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.

.