It does not mean that its popularity is low from an absolute perspective. I too am concerned about test cricket’s decline and the treatment meted out to it by certain members of the establishment and I have lamented that in my article. The establishment tends to do what I does because of commercial reasons and I understand that fully well. I am only saying that there still are some of us who would like to watch test cricket, especially the way it was played even till a decade back. I know if people like me are not bought into, test cricket will slip into further obscurity as such things feed on themselves in a vicious circle. If not enough money will flow into test cricket, it will decline further and any hope that remains will be lost. I am only saying that there still an audience out there and the same needs to be tapped intelligently or else even this will dwindle.

Ian,

Firstly, someone who states statistics is not meaning to say human judgement not based on statistics is meaningless. All of us know that Dale Steyn is the best bowler in the world and may not need to look up his average. But, then again, the fact that his average is the best only means that the average has value (very good value) as an indicator of ability. Certain statistics will always have their (significant) importance.

Also, an overdependence on arriving at conclusions subjectively may, on occasions, have its pitfalls. For example, sometimes, there is a tendency of popular media to romanticize certain colourful characters to the extent that people start believing what is written about them. Examples are Shane Warne being considered the greatest spinner of all time, Andrew Flintoff being considered a great when it came to all-round ability and other such cases.