Practice: How important is it? (Part 2)

This is in continuation of my last post on the subject of practice. Since then I’ve conducted a few impromptu experiments, with a stop watch, as to the extent and quality of practice that one can get through the Knack drill (discussed in my last post) and the results have really surprised me.

Some of you who have read my last post may want to ask, what purpose hitting a slow moving ball against a wall will achieve? More than you think. I have never once heard of a single great footballer who didn’t practice his skills against a wall (with sometimes not even a football but the bladder of some animal wrapped in rags) and look at the skills these guys have. It’s all about making the most of what you have.

The Knack drill  requires that one stands at a distance of only 8 feet from a wall and try to play the ball on the rebound for as long as possible. By my calculations a golf ball, when thrown from this distance, rebounds and reaches the player on the bounce in somewhere between 0.90 to 1.05 seconds. This is a generalization in the sense that it depends on how fast you throw the ball in the first place. Let me qualify my statement further and say that during these experiments I was doing two things at the same time, i.e., throwing/catching the ball as well as working the stop watch – I might’ve obtained more accurate results with a partner assisting me.

In this drill since the player shapes to play the ball once it hits the wall, therefore, it gives him about half a second to play the ball, i.e., between 0.45 and 0.525 seconds. The bat’s downswing, the feet moving towards the point of impact and the transfer of weight required to hit the ball is all achieved in that time. This attunes the body to move quickly, from the feet up to the head, into an appropriate position to play the ball repeatedly – thus making this motion second nature and almost instinctive.

Once again, what good does this drill do for a club cricketer starved for practice? In addition to developing good middling habits…

Ian Pont, in his book ‘The Fast Bowler’s Bible’ claims that the standard club quick bowls somewhere in the vicinity of 70-77 miles per hour. This implies that the ball reaches the batsman, over the 22 yards, in somewhere between 0.58 to 0.64 seconds. In fact, with someone bowling at 100 miles per hour the ball will reach the batsman, over 22 yards, in 0.45 seconds and at 90 miles per hour in 0.50 seconds.

So, in short, the Knack drill helps the player to develop reflexes which allow him to play with comparative ease balls delivered at around 90 miles per hour (or quicker) once adapted to the 22 yard length. The only problem then seems to be one of picking the ball up over a distance of 22 yards and to be able to see it when it’s travelling at speeds in excess of 90 miles per hour.

Practice: How important is it?

In his book ‘Outliers’, published in the year 2008, Malcolm Gladwell discusses the ‘10,000-Hour Rule’ which postulates that for excellence in any field, be it music, sports and/or software programming, repetition of specific tasks for a 10,000 hour period is one of the key requisites.

So, where does that leave us cricketers? Ideally, practice involves some form of the following basic feedback-loop:

1.       Laying down specific goals for acquisition of certain skills;

2.       Repetition of tasks to hone those skills;

3.       Feedback with regard to actual performance of those tasks; and

4.       Adjustments are made in the way the tasks are performed (to get improved results).

All of us know that rarely does a cricket practice session follow the ideal requirements of practice. The demand of catering to all team members in limited time means that the batsmen get fixed timeslots at the crease while bowlers get rotated. Most of us also know that bowlers hate to be cannon fodder even if it is in the nets and will not willingly consent to feeding pitched up deliveries to the batsman so that he can groove his shots. In such an environment, the chances of getting in a large number of repetitions of a given task (while also getting feedback as to the success or otherwise of one’s efforts) can be pretty limited. Forget about hitting the 10,000 hours of practice in the nets alone.

So, from the batman’s perspective, it basically boils down to throw-downs – the average club cricketer in Pakistan would be lucky to even glimpse a bowling machine let alone practice on one. The issue with throw-downs is that they are often hell on the shoulder of the coach or partner feeding the ball. Secondly, there is often the problem of finding a partner who matches your drive and desire to practice.

If that is indeed the case then a ‘no-cost’ and ‘no-partner’ alternative can be found in a variation of Sir Donald Bradman’s childhood game of hitting a golf ball with cricket stump against a wall, repetitively. This is similar to playing tennis against a wall or kicking a football against a wall or like many squash players who practice their game alone while playing the ball on the rebound.

The Don in his book the ‘Art of Cricket’ states that any aspiring cricketer should take the opportunity to play as much as possible with a ball (no matter if it is a baseball, tennis ball, golf ball or a cricket ball) as it develops the brain’s capacity to understand the movement dynamics of the ball.

To try to match Sir Donald’s skill by using golf ball and cricket stump would be overwhelming for most of us (huge understatement here). It would be more appropriate to begin with a small plastic cricket bat (wider surface to control the ball) and tennis ball (slower and bigger target) and try to keep the ball in play on the rebound for as long as possible. As one’s skill level improves one can move to a faster ball and/or a smaller/narrower bat. Initially, it might seem odd and unnatural but if you stick to it you’ll observe a huge change.

As I’ve referred before in my blog, Mr. Anthony Shillinglaw has written a book titled ‘Bradman Revisited: the Legacy of Sir Donald Bradman’. He has suggested the following exercise in his book as a first step to practicing the way the young Don did. The point of this drill, that he calls ‘the Knack’, is to develop a habitual and automatic body response for the purpose of controlling a fast moving ball.

You stand opposite a wall at a distance of about 8 feet in a manner similar to a tennis player or a squash player. For a right handed batsman the bat is held in the left (top) hand and the ball is thrown at the wall with the right. At what height and speed the ball is thrown depends upon the skill of the one practicing. The ball rebounding from the wall should bounce once before reaching you and you should strive to hit it back to the wall to play again and again on the rebound.

The focus of the player should be on the ball which will aid automatic response to the moving ball. The effort should be to strike the ball with the full face of the bat and to try to hit through the ball and allow the bat to continue past the shoulder in a rotary/circular fashion to start back behind the shoulder. Compared to when you move the bat back after striking the ball, to start again at the top of the downswing, this saves precious time especially when the ball is moving fast. It also helps develops a full follow through which once acquired will aid you to hit the ball with more power in an actual cricket match.

As your skill level improves you may feel like moving on to playing with a faster ball and a narrower bat. Repeated practice in this manner will not only aid better middling but develop relaxed focus on the ball.

The changing face of the limited overs game

With the modern day ODI innovations of changing the ball after 34 overs, the batting powerplay and the advent of the T20 game, gone are the days when bowlers held sway in the slog or death overs of a limited overs game.

Now, there’s almost no possibility of bowlers getting reverse swing and with the field drawn up in the batting powerplay – generally taken in the last 5 overs of the innings – a target of even 10 odd runs an over appears to be a cakewalk. Add to this the fact that the T20 game has taught cricketers that no total is un-gettable and ODIs are no longer an even contest between bat and ball.

A few good overs and even 12-14 runs an over can be achieved. Even if you don’t have too many wickets left, some lusty and charmed hitting in the batting powerplay sees the ball sailing all over the ground mostly to the bowler’s disadvantage. Will we ever see the spectacle of a pair of bowlers, like Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis, changing the course of a match with deadly reverse swing at the death?

I doubt it. However, ironically, although the contest is no longer even between bat and ball, what it has done is that it’s made the game more evenly poised between the big teams and the not so big teams. The difference between mediocre sides and great ones is at times only because of some great bowlers – think Glen McGrath, Shane Warne, Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis – and once the bowlers are no longer as potent as they used to be then you have more evenly matched sides. At least in the limited overs game.

Consider the results of the last 4 ODIs played in United Arab Emirates and Australia. South Africa and Australia were the favourite teams while Pakistan and Sri Lanka were the underdogs. We’ve seen Sri Lanka pull off a miraculous win against Australia where they were 107 for 8 chasing a target of 240. Lasith Malinga and Angelo Matthews pulled off what must be ranked as the biggest heist in the history of ODI cricket by scoring 132 runs in quick time to leave the Aussies totally hapless. In the process they also managed to break the existing world record for the 9^th wicket between Syed Kirmani and Kapil Dev against Zimbabwe in the 1983 World Cup.

In a similar manner underdogs Pakistan managed to snatch two improbable victories (both by the slimmest margin of one wicket with only one ball to spare) against South Africa in the 2^nd and 4^th ODIs of their 5 match series. In the 3^rd game although Pakistan was unable to pull off a victory but they got so close to winning that cracks started to appear in the much vaunted South African fielding and bowling.

It looks as if the big guns have started feeling the heat and evidence of choking has been evident in all of the last 4 matches. What does this imply for the future?

Watch out for the 2011 World Cup to be played in India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. On low, slow and batsman friendly tracks we might well see a new Champion emerging in place of the once mighty Australians (3 consecutive World Cup winners), especially since they are no longer as mentally tough and dangerous as they used to be.

Kudos to Fawad Alam but whom to blame?

Last evening Fawad Alam played one of the best knocks of his short ODI career and nearly pulled off another improbable win for Pakistan.

Under trying conditions Fawad Alam managed to make a chase of the target despite the established big guns having returned to the pavilion. He was ably supported by Wahab Riaz who played a gem of an innings in a short but extremely sweet stay.

Fawad Alam was struggling to time the ball early on and you could see that he was not a happy man. But on the departure of Abdul Razzaq he took charge and despite the earlier troubles manfully took the attack to the South African bowlers. Once the batting powerplay was taken in the 43^rd over, Fawad Alam hit a couple of consecutive boundaries and courageously went about making the most of the fielders coming into the circle.

Fawad Alam, small and slim, doesn’t appear to be a big hitter of the ball but he ably nudged and chipped the ball around to keep up with a scoring rate of over 9 an over. Had Wahab Riaz not stepped in it might have been too much of an ask for Fawad Alam, however, he was game for the challenge. That’s what impressed me most about him. I’m a fan of his from now on, no matter what anyone else might have to say.

Wahab Riaz’s cameo was extremely timely but, unfortunately, the decision to tell him to calm down may have caused his downfall. I believe it might have been better to just let him continue to tear apart the South Africans.

At the end I felt like strangling Saeed Ajmal. Let me just say first off that as a bowler I have great respect for him despite that disastrous performance in the T20 World Cup Semi-Final against Australia where Michael Hussey took him to the cleaners. However, in this match he really let Fawad Alam (and the Pakistan team) down in his childish attempts to play the hero. I could see Fawad Alam advise him to stay focused on the singles but he was still going for the big wild hoicks – without any success.

Do any of you remember another wicketkeeper named Zulqarnain from the 1986 Australasia Cup final in Sharjah? He was the one who got bowled while playing a cross batted heave when all that was needed was for him to take a single and give the strike to Javed Miandad. Miandad that day, with Tauseef Ahmad’s help and despite Zulqarnain’s failed heroics, managed to win the game for Pakistan by hitting the last ball for a huge six and earned legendary status just for that feat alone – he was otherwise a legend too, the first real finisher in the ODI game. But I digress. Zulqarnain never played for Pakistan again as far as I can remember – that’s the influence of Imran Khan for you. If you couldn’t be a team man then you couldn’t be in the team.

If Saeed Ajmal, who is primarily a bowler, let the team down by not tapping the ball and looking for singles then Imran Farhat, the opening batsman, badly let the team down with his selfish and tortoise-like 47 runs for which he wasted 86 balls. I felt a bit of glee at his dismissal. He should be axed. He can’t bat and doesn’t field too well either. Had he been able to fill in a part time bowler’s role I might have tolerated his inconsistent and selfish batting but what does he bring to the team?

If I had my way I’d play Kamran Akmal purely as an opening batsman in the ODIs and T20 games. The pressure to perform well in two areas would be taken off Kamaran Akmal’s shoulders and he would be able to focus simply on his batting. Plus being a keeper he would make a better fielder than Imran Farhat.

Fawad Alam and Wahab Riaz created so much pressure on the South Africans that they literally forgot how to bowl and field. The line and length was once again inappropriate (to say the least), simple catches were dropped and overthrows conceded. Panic had set in and just some sensible batting from Saeed Ajmal would’ve given Fawad Alam the opportunity to cash in on this breakdown in the well-oiled machine that is South Africa.

In contrast to Abdul Razzaq’s innings in the second ODI, Fawad Alam, who is not one to score too many runs from boundaries alone, was not in a position to decline singles and make up for it with sixes and fours. It also shows that Saeed Ajmal who has been run out on three consecutive occasions on this trip, i.e., twice in the ODIs and once in the second T20 game, can’t be relied upon to give the strike back to the scoring partner.

Abdul Razzaq didn’t trust him to give the strike back in the second ODI and thus Saeed Ajmal’s wicket was sacrificed – very calculating of Abdul Razzaq but thank God for that. And maybe that’s why Pakistan won that game otherwise Saeed Ajmal would’ve managed to ruin that game for Pakistan too.

If I have come off giving the impression that some of our team lost us the match then please let me correct that impression. Just as Abdul Razzaq won the last ODI single handedly with his century, so too did Hashi Amla for his team in this match.

The reason I haven’t yet covered Hashim Amla’s excellent knock in my post is that since it was he who was the difference between the two sides, therefore, he deserved space all to himself at the end. South Africa managed to score 228 simply because of his 119 runs which were scored off only 126 balls – in an innings where only one other batsman was able to score more than 20 runs. He was all that stood between Pakistan bowling South Africa out for maybe as little as 150. Pakistan bowled extremely well – for me Shoaib Akhtar was simply outstanding. But Hashim Amla batted even better. I can’t praise his knock enough.

Having watched South Africa since their readmission to international cricket I have yet to see any South African batsman who doesn’t look blocky and machine-like while batting. Unfortunately, I’ve never seen Barry Richards bat or Graeme Pollock take the crease so I concede that pre-apartheid era batsmen may have been different. From what I have seen since 1991 they seem to have none of the grace and elegance that someone like Ricky Ponting or Mark Waugh or most batsmen from the sub-continent possess. They are the “technically correct” yet “unpleasing to the eye” specimens of batting consistency. Their game is based on brute strength and graft in various quantities.

However, the exception, in my humble opinion, to the above statement is Hashim Amla. He has grace and elegance. He seems to be perfectly balanced while executing his strokes. To top it all off he doesn’t appear to be scoring half as quickly as he actually does. It is at times a surprise that he has scored a fifty without you even having noticed him get there. Why would that be? Because he does it with “effortless ease”.

Compared to Hashim Amla, Imran Farhat is “ease-less effort” and no results. Enough said.

The many faces of Abdul Razzaq

The 109 off just 72 balls which saw Pakistan securing an unlikely victory over the machine-like South Africans, in Abu Dhabi on Sunday, was the greatest innings that Abdul Razzaq has ever played in any form of the game.

He was cool throughout and appeared totally in control of his nerves and shots. He never once showed any signs of nervous energy, which so many batsmen display through jerky movements and long walks towards square leg.

He knew he was the man to finish the job and declined to go for singles when most would have taken a single and relied on their batting partners to give the strike back to them. He even sacrificed Saeed Ajmal, the number 10, to retain the strike. This shows how calculated his approach was.

It looked as if he had a concept of the way in which he wanted to win the match and he didn’t want to stray from the script. Such was his influence on the game that he scored 62 of the last 65 runs.

He imperiously dispatched the ball flying over the fence on more occasions than he hit fours. Why pierce gaps with ground shots when you can hit huge sixes over the heads of fielders? How many of us gave up hope of Pakistan winning the match when Fawad Alam was dismissed? Not Abdul Razzaq.

For most, who had the pleasure to see his superlative century, this type of cricket is what really defines Abdul Razzaq. He is known for his big hitting and not so consistent performances.

The inconsistency in his performances stems partially from being switched around in the batting order. He has batted at every position from number 2 to 11. Most frequently he has batted at the numbers 7 and 8 positions – 122 out of 212 innings have been at these positions. Once he has even batted as the last man but that was very early in his career.

I remember that he was once even touted as future captaincy material because of his all-round skills, patience and his nerves of steel. The reasons why he didn’t attain that job aren’t apparent but there may be some truth in the allegations that he did not see eye to eye with Inzamam-ul-Haq’s policy of enforced Islamisation of the Pakistan team.

Surprisingly, for a man who has come to be known as a destroyer of bowling attacks – when he is in the mood – he was used in a unique role in the 1999 World Cup in England. In fact, the way he batted patiently at the one down position was even given a name – ‘pinch-blocker’. His 9 innings in that tournament yielded 170 runs at a measly average of 18.89 but amazingly his strike rate was 46.20 per hundred balls - more in keeping with a Geoffery Boycott or a Sunil Gavaskar than the man we know as Abdul Razzaq.

In another uncharacteristic display (for the big hitter in him) during a Test in Mohali, India in 2005, he scored 71 runs in Pakistan’s second innings off 260 balls for which he batted for 346 minutes, i.e., five and three quarter hours. Pakistan managed to stave off defeat thanks to Abdul Razzaq and Kamran Akmal staying together for 56 overs.

It is said that he knows only two ways to bat – stop or stomp. Allegedly, Inzamam-ul-Haq described Abdul Razzaq as having a first and fourth gear only. He does have a tendency to get bogged down if you don't allow him to score off his favourite shots but heaven help you if you can’t stop him from playing his staple big shots.

He first made his appearance based on the strength of his bowling but over the years he has lost some pace and bite. However, many will recall his 5 for 31 against Sri Lanka where he, with devastating reverse swing, took 4 wickets without conceding any runs in just 9 balls. The match was tied even though at one stage Sri Lanka needed just 24 runs off 10 overs with 8 wickets remaining. That performance may have been the bowling equivalent of the match winning century he scored over the weekend.

The soldier-like demeanor of Abdul Razzaq is what the Pakistan team requires but to be fair to the man he needs to have a settled place in the team. The consistency will then be on display.

Up, up and away

I

n my last post I talked about the probable reasons why I was picked to play cricket on Saturday and I must confess that all my conjectures were incorrect, which actually wasn’t such a bad thing after all.

I wasn’t picked because our team’s kit was in my custody. The team I played for had their own kit – which I too used. Nor was our wicket keeper selected because he had a kit. We were apparently both picked because there was room for a wicket keeper and a bowler in the side.

The match was played in a sports complex maintained by the Pakistan Army. There was tight security – armed patrols in open topped vehicles – and lots of checkposts even before we reached the ground. Once at the ground we could see that we were right in the middle of a high alert army establishment with a sandbagged machine gun post manned by a helmeted soldier and more armed patrolling.

In the background an army band was playing martial music to the beat of the traditional army drummers. Over at one end of the complex it was clear that there was a firing range. We could frequently hear, loudly and clearly, bursts of shots being fired all day long.

Historically, England’s Test matches in Pakistan have often been interrupted by rioting, tear gas and aerial firing which they, with good reason, have found disconcerting. If ever the England team want to practice under simulated conditions to get their players used to threatening environments then this would be the place for them. Constant reminders about the law and order situation in the shape of checkposts, machine gun nests and armed patrolling. Background noises of intermittent firing and army personnel doing their drills to the accompaniment of loud shouts (of what sounded like “Ten-hut”) and the crashing of heavy military issue boots in unison are designed to get the blood pumping.

Well, our blood did get pumped up. Winning the toss and batting first our side managed to score freely early on. In this we were generously helped by some really wayward bowling by the opposition. With the runs coming without restraint and the ball traveling very quickly over a level outfield I felt as if our opponents were short of men.

Incidentally, THEY WERE ACTUALLY ONE MAN SHORT! Their eleventh player was expected to arrive shortly and in the spirit of camaraderie I was asked to help them make up the numbers and I duly complied. It was all very cordial and generous.

The wicket as my younger brother said was in two-tone. There were large cracks at one end while at the other end it was fairly well packed and smooth. You could actually see a triangular patch where the smoothness transitioned rather abruptly into cracking. We decided that when our turn to bowl came our best bowler, a quickish left arm spinner who has actually played first class cricket – albeit in the last century – would be allowed to make full use of the cracks.

Apparently it never occurred to our opponents that their leg-spinner (a young man who had represented Islamabad at the Under-19 level) could make exceptional use of that patch. He had good bounce and the ability to bowl a mean googly which was hard to read. Failure to make the most of what resources a captain has often results in lost matches.  

The score kept piling on till the spinners were introduced. By that time our team had scored 90 odd runs in the first 8 overs for the loss of only one wicket. However, with the ball not coming on to the bat quite as nicely and the occasional kick and jump that the spinners were getting the scoring rate soon started to fall slightly. The situation wasn’t alarming but our batsmen soon started losing their wickets in wasted attempts at picking up the scoring rate. So much so that in the last 12 overs we lost 9 wickets while scoring 93 runs.

I’m sure some of you might remember I opened the batting in the last match that I played. Well, the mighty had fallen and pretty badly too. I was last man in with only 9 balls to go in our allotted 20 overs. I took a couple of singles off as many balls while my partner also tried to keep rotating the strike. With 2 balls to go I decided to risk going over mid-off against the off-spinner. I failed to reach to the pitch of the ball and smother the spin. I know, I know. I deserved to get out… and I did. Do I have to recite the rule that one should never drive against the spin?

Our innings ended with a hiss rather than a bang but we had managed to score 188 off our allotted 20 overs.

When the match resumed after a short break, I was given the ball for the second over and the first ball I bowled was, I believe, the worst ball I’ve ever bowled. It was really short without much pace and wide of the off stump. The batsman’s eyes must’ve lit up and he must’ve smacked his lips too. God knows he had enough time to smack his lips as well as the ball, that’s how slow the ball was. He cut it straight to the fielder at point. Unfortunately for him he didn’t manage to keep it down and the catch was smartly taken. I HAD STRUCK!

I was more exultant about the fact that I had picked up a wicket with the worst possible ball than having got an important breakthrough. There was a lot of back thumping and handshakes all around and then I was coming in to bowl again. I made a couple of balls whiz just outside the off-stump beating the batsman before bowling a couple of wides down the leg. A misfield led to a four and a bad ball resulted in another. But at the end of the over I bowled one just outside off which the batsman managed to steer to point – the same fielder who had taken the smart catch off my bowling – and set off for a sharp single. The throw came straight to me and I was in position behind the stumps. The batsman was caught just short of his crease. We had struck again.

Superman bats

The fielder (he shall remain anonymous) who took the catch off my bowling at point and affected a run out in the same over had earlier also managed to pick up a couple of boundaries before being brilliantly caught at short third man – an unlucky dismissal. His dashing attire when stepping out to bat reminded us of the ‘Man of Steel’ – not the two time ex-premier of Pakistan but the man from the planet Krypton – SUPERMAN!

Superman returns

These early strikes created a lot of pressure on the opposition and for the fourth over of the innings I was taken off and our best bowler came on to bowl and he actually did make really good use of the cracks. It was an inspiring move. The runs dried up and the batsmen started getting desperate.

We were not only able to keep the score down but also pick up wickets with great regularity. Soon enough the required rate also started pressing our opponents to attempt the worst possible shots. Although a couple of them did make valiant efforts to retrieve the situation but it was a case of too little too late.

The opposition had not helped themselves by conceding around 30-40 runs in extras and dropping a couple of catches – whereas we managed to keep the extras down and didn’t drop any catches. Furthermore, just as our main bowler (the left-arm spinner) really turned the screws on their batsmen by using the cracks at one end of the wicket so might their main bowler (the leg-spinner) have done too had he been used from the right end. Missed opportunities can make or break a match and the captain.

In the end we won by around 47 runs – I can’t be sure because the scoreboard was only updated at the end of each over and I didn’t check the exact score with the scorer – and just as we walked out of the ground it started to rain.

It was a perfect end to a thoroughly enjoyable match. Even more so when you take into account the margin of loss in the previous match that I played.

Next post I'll try and write an ode to Abdul Razzaq's superlative batting exploits in the second ODI against South Africa.

How I was selected for tomorrow’s T20 match

This morning I was looking to arrange a hike with a very good friend of mine for early on Saturday and I was desperate to go on the hike. Why was I so desperate to go hiking and what does hiking have to do with a blog on cricket, you might ask?

Well, the hike was an alternative to playing cricket (which plan unfortunately did not come to fruition). I was beat up about not playing on Saturday – for me, these days, the week consists of Saturdays and Sundays, i.e., cricket days, the rest of the days are just fillers – but I put on a brave face and didn’t let people know how disappointed I really was.

Even the hike was in doubt as my friend, let’s just call him Mr. T, had caught the flu virus. So, all in all, it was a cricket-less prospect over the weekend. The boys (very few of them are actually boys) can’t seem to gather heart for practice either.

About a couple of hours ago all that changed when I got a call from another friend who is arranging an office tournament. He asked me if I wanted to play. I don’t think he needed to ask. The answer was obvious but apparently he didn’t have any idea about how cricket mad I’ve become – or maybe he did.

The long and short of it is that I’ll be playing a T20 match tomorrow.

Once I was comfortable in the knowledge that I’d be playing, I reflected upon why I was asked to play. Could it be because I’m that good a player? Or could it be because my friend, out of loyalty to me, was providing me an opportunity to indulge my passion? Maybe a bit of both.

Then it really hit me – not literally – that I’d been picked mainly because I’m the chief custodian of our team’s cricket kit (bats, pads, boxes and gloves).

CRASH! Down came my ego, just like the mouse that ran up the clock.

The feeling lasted for a few minutes only, i.e., until I got a call from our team’s wicket keeper, who incidentally is also my younger brother, informing me that he too had been asked to play in the match. He had been picked because he had a wicket keeper’s kit!

On further reflection I decided that whatever the reason for my being picked was I was fine with it. All I really wanted to do was play. So, it turned out to be a win-win situation. I would get to play and they would get to use the kit. I’m happy and can easily live with it. Why this unburdened a conscience despite having cheated our team of its kit? I’ll explain.

It’s because I’m a ‘sifarishi’ ? That’s Urdu for one who uses his or her connections to get an unfair advantage or gain – the beneficiary of nepotism, so to speak. Ever since I was a little kid I’ve been the beneficiary of my connections. If you doubt what I’m saying I’ll tell you the story.

When I was 4 years old I was rejected for admission to kindergarten because I lacked a basic grasp of concepts, which were required for admission, and additionally had behaved in a sullen and unresponsive manner during my interview – the school mistress simply didn’t feel that I would fit in.

What turned their decision in my favour was the fact that a relative of mine intervened on my behalf to get me an admission. It was my older brother, all of 6 and half years old, who interceded on my behalf. It turned out that the school had a policy of giving priority, at the time of admission, to siblings of already enrolled students – thus my brother was instrumental in getting me enrolled simply by virtue of being a student.

I love Mrs. Shuja, the head mistress, for having given me the admission. I also love my brother for having had such a huge influence on my academic career for without his efforts I may have remained one of the many hundreds of millions of illiterate Pakistanis.

In the same way, I love my friend for having picked me and I also love our cricket kit because it got me picked. Otherwise I may have remained one of the billions of less privileged people of the world who won’t be playing cricket on Saturday.

Was last evening a repeat of the one before that?

What can I say? I was wrong to hope for this quick a revival in the Pakistan team's fortunes. If you want my analysis of the match why don't you just read last evening's post - it would save me the effort to do it all over again and would still be fairly consistent with what happened in the second T20 game.

All I have to say is that, as a friend of mine posted on last evening's post, Shahzaib Hasan sucks. As does Muhammad Hafeez and the way Shahid Afridi lost his wicket was just terrible. Imran Farhat and his bloated belly also do not deserve a place in the team, in my humble opinion.

Another thing I observed was that, as the commentators kept pointing out, the Pakistan batsmen simply rely on instinct in execution of their batting plans whereas focusing on percentage shots may yield better results. Its all very well to play tape-ball cricket shots though during a slog the bowler and his captain are pretty confident of their probability of picking up wickets. However, proper yet aggressive shots combined with sharp singles tend to create pressure on the bowling side as the bowler's chances of getting a wicket are reduced and the score still mounts. Thus creating a headache for the captain. What's generally called the 'horns of a dilemma'.

I'm afraid that the factors which made the Pakistan so formidable a side in the early phases of the Twenty-twenty revolution is now contributing to its downfall. As bowlers have worked out alternate strategies to deal with prodigious hitters so have batsmen worked out strategies for dealing with the slower balls, yorkers, slow short balls, etc., but the Pakistani solution to this is reverting to what they know best - tape-ball cricket basics.

Amazingly, although our batting is causing us headaches we have a bowling legend as coach and another world champion bowler as bowling coach but no batting coach. Why? Is the PCB unable to interest anyone in the job? Maybe its got something to do with the life expectancy of the incumbant? Still the team has travelled to the United Arab Emirates with 8 members as support staff - what's the harm in having a 9th?

And why the heck is Intikhab Alam willing to work (as manager) with those very charges of his whom he, in his capacity as coach, labeled "mentally retarded" after the Australian debacle? It must be the money associated with the job otherwise why would a sane man go back to working with individuals who don't know how to properly "dress" and "talk"?

What are we in for next? I fear we might even see Yawar Saeed making another appearance as manager. Why? Simply because like our players and the public the PCB also simply doesn't learn too well from past mistakes.

Cheerio.

Was a total of 119 runs enough?

There’s not much I can say about last evening’s performance by the Pakistan batsmen. People keep suggesting that keeping in mind our bowling attack a total of 119 may have been enough had Shahid Afridi bowled with his customary miserliness. It shows that people at home are so used to the Pakistan team’s batting collapses and super human bowling efforts that for them even a total of 119 runs was defendable. Well, not every day, my dear.

I don’t think its fair to blame Afridi’s going for 23 off just 2 overs for Pakistan’s loss. The credit for the loss goes to the South African bowlers and spineless batting by the Pakistani batsmen. The South African bowlers were able to restrict our batsmen to 6 runs or less in 12 of the 20 overs. The last 10 overs saw only 42 runs being scored for the loss of 6 wickets. Between the 11^th and the 17^th overs our batsmen could only manage 20 runs and lost 4 wickets in consecutive overs with one of them being a maiden. That has to be labeled as excellent bowling no matter how low an opinion we may have of our batsmen.

In fact, a total of even 119 runs was made possible because Imran Farhat came on strike after the first ball in the first over. Had Shahzaib Hassan, a right hander, been on strike the wide deliveries that Albie Morkel bowled would have landed in what Geoff Boycott is fond of calling the “corridor of uncertainty”. However, his line was all wrong for Farhat who stroked two of them to the fence and four of them were down the leg and were rightly called wides. 14 came off the first over and add to this the no balls bowled by the other brother, Morne Morkel, and you have an inflated total – what would you say to a total of less than a hundred?

Despite Shoaib Akhtar’s heroics early on and some tight bowling by Saeed Ajmal and Umar Gul, in South Africa’s chase, their batsmen were under no great pressure because the required total was so meager. Yes, had the Pakistani batsmen scored around 30 odd more runs then we might have had a cracker of a match.

So, forget match fixing and team controversies and acknowledge that the South African bowlers were able to get on top of our batsmen. I do believe that our team will bounce back strongly… if not in today’s match then in later matches.

Please let me have your comments either way.

Visual cues from the batsman – can they help?

I've been wondering about how subconsciously bowlers and captains pick up a lot of information from the batsman (which if they were asked to explain they might not be able to do). I've noticed that players to whom things come naturally often aren't very introspective or articulate when it comes to analysing those components of their game which make them a success. However, those players who aren't naturals at the game have to work hard and rely on their acquired skills to develop as cricketers. These guys sometimes make for more analytical and thoughtful players. Generally speaking, that is.

This is why most outstanding ex-players don't make such good coaches compared to the less talented ex-players. The ability to first of all understand one's performance (or lack thereof) and subsequently explain it to another in such a manner as to make it practical is one of the most essential qualities a coach must have. If you have that ability then the certificates and the experience come in extremely handy but the absence of that ability in the first place makes for uninspiring and dogmatic coaches.

So, what are the cues that a bowler picks up from the batsman against whom he's playing for the first time? I'm assuming that this blog is addressed towards club cricketers and, to my knowledge, club cricketers aren't blessed with enough resources to have access to video footage of their opponents based on which to make their plans and set their fields.

There are clues in everything we do – the non-verbal sub-text to our lives. It is estimated that around 90% of communication is non-verbal. So, if we can learn to read the signs properly we may easily gather what the sensory information that we are receiving tells us. In cricket this input is generally based on the visual and auditory senses. We'll focus only the visual cues.

What do bowlers see when they observe the batsman at the crease?

1. Some don't see anything;
2. Others don't consciously see anything; and
3. Only the best see what needs to be seen and then let it register in their conscious minds.

The first type may make good cricketers but will most probably be overshadowed; the second type are naturals at what they do and have a sort of gut instinct about what to do which can't be explained but generally tends to work more often than not; and the third category is composed of those who not only are naturals but also have the ability to understand and communicate what their subconscious is telling them about. These are best teachers, mentors and coaches.

I've tried to cover the bases from what I've learnt about cricket from my father (while he was imparting his experience to us), the experts commentating on matches and partially from my own experiences. These are not hard and fast rules but general guidelines only – however, I do believe, though we all may know these principles, most of us tend to lose sight of them when needed most.

So, what do YOU see?

The batsman's grip

It is said that ideally the batsman's hands should be close together in the middle of the handle with the top hand firmer and the bottom hand there for support only. The batsman's hands form two 'vees' between the index finger and the thumb of each hand. The bottom 'vee' is in line with the splice of the bat while the top hand opens out towards the outer edge of the bat. Supposedly, this allows for a straighter/proper downswing and increases the probability of playing the ball with the full face of the bat.

However, there have been many notable exceptions to this generally held rule. Don Bradman had his top hand turned back also in line with the splice of the bat, Javed Miandad held his hands apart on the handle, Sachin Tendulkar holds the bat low on the handle, while Adam Gilchrist held the bat with his hands high on the handle and yet all of them are batting legends.

So, there's no one way to hold the bat but the way someone holds a bat tells us a lot about them.

If the batsman holds the bat closer to the bottom of the handle then the following may be inferred:

• Gives him more control over the ball;
• Gives him more power at the point of impact;
• Doesn't require a very high back lift;
• May prefer playing off the back foot;
• May prefer playing horizontal bat shots; and
• The batsman's reach is reduced thus possibly making it difficult to drive the ball.

If the batsman holds the bat higher on the handle the following may be inferred:

• The batsman's reach is increased;
• May prefer to play off the front foot because of the greater reach;
• May find that short pitched bowling causes some discomfort;
• Control over the ball may be reduced; and
• Requires a higher back lift to generate power at the point of impact.

If you see a batsman with a gap between the hands on the handle then his hands may not move together thus possibly sacrificing some fluency, however, this may result in added flexibility to nudge and work the ball around corners.

It would be appropriate to mention that these are general guidelines and there are exceptions to every rule. Don Bradman held the bat low on the handle, had his top had turned back and it is also said that he did not keep his hands close together either. He was a phenomenon. He mentions in his book 'the Art of Cricket' that because his top hand was turned backwards, therefore, his bat presented a slightly closed face. This resulted in him having some restriction when playing in the arc between mid-off and point, however, his leg side shots were always along the carpet.

So, the bowler still has to work out the pros and cons of bowling to a batsman's perceived technical disadvantages.

The batsman's stance

In case the batsman stands with his feet too close together the following may be inferred:

• Such batsmen are generally good back foot players; but
• They may sacrifice some balance.

Conversely, a batsman with his feet wide apart may have the following traits:

• Such batsmen tend to be stronger off the front foot; but
• They may lack adequate foot movement.

In case a batsman has too side-on a stance he may have some problems with sharply incoming deliveries but will generally fare better against away going deliveries as long as he maintains adequate awareness of where the off stump is.

Conversely, a batsman with a chest on stance may face more problems with the away moving ball but this stance makes it slightly easier to play the incoming deliveries (especially from the left armers) as long as the batsman does not lean over too much.

If the batsman leans over too much, i.e., his toes and head are not aligned properly, then the sharply incoming delivery can be a potential wicket taker (as such batsmen may be unsure of where their off stump is) and having a short mid wicket in catching position may be advisable (as his onside ground shots may fly uppishly). However, be warned that batsmen who tend to fall over are generally good onside players and prefer scoring runs on the leg side.

The batsman's guard

Batsmen who take the leg stump guard generally prefer to play on the off side and make room by staying alongside the line, whereas batsmen who take the middle stump guard tend to be good on the leg side and love to whip it through the onside.

The batsman's back lift

The main features to be observed here are the height of the back lift and the arc of the bat as it comes down to meet the ball.

First we discuss the height of the back lift.

• If the batsman has a high back lift he may find it hard to adapt to changes of pace as a high back lift requires earlier commitment to the shot; and it is possible that he may be late in bringing the back down to keep out the yorkers.
• A batsman with a low back lift though being adept at keeping out the yorkers may struggle if the ball has no pace on it as such a batsman relies on the bowler's pace to hit the ball forcefully.

In case you observe a wider back lift the following are reasonable inferences:

• Such batsmen need to make a circular sweep of the bat to get it down straight in line with the ball's flight;
• If this is not so then the bowler would be well advised to try the in-dipping delivery to check the gap between the bat and pad; but
• Such players tend to be extremely good at playing the cut, pull and hook shot.

Most batsmen coached in the orthodox art of batting reveal a very straight back lift, a la Graham Gooch, Chris Broad, etc. This allows the bat to move down straight in line with the ball's trajectory. But this has the disadvantage that the cross batted shots like cuts, pulls and hooks may be compromised. This is because, if you observe carefully, all cross batted shots begin with a back lift wide of the stumps. It's virtually impossible to play a decent cross batted shot with a bat taken straight back. Thus a batsman with a very straight back lift will have to instantly decide to switch to a wider back lift for the short and/or wide balls if he wants to play the cut, pull or hook. Otherwise when playing cuts he will be merely fending at the ball with an angled bat. Slip catching practice.

I hope the above discussion may be as interesting for my readers as it has been for me. If you have any comments, arguments, additions, input and/or criticism please feel free to comment. I look forward to reading your thoughts on the subject.

Where is our fielding headed?

The recently concluded Faysal Bank T20 Cup received a lot of attention and created a lot of hype in the media. A new sponsor for the format has been found auguring well for the domestic circuit. The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has used the success of this tournament to make various claims including the viability of playing international cricket in Pakistan.

With Pakistan being one of the most successful T20 sides in the world to date it is felt that homegrown talent first makes its mark on the domestic scene through performances in this competition. Already most club cricket has gravitated to the T20 format and amateurs no longer look at the longer formats of limited overs cricket with much favour.

It’s true that the 20 over format is exciting and provides instant gratification. It’s replete with big hitting, direct throws, diving tackles on the ball, electric running between the wickets, lots of wickets falling and edge-of-the-seat finishes. All in all, it’s a young man’s game.

Surprisingly, the award for the best fielder of the tournament has been given to Muhammad Yousuf. The bearded 36 year old was never known as an outstanding fielder. It was always his performances with the bat which have led to his being acknowledged as one of the most elegant and stylish batsmen ever produced by Pakistan. In 90 tests he averages 52.29 runs per innings and has scored 7,530 runs at a strike of 52.39. His 24 centuries and 33 fifties and the fact that he has bettered Sir Vivian Richards’ world record aggregate in a calendar year amply prove his mettle as a batsman.

My question is regarding the criterion for the award of the best fielder of the tournament and whether it shows something about perceived importance of fielding in Pakistan cricket?

If the basis for this award was simply the number of catches held then it is too simplistic a criterion. Is just the number of catches held a well-defined measure? How would you rate a fielder standing at point who stops 20-30 runs, affects a run out or two (and if not a run out at least creates enough doubt in the batsman’s mind about running when the ball is hit in his direction) and manages to score 20-30 runs too?

On their 1992-93 tour to South Africa, led by Mohammad Azharuddin, the Indians simply eliminated the square cut from their repertoire as the fielder at point, one Jonty Rhodes, made it too risky and unproductive a shot to play. Imagine the influence that one outstanding fielder had on the game and the immediate pressure on the batsmen to score elsewhere. On the bouncy and quick South African wickets the square cut is a staple shot for scoring in the area behind point – eliminating it means taking away a huge advantage.

 If in case Yousuf was the best fielder then it is a reflection of the fact that in Pakistan we do not emphasise the importance of fielding to the side and thus do not encourage our players to improve in this area.

A case in point is the performance of the Pakistan team, in the fielding department, especially during the Test series played since their triumph in the 2009 Twenty20 World Cup in England. Multiple catches have been dropped in almost all Tests and matches have been gifted to the opponents. Where catches haven’t been dropped Pakistan has beaten Australia and England in England this last summer.

Where are the youngsters? Why aren’t they the best fielders in our domestic game? Is the development of our young and upcoming cricketers focused only on building up of batting and bowling skills? What does it take to produce fielders comparable with Jonty Rhodes, Ricky Ponting and Herschelle Gibbs?

Please comment and let me have your opinions on this.

Imran Khan – leading from the front

As a child my hero was none other than the legendary Imran Khan… and he still is. He had everything; a great run up, blinding speed and disorienting movement plus he was dashing, too.

I remember a poster I used to have of Imran Khan, from way back in the late seventies, in a white kit, open at the neck, with his trademark baggy Pakistan team peak cap and holding his bat under one arm. He seemed to be leaning against a wall with that shy and charming smile… I wanted to be just like him. My mother tells me that I used to ask people if they thought I looked like him.

As a batsman he was rock solid and was devastating when the mood took him or the situation demanded it. Some of Pakistan’s best performances were recorded when he was captain even with a weak team boasting only a few stars in the lineup - especially compared to the halcyon days of the seventies when a Pakistan team was almost exclusively a collection of stars. He always led from the front. I don’t remember many instances when Imran or Javed Miandad failed to rise to the occasion.

He was a super star in the true sense of the word. Not like the media-hyped stars of today but one who commanded the media and the world to acknowledge his greatness.

His beginnings in Test cricket were entirely forgettable but where his true greatness lay was as a thinking cricketer who reinvented himself as a bowler and in later years as a batsman of note too.

In the process he showed that he was a truly inspiring leader of men and by sheer will, performance and hard work managed to redefine the Pakistan team as well. Gone were the days of the seventies when despite being a star studded side Pakistan would easily capitulate when the pressure got too much – similar to the Indian team of a later period. With a team much weaker, on paper, than that of the seventies he managed to achieve what they had failed to even dream of.

In his first series as captain, in the summer of 1982 in England, Pakistan managed to win its first Test on English soil after a wait of 28 years since its first such victory. A first ever Test series win in India in 1986/87 – just as daunting a task as it still is – was followed by Pakistan winning its first ever Test series in England in 1987.

On either side of these successes, he led Pakistan in two drawn Test series against the mighty West Indians of the 80s – one at home and the other away. In an era when the West Indians were sweeping away all resistance, the Pakistani team under Imran’s leadership and coupled with Javed Miandad’s strategic and tactical nous was not only able to withstand the barrage but also dish it out. These were truly no-holds-barred battles between some of the greatest names in Test cricket.

You may recall that England had earlier been drubbed 5-0 not just once but twice. The 1983 World Champions – India – who managed to snatch the title from the West Indians were drubbed 3-0 in India. Like against the Borg in the Star Trek franchise, it appeared that resistance was futile against the West Indians too, but not so for Imran. That was the true test of his mettle.

The way Imran led his tigers in the 1992 World Cup and the way fate conspired to give him a befitting send-off from the stage of cricket is known to all of us and shows that what man wills, man can achieve – at least he could – and, therefore, he is an inspiration to a whole generation of Pakistanis.

Towards the end of his playing days Imran was also involved in the establishment of the Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital – an unmatched endeavour – where he managed to motivate a whole nation to pool resources to fight this terrible disease.

Having waxed lyrical about my hero without having done an ounce of justice to the man, I recount below his career statistics but bear in mind that they tell only part of the story:

Tests - Batting and fielding averages
Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	6s	Ct	St
88	126	25	3807	136	37.69	6	18	55	28	0

Tests - Bowling averages
Mat	Inns	Balls	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	4w	5w	10
88	142	19458	8258	362	8/58	14/116	22.81	2.54	53.7	17	23	6

For any bowler, an average to die for, similarly as an all-rounder his record was impeachable. As an all-rounder, Imran’s contemporaries included Sir Ian Botham, the tireless Kapil Dev, and Sir Richard Hadlee. It is recorded fact that Imran’s batting and bowling averages were better than any of them. Though he may not have scored more runs than Sir Ian or taken more wickets than Sir Richard or played as long as Kapil Dev, Imran, at least to me, remains the best all-rounder there ever was – maybe barring Sir Garfield Sobers.

Do I hear a few of you say that averages don’t tell the whole story?

Indeed they don’t. Let’s see what we have.

Ever since the ‘Man of the Series’ awards have been dished out, Imran is the second most awarded player in Test cricket – second only to the magician Muttiah Muralitharan. But Murali managed 11 such awards from a total of 61 Test series that he played. Imran on the other hand won 8 awards in only 28 series that he played over his career. After Imran is ranked Sir Richard Hadlee with 8 awards from 33 series that he played. This clearly shows that Imran was a player who dominated not just a match or two but whole series.

Similarly, a perusal of the top 41 best bowling performances by a captain, listed by Cricinfo.com, reveals Imran Khan featuring on 8 occasions - by far the best. On the other hand, in the 75 best bowling performances by a captain of a losing side, again listed by Cricinfo.com, Imran only features once. This shows the true force of his personality. Except for once, whenever Imran performed well with the ball, Pakistan never lost a game. That’s how influential Imran really was.

But that’s not all. Comparing his overall batting performances, listed above, with his performance as captain, i.e., 1982 onwards, we see a sea change. Imran captained Pakistan in 51 Tests, and during that period he scored 2,477 runs at an average of 51.60 per innings with 5 hundreds and 15 fifties (a record any batsman would die for). Compare it to the pre-captaincy period where he only had 1,330 runs in 37 Tests at an average of 25.09 with only 1 century and 3 fifties. Remember he only had a total of 6 centuries and 18 fifties at an overall average of 37.69. As a batsman he led the team from the front as he liked to say.

And not just as a batsman, as a bowler, Imran picked up 204 wickets at only 19.91 runs per wicket – his pre-captaincy bowling average was 26.56 and please keep in mind that towards the end he was only a shade of the bowler he earlier was. His strike rate as captain was 48.70, lower than his pre-captaincy strike rate of 60.27, and even his economy rate was 2.45 compared to his pre-captaincy economy rate of 2.64 runs per over.

Imran was able to improve his performances in all areas of the game after he became captain of Pakistan and that is why he is rated so highly not only as a bowler or an all-rounder but as a true leader of men.

Imran Khan was and still is the true Pakistani hero simply because the media, the politicians and the players may lie but the numbers never do.

Hail the great Khan!