Modern batsmen – All cut from the same cloth?

This had been written in December 2011, but never saw the light of day. Its been put up since it would otherwise very likely be lost in the clutter of my gmail.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sachin Tendulkar has the second-most recognizable crotch grab in the world. And easily the most recognizable stance and technique to batting. Despite him being the most revered and copied batsman since the beginning of time, his batting stride can be easily recognized by anyone within a distance of 38 light years.

The same cannot be said for any of our next-generation, tweet-happy, tattoo-friendly line of modern batsmen. The likes of Virat Kohli, Cheteshwara Pujara, Manoj Tiwary, Murali Vijay all seem to have stepped off the same assembly line of 21st century batting droids. The tight, textbook technique, the big stride forward and the penchant to play in the traditional V all mark them out as very technically correct batsmen. Discounting the slight tilt to his head and the laidback elegance that comes from innate talent, you could throw Rohit Sharma into the mix as well.

The thought struck us as we watched Virat Kohli and Manoj Tiwary put together a 117 run stand in the final ODI against the West Indies in the recent home series. Without a second glance, it was virtually impossible to distinguish between the two and very easy to mistake one’s strokeplay for the others.

This recent phenomenon is a departure from tradition of sorts for a country like India, where batsmen have been renowned more for their individualistic style than strong technique. Batsmen have been, more often than not, self-modelled, and players as recent as Virender Sehwag, VVS Laxman and even MS Dhoni have techniques not recognized by any coaching manual in the world. Contrast this with a nation like England which has, thanks to its strong club-and-county domestic structure, churned out generations of well-coached, efficient batsmen. It is hard to recall any English batsman, David Gower apart, popular for a flamboyant or distinctive style of batsmanship. Jason de la Pena, in the post-match punditry session on Day 2 of the Melbourne test, could not have been blunter as he pondered whether Virender Sehwag would have ever even been allowed onto the international stage had he been English.

Interestingly, Sanjay Manjrekar broached a similar subject in his latest blog post, ‘In praise of the natural game’, on ESPNcricinfo. His implications were different, but the point made was the same; that modern coaching techniques might possibly be doing the game a disservice by weeding out the little idiosyncrasies that make up a intrinsic part of genius. And he drove it home for good measure by hinting at how much poorer the world would have been had someone corrected Sachin Tendulkar’s grip in his formative years, taught Brian Lara a straight, checked backlift or berated Virender Sehwag for his immobile feet.

Without doubt, the proliferation of coaching techniques is doing wonders for the game at the grassroots level, and standards are bound to be raised consequentially. Whether the touch of genius will be stamped out as a result remains to be seen as the next generation takes over the helms of the sport.

The emergence of the 4-6-0

It was inevitable. Circumstances conspired to finally give the world a first glimpse of a starting XI completely devoid of recognized strikers but it must be said with the current Spanish setup, it has been a long time coming.

Injury had shorn Spain of their sharpest finisher in David Villa, while the reduced stature of Fernando Torres meant the six players best suited to play in front of the back four were all midfielders.

That’s not to say Andres Iniesta and David Silva are not excellent forwards in their own right; but the fact remains that their vision and creativity supersede their finishing skills, making them arguably the best attacking midfielders in the world today.

One might argue that Barcelona have provided the template for this style of play, with the false number nine position (and they have), but their XI does include Lionel Messi and Alexis Sanchez, and on occasion Pedro, all of whom are decidedly forwards despite not playing in the archetypal centre forward position.

The definition of the forward that this system now dictates is essentially a wide player making diagonal runs to latch onto balls that the cerebral midfielders of Xavi’s ilk play through. This blurs the line between a winger, a forward and an attacking midfielder since any of Villa, Sanchez, Pedro, Silva, Iniesta, or even Fabregas, a central midfield player, can, and have, played the role.

Meanwhile, the same game also threw up an interesting and unexpected tactical change from the other side. Italy played a 3-5-2 formation that is almost unheard of in the modern game. Only Napoli has used it consistently to any degree of success in recent memory at the top level.

It worked against the likes of Spain since the Iberians lacked natural width down the flanks and hence the Italians could hold them at bay with stout defending in the middle of the park. One suspects that it may meet limited success, say in the Premier league, where out-and-out wingers like Bale or Valencia could make merry.

I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise.

I slept at 5:30 am yesterday. I was watching Fight Club. For the 62^nd time. That’s why I’m writing in Edward Norton’s dull, flat, monotonous voice. You could try reading this in that voice. You’d find it suits this perfectly.

Tyler Durden asks us to let the chips fall where they may. I applaud. Awesome dialogue, I say. And then I put up a poster of him on my wall. Committing the same lifestyle blunder Tyler asks us to avoid.

I have some sort of reverse-insomnia. I sleep like a baby for up to 10 hours, impossible to wake. It’s beautiful. It sucks. It takes time away from everything I want to do and have to do. This comes in phases for me, so I know it will pass. Until then, my mobile will just have to endure screaming the alarm, unheard, unheeded, as I snore on, blissfully unaware.

I woke up at 2 pm. Right now I should be in Philosophy class. The most interesting class this semester. But I’m not. I skipped it. I don’t know why.

I don’t know why I’m writing this.

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

The Night of Delirium

Banged glasses on a mess table
As if my life depended on it

Clapped in unison
Till decibel levels lost all meaning

Screamed shrieked and swore
And I speak now in but a croak

Wept unashamedly
Till a hundred bear hugs wiped the tears away

-

Danced in the streets
Till my knees wore numb, feet blistered

Blew a Vuvuzela
Not just discordant notes, but played the national anthem and did a bloody good job of it

Sat on top of a car
And felt on top of the world

Copped one in my behind
From a real lathi-wielding cop, no less

-

Kept the adrenalin pumping
From dusk till the wee hours of dawn


Bled, sweated, in BLUE

You'll Never Walk Alone

Life as a Liverpool fan is tough at the moment. And since I have this inexplicable knack of getting emotionally attached to all the underperforming teams in the world, watching sport is a bittersweet joy, more often than not. (The following caricature by Sahil Rizwan on Cricinfo Page 2 brilliantly sums up my predicament - http://www.cricinfo.com/page2/content/story/456755.html?selected=18)

It is no secret that Liverpool are currently undergoing their worst times for a long while, both financially and on the field. The appointment of Roy Hodgson as manager was an inspired move, but had it been planned better, he might have managed to temper the bitterness that engulfed Anfield following the exit of Rafa Benitez, and quite possibly stopped Yossi Benayoun from moving to Chelsea.

Hodgson has done his best in the circumstances to revive Liverpool’s chances of finishing in the top 4 this season, but he has been handcuffed by the lack of financial support from the debt-ridden owners desperate to sell the club. His signings have been intelligent but limited. For Liverpool to really stake their claim as a contender for a Champions League berth, Hodgson needs to somehow add a couple of desperately needed requirements to his side.

Liverpool have had a tough itinerary first up, with Arsenal and Manchester City, both of whom finished last season above Liverpool, as their first two opponents. They looked fairly decent against a second-string Arsenal, and marginally dominated the Gunners. They should have come away with 3 points, but an uncharacteristic Reina blunder cost them.

City, though outplayed them in every department. In their first game against Tottenham, City looked every bit the disjointed side they supposedly were, and were saved by some brilliance from the ever-impressive Joe Hart. However, at home against Liverpool, they combined brilliantly to post their largest victory over the Reds in 73 years.

One might have though Mancini’s move to play 3 defensive midfielders with 2 attacking midfielders on the flanks with just 1 lone striker might force a nil-nil result. But Yaya Toure was deployed in a far more advancing role than he has ever played, and Milner and Johnson were simply brilliant in the 3-0 victory.

What’s most frightening is that their bench was even more expensive than the 11 men on the field. There is huge competition at Eastlands for midfield and forward-line spots, and guys like Johnson did their best to convince Mancini of their class. When you consider that players of the likes of Silva, Adebayor, Balotelli, Wright-Phillips, Jo and Robinho are in the squad and pressing for a start, one wonders what City is capable of and how Mancini is going to keep his multi-million dollar signings happy.

Considering that both City and Liverpool are vying for that fourth spot in the league table, the threadbare cupboard Roy Hodgson is forced to play with is put into even more stark contrast by the embarrassment of riches at Eastlands. There seem to be two clear areas that need immediate attention if Liverpool are to survive the season.

The first is one that was badly exposed in the game against City, the lack of a quality left-back. Daniel Agger, a natural centre-half was forced into that position and played through a concussion at that. He was no match for an inspired Adam Johnson, and two of the 3 goals, the first and the conceding of the penalty, clearly showed Agger was found wanting, apart from a million other darting runs that Johnson made. Fabio Aurelio has been played in that position frequently last season, but considering the fact that right-wingers the likes of Nani, Lennon, Walcott and co. play in the Premier League, neither Agger nor Aurelio are reliable options. Hodgson, of course, has already identified this, but the question remains whether even Fulham left-back Paul Konchesky is good enough.

The second, of course, is what we can call the ‘Mascherano situation’. Quite obviously, if a player wants out, he won’t be in the right frame of mind when forced to play. Hodgson hasn’t forced him to play, but supposing the transfer to Barcelona doesn’t materialize will he warm the bench for the entire season just because he hasn’t the right frame of mind, particularly when he is one of the top players in this ragged Liverpool unit?

Now assuming the move does take place, Hodgson has brought in Christian Poulson. He would be expected to do the defensive midfield duties alongside Lucas. There is no reliable backup then for the duo. Hodgson has played Gerrard in that defensive role for the last couple of matches, and, in my opinion, that particular move is going nowhere. Liverpool need inspiration up front, and until Fernando Torres comes into his own, Gerrard has to provide it. Even in the game against City, the closest Liverpool came to getting past Hart was when Gerrard consciously moved forward assisting in attack and powered through a long-range effort that found the upright. It probably is far too late for a new signing at this stage, and given the shoestring budget Hodgson has to work with, the purchase of a left-back would be his prime concern.

Finally it boils down to whether Mascherano stays, happy or sad, how Lucas and Poulson cope up if he goes, and if Gerrard is forced to hang back throughout the season. The first of these possibilities is obviously the most desirable, while the last makes no sense at all.

A third, if lesser, concern would be the unreliability of Pepe Reina. Arguably one of the best shot-stoppers in the league, he has been uncharacteristically jittery in the two matches thus far. It is very early to ring alarm bells, but Liverpool can ill afford their custodian hitting indifferent form, and I can’t remember when the last time Liverpool had conceded 3 goals was.

Talking about other Premiership sides, I have been mighty impressed by Tottenham. Seeing as I have only recently started following the EPL seriously, I was quite surprised to learn they had a most potent attack comprising Defoe, Keane, Pavyluchenko, Crouch and Dos Santos. This is the sort of attack that can seriously compete with the best in the league at least on paper. Throw in Lennon, Modric and the ever-impressive Bale and suddenly you have a mighty impressive starcast. Bale, in particular, has been sensational, and I expect that his and City custodian Joe Hart’s stocks are set to soar this season.

Tottenham most certainly do have a strong chance of finishing inside the top 4 (as much as I hate admitting it, a far stronger chance than Liverpool), though City fans would beg to differ. It remains to be seen how strong their bench is as they have Champions League football to play as well.

Again, as I said at the start, tough times ahead. As Harvey Dent puts it, “The night is darkest before the dawn.” It probably cannot get any darker for Liverpool.

.

Split Innings ODIs

There is no denying anymore that, if ODI cricket is to survive, there is a desperate necessity for reinvention to regenerate public interest in the ailing format. At the same time, it must be accepted that the reason for the decline is not only the advent of T20 but also the crazy amount of ODIs being played at the moment, considering the inane number of meaningless and unnecessary bilaterals and triseries that fail to generate excitement even among diehard cricket lovers.

Firstly, the administrators must decide whether there really is sufficient reason to resuscitate a dying format, especially when most fans are happy with the dual enjoyment of the two extremes, T20 and tests, and are not really sure on which side of the fence lie ODIs. There remains just a single marquee event in the one-day format, the World Cup, and some sections of the audiences would not mind letting the format die a natural death. Yet, the unenviable decision the ICC and the national boards face currently is likely to be dictated more by the clout of the television channels and sponsors, for whom ODIs remain the prime cash cows.

Finally, having assumed that there is a definite need for the survival of the format, and having recognized that the only means of survival is reinvention, the split-innings variation seems to be the leading alternative. Now, all those who will undoubtedly claim that this is nothing more than 2 T20s need to realize that there could be 2 variations to what appears to be the same thing at first; the first, where a team has 10 wickets in hand in both innings, meaning that they bat in 2 independent innings like tests, and there is no denying that this is little more than playing 2 T20s one after the other. Another variation, and one not so easily apparent at that, is where the teams starts the second innings at the same point where they left off in the first. This would really be a "split-innings" ODI while the first will amount to 2 innings per team.

Now if increasing the strategic element of the contest is the objective to enlivening the game, the first version, or the 2-innings version has very little to offer. This would be T20 cricket redoubled, whether the innings contains 20 or 25 overs, and the only positive, if you may call it that, would be the truckload of runs. At the end of the day, in this variety, there would be 100 overs to be played and 40 wickets to work with. The total number of runs scored in the day, on the increasingly flat pitches of this era, would undoubtedly amount to the region of 800 to 900 runs. The only other advantage would be that fans would get to watch their favourite players bat twice on the same day.

Meanwhile, the split-innings version would add an entirely new dimension to the game in terms of strategy and player and team mindset. At the outset, teams might be clueless as to how exactly they must approach the first half of the innings, in the sense that whether the focus should be on quick runs or conserving wickets. Importantly, if the PowerPlays are redistributed to both the innings, the concept of slogging in the first and last 10 overs will get outdated. Also, teams might be better prepared to account of the weather conditions and the decision on how to pace the innings might undergo a transformation.

The most important change this format will bring out is a probable change in the batting lineup. Over the past century during which the various formats of cricket have been played, the basic structure of the batting lineup has stayed the same. In ODIs, the usual structure is one destructive opener, followed by a chain of stable batsmen, any of which may play the mainstay on the day, followed by a couple of explosive hitters lower down, and the tail. The only minute variations have been nightwatchmen in tests and the occasional use of a floater in ODIs to make use of the recent innovation, the batting PowerPlay.

The split-innings variety might just do away with this structure entirely. Since PowerPlay's will come at the start of both innings, and the batsmen at the crease at the conclusion of the first half will commence the second, the batting order may undergo a rethink. A lot of this also hinges on whether the same ball will be continued to be used in the second half, but since the ball changes around the 34th over in ODIs anyway, it makes much more sense to start the second half with a fresh ball. The most radical possible outcome of this innovation is the probable eradication of the "tail". It might make better sense to send in a couple of expendable bowlers in the first half and save the hitters for the second.

Finally, what I hope will emerge as the biggest trend from this variation is that teams might just evolve their own playing style. Other sports, like football for instance, are such, that the team is easily identifiable by their unique style. Some might have a naturally defensive tendency, some may favour breakaway attacks, some possession play, some aerial dominance, and the list is endless. Cricket badly lacks this multidimensional variety, as all teams have exactly the same strategy in ODIs, to make use of the first 15 overs for some quick runs, consolidate in the middle and explode once more at the end, with the recent introduction of the batting PowerPlay a minor change. What the split-innings variation might expose is a captain's, or team's mindset of when to go on the offensive and when to defend. For instance, some may, in the long run, prefer to play it safe in the first half and cover up in the second, while others may, more often than not, prefer the initial run-advantage, even if it is at a loss of a few extra wickets. If teams become easily identifiable by their style of play, cricket might just join sports like football as far as the diversity in strategy is concerned. At the moment, this diversity is restricted to the kind of bowling attack a team possess; whether the strength lies in the pace department, or spin is the stronger suit.

The possibilities are endless, and the only thing that remains to be done is experimentation. Unfortunately, the biggest change in this format would be the evolution of strategy, and the evolution of strategy takes time. T20s are a ready example of this, and even now, a good 5 years since the first T20 was played, teams are still experimenting and developing new tactics. Ideally, one could say a decade is more than sufficient time in today's world for teams to come up with what suits them best. Even that may not be enough, for if we look at the concept of slogging during the field restrictions, something that Mark Greatbach and more popularly Sanath Jayasuriya pioneered almost 25 years after the format took root. In the end, we must accept that sport is a work in progress, and the success of a format will become evident only when it is put to trial.

As far as the other minor additions are concerned, such as the use of a Super Striker, the purist in me refuses to accept this concept. Cricket has always been a team game, and the Super Striker idea pretty much does away with that. In any case, such innovations will remain gimmicks more than anything else, and are unlikely to make an impact in the long run, just like the Super Sub rule that was introduced and scrapped in quick succession. In fact, there might be some exciting ideas to be picked up from test cricket that may meet success when applied in limited overs. For instance, a second-half declaration, or a follow-on might make the game so much more exciting.

What remains to be seen is how long it takes for the various national boards to sit up and take note of the need of the hour. Cricket Australia is currently the frontrunner as far as actually applying the variation in domestic matches is concerned, and, if they have it their way, we might just see the format played at the international stage as early as World Cup 2014 which will be played Down Under.

.

Sehwag is (almost) the new Sachin

It’s official. India’s capitulation against a New Zealand attack that can be described as average at best proves it. The weight of carrying the Indian batting, that has been shouldered single-handedly for years by Indian cricket’s most devoted servant ever, Sachin Tendulkar, has fallen on the shoulders of the one who was once touted as his protégé and clone, Virender Sehwag.

It is no secret that throughout the nineties, Indian hopes rested solely upon the stocky, diminutive right-hander from Mumbai. The exasperatingly effervescent Navjot Singh Sidhu had, for once, put it very well indeed, albeit in his irritatingly inimitable way – “The Indian team is like a bicycle stand; when one falls, all fall together.” More often than not, the ‘one’ in that statement was Sachin Tendulkar.

So central was he to India’s fortunes and aspirations that in any match involving India, when his wicket fell, a collective groan of a billion voices went up as one, and a corresponding number of television sets were switched off. Optimistic statements like, “There’s still xyz” were met with murderous glares. It was criminal to retain hope when India’s favourite son fell. The nation would go into mourning until the match faded from public consciousness.

Back in the nineties, Sachin had able sidekicks in Dravid and Ganguly, but they were the support cast, who could only assist the lead character. The 2000s were characterized by the rise of new posterboys, like Yuvraj and Dhoni, apart from Sehwag himself. Yet, Sachin has retained his leading role and is likely to continue to do so for at least another year.

Sachin is still India’s favourite son. Sehwag knows it and very well knows no matter what he does, he will never receive the same level of adulation from the fans. No one will. In any country. In any sport. Ever.

However, Sehwag’s impact on India’s fortunes today is pretty much the same, the way Sachin’s was in the nineties. While his credentials as a brilliant test batsman were never in any doubt, a fact amply reiterated by his consistently high rankings and that he is on an elite list comprising just two other members, Sir Donald George Bradman, AC, and The Hon Brian Charles Lara, TC, OCC, AM, it was his inexplicable tendency to come a cropper in limited overs cricket that made people discount him as a modern great. Today, however, it seems the time has come when in all 3 formats of the game, he is indispensable to India’s success.

Much has been written about how his manner of approaching an innings is demoralizing to the opposition but here I do not wish to make that point. Here I want to highlight the percentage contribution he consistently makes to India’s cause, particularly in victories. In the recent test series in Sri Lanka, initially it seemed little more than Sehwag versus Sri Lanka, for, not only was Sehwag the prime contributor with the bat, but he never failed to pick up a wicket in the entire series whenever he was tossed the ball. Only when the others got their act together and chipped in did India manage to pull one back and level the contest.

Test matches apart, we have seen how India has failed miserably in two successive Twenty20 World Cups, losing 6 straight Super Eight matches in the absence of Sehwag to injury. This, more than the previous example, proves how indispensable he is in all formats. India would do well to play their key men cautiously in the run up to next year’s ODI World Cup, and the loss of Sehwag we can ill afford.

Finally, more than statistics, results or anything else, public perception is the best judge of the value of the player. Television audiences most definitely halve as soon as Sehwag gets out. No, the television sets continue to play the match and all hope is not lost. People still care about the result. May be it’s a matter of time.

.

The World's Finest

After four weeks of witnessing the good, the bad and the ugly of what the footballing world had to offer to the global audience, the World Cup has come to the very conclusion that one would have expected at the outset, and that had been predicted by the mollusk that beat Michael Jackson at his peak in global popularity ratings. Now that the dust has settled (maybe not in Spain, where a large percentage of the population is probably having a hangover; nor in France, Italy and England, where it never will), I am going to pick out the team of the tournament. Here goes…

Centre Forward: Diego Forlan

Despite the fact that he reveled in a deeper, playmaker’s, in the ‘hole’ role behind the strikers at the Cup, he remains a natural forward and that’s why he will assume that position in this XI. To all those people who think he did not deserve the Golden Ball, and who want a reason why I haven’t picked one from either Klose, Robben, Higuain or Fabiano, I give you four –

1. Forlan played for a far less talented side and has consequently had to shoulder far more responsibility

2. He’s been a better runner on the ball than Klose, Higuain and Fabiano, if not Robben. Klose and Higuain seem to be more of the opportunist types who know precisely where to stay positioned to make the best of the feed from the midfield.

3. His long-range abilities are the best of the 5, both in open play and in freekicks.

4. He's simply scored more goals!

Left Wing: David Villa
A no-brainer, really, and like Forlan, excelled in a position that he is not naturally accustomed to. Yet, he was phenomenal cutting in from the left, and when put back at centre forward following Torres’ exclusion from the starting lineup for the last 2 games, surprisingly seemed to be less effective.

Right Wing: Thomas Müller
Undoubtedly the find of the tournament. A meteoric rise over the past year saw the precocious 20-yearold win the Golden Shoe by virtue of his assists following the four-way tie at 5 goals between Villa, Forlan, Sneider and himself, as well as the Best Young Player award. He could easily play 3 more World Cups given his age, and if he can do so much at 20, is he on the way to emulate the greatness of his namesake Gerd Müller?

Attacking Midfielder: Wesley Sneider
Another fairly obvious selection, which means all the 4 top-scorers are in. He, along with Forlan, is the only No.10 across all teams to really shine at the World Cup, even as more glamorous counterparts like Kaka, Rooney and Messi flopped miserably.

Central Midfielder: Andres Iniesta

The man who will forever be remembered for the winning goal close to the end of extra time in the final, he is half of the midfield ‘carousel’, as Sir Alex Ferguson puts it, of Spain and Barcelona, along with Xavi. Once touted the best player in the world by Wayne Rooney, his darting runs into the penalty area were unfortunate not to have culminated in a few more goals for the side over the 4-week period.

Holding Midfielder: Bastian Schweinstieger
After playing most of his career as an attacking midfielder, it was indeed a revelation to see how well he curbed his attacking instincts and anchored the youthful, yet talented German midfield. That’s not to say he didn’t pose problems for opposition defences, and the highlight of his campaign is his weaving run that cut throught the heart of the Argentine defence and set up the shot for Arne Friedrich. The image of him, bare-chested and disconsolate, with Iniesta’s shirt wrapped around his neck, sadly trudging off the pitch like a boxer who’d fought and lost his last fight, after the semifinal loss to Spain said a million words of how much the defeat meant to him.

Fullbacks: Philipp Lahm & Sergio Ramos
The two best fullbacks of the competition both played on the right for their respective countries, so I do not know which of them will adapt to playing the left flank better.

Phillip Lahm was solid as ever in both defence as well as offense, and surprisingly at home with the captaincy in the absence of Michael Ballack. That’s why he’ll be captain of this side as well.

Sergio Ramos’ contribution to the Spanish campaign has been underrated. Much has been written about the two Ps, Puyol and Pique in defence, the brilliant midfield as well as David Villa, but the value of Ramos’ untiring efforts cannot be stated enough. He is the one Spanish player who doesn’t much like to sit on the ball for an hour and prefers to gallop down the touchline. He created a million chances but sadly his efforts went unrewarded. If there was one player, apart from Lionel Messi, who truly deserved to find the net in the tournament, it was this man.

Centrebacks: Carles Puyol and Gerard Pique
If Iniesta and Xavi was the partnership in midfield that won it for the champions, in defence it was this duo. Just 2 goals conceded in an entire campaign makes for fantastic reading and has to be a record, and even those 2 were in the group stage. Puyol and Pique, along with Casillas, combined to record four consecutive clean sheets in the knockout stage, that too against sides like Portugal, Paraguay, Germany and Netherlands, another feat that has to be unprecedented in the history of World Cup football.

Puyol has proved to be the most resolute defender of the contest. When younger, faster opposition strikers tried to fly past him, he brought all his experience into play to deny them the shot on goal. And when Spain were struggling to find the net against the impressive Germans, the onus fell to the most unlikely candidate of them all, the sturdy, no-nonsense centreback, who rescued the side and put them into their first ever final with as good a header as you’ll ever see.

The majority will be surprised I have picked Gerard Pique, particularly considering the fact that he has had his moments of indiscretion, most notably the pull on the arm of Oscar Cardozo that brought the penalty against Paraguay. He has not had any memorable moments of spectacular defending, but his head and shins have denied opposition teams a million chances over the course of the tournament, particularly in corners, attempted long balls and long-range efforts, most notably against the Germans. For a centreback, he has surprising confidence in advancing with the ball as well, and is never shy of running into the opposition half in open play.

Goalkeeper: Manuel Neuer
This World Cup has been a bittersweet experience for goalkeepers. There have been those, like Ghana’s Richard Kingson, who have impressed beyond the expectations, and there have been many who have failed to come to terms with the unpredictable nature in flight of the controversial Jabulani. There was the temptation to go for the winner of the Golden Glove, the winning captain, Iker Casillas, but he has had his moments with the Jabulani early on. Neuer, on the other hand, has been as safe as a house right through, and his performance is all the more commendable considering he’s had to deal with strike forces as potent as those of England, Argentina and Spain.

That concludes the starting lineup, so I’m going to pick the bench as well (which is essentially a list of the harsh choices I had to make to pick out the best XI) –

Forwards:
Miroslav Klose and Arjen Robben would be the ideal substitutes for the forwards. Similarly Lionel Messi could either come in for Thomas Müller on the right wing, as he does for Barcelona, or even for Wesley Sneider, since Maradona used him as playmaker and Messi did not look a touch out of place. In fact, I suspect (or predict, rather) that as he matures and his career develops, he might make a permanent transition from forward to just behind the strikers in the long run.

Midfield:
The choice between Andres Iniesta and Mesut Ozil troubled me to no end, and it was only after the final that Iniesta marginally edged out the young German. Ozil’s darting runs were instrumental in the slaughter of England, and he is one for the future.

It also pained me to omit Spanish playmaker Xavi Hernandez, so he definitely makes the bench and is the ideal substitute for Sneider. Similarly Mark van Bommel was a giant in the heart of the Dutch midfield and is the ideal man to play in Schweinstieger’s place. He will likely be remembered as the villain of the final for his incessant tackling, but then that was precisely the role he was meant to play.

Defence:
The choice of the centrebacks was easily the most difficult to make. This is a position where the contribution is so crucial, yet difficult to quantify. I settled on the Spanish pairing, but Netherlands captain Giovanni van Bronckhorst and Germany’s Arne Friedrich were equally deserving. As far as the fullbacks are concerned, I can’t think of anyone but the two picked in the starting lineup.

Golkeepers:
Iker Casillas definitely makes it here, as does Portugal custodian Eduardo, who denied the Brazilians in front of goal, and kept the Spanish at bay for quite a while.

The most impressive coach for the tournament, it must be said, was Joachim Löw. He managed to successfully foster and nurture a young talented side as diverse as having 11 players in the squad who could have represented another nation. Since this XI is of even more diverse nationality, Löw is a must.

Most of the pre-tournament buzz centred around Argentine legend Diego Maradona, and whether he would prove inspirational enough to lift the South Americans to the greatest heights of all. Unfortunately, his tactical nous fell miserably short of that of Löw, and the 4-0 drubbing stands testimony to that. Similarly, there is sufficient reason to pick Vicente Del Bosque, the former Real Madrid manager who has managed to build a winning outfit around a strong core of Madrid archrivals Barcelona. However, he has had an embarrassment of riches at his disposal, certainly a larger abundance of talent than any of the other managers have had, and it would have been a massive disappointment had he not won the trophy with this set of players.

Joachim Löw has stated that it was his endeavor to create a winning team by combining the grit of the English, the flair of the Spanish and the defence of the Italians. This is easier said than done, but Löw has come as close to the desired outcome as humanly possible. He took a few strong decisions in not taking a few senior players into the squad and gave the younger talents the opportunity to shine. His German contract was to end after the World Cup, but, needless to say, after ending as one of the successes of the tournament, it has been extended. If he stays on till Brazil 2014, one cannot help but think the Germans would be one of the frontrunning contenders to the title. Admittedly, Miroslav Klose will not be around then, but I can’t wait to see how the likes of Müller and Özil perform with 4 years of experience behind them.

.