India lucky to do well

[Gambit]

What's luck got to do with it? Sambit Bal at Trent Bridge July 28, 2007 Throughout the first two sessions, India had the fractions running for them, as all the marginal lbw decisions went in favour of batsmen © Getty Images From the evidence available so far in this series, it would seem God has taken up residence in India. The escape at Lord's was nothing if not providential and, at Trent Bridge, the breaks have all gone in their way so far proving - not the for the first time - cricket is as much a game of luck as it is of skill and pluck. And, above all, it is a game of fractions. Throughout the first two sessions, India had the fractions running for them. Balls kept evading the edge by the thinnest of margins, catches fell short marginally and all the marginal lbw decisions went in favour of batsmen. India were 149 for 1 at tea, which, if you were not watching, would have pointed to utter dominance by the batsmen or complete ineffectiveness of bowlers, or both. The truth is that it was none. The ball seamed and swung all day and James Anderson, Chris Tremlett and Ryan Sidebottom beat the bat repeatedly, sometimes off successive balls. They would have bowled much worse for far more but today was the kind of day when nothing would stick. Nothing should be taken away from Wasim Jaffer and Dinesh Karthik. On paper the weakest links in the Indian batting line-up, they have managed four fifties between them in three innings so far on this tour. When journalists in the press box wondered about when an Indian opening pair had last put on a hundred, it was easy to point them in the direction of Cape Town , where these two ran up 153. And crediting luck doesn't do justice to their fighting performance here. In conditions such as today's, even Geoffrey Boycott would have played and missed. Under the circumstances Jaffer and Karthik were gutsy, skilful, and nothing short of heroic. Not only did they survive, they made use of every scoring opportunity. You could say that they made their luck. Under the circumstances Jaffer and Karthik were gutsy, skilful, and nothing short of heroic. Not only did they survive, they made use of every scoring opportunity. You could say that they made their luck England nevertheless will rue their lack of fortune. Nothing would illustrate it better than two overs after the lunch break that fetched India 18 runs. Karthik hit two gorgeous fours off Paul Collingwood's first over, the first an inventive cover drive that was played off a horizontal bat after taking a couple of paces down the wicket; a couple of balls later, he drove down the wicket. In between, though, an uppish drive landed narrowly short of James Anderson at cover and the next ball looped off the leading edge but landed well short of mid-on. The next over, two fours were taken off Tremlett. Jaffer drove the first one through the covers but the next one was squeezed between gully and second slip. Tremlett induced another edge the following ball but Ian Bell, diving to his left at gully, couldn't hold on to it. On another day, England could have had two wickets in those two overs; today they leaked 18 runs. And on another day, Monty Panesar could have had two wickets in his first two overs. With his first ball, he caught Karthik sweeping plumb in front and, given how progressive umpires have been about lbws in the series so far, the decision seemed only a formality. But Ian Howell, the South African umpire who had handed out two leg-befores yesterday, though against pace bowlers, negated it. Wasim Jaffer escaped when equally plumb the next over. Not that a lot should be read into this because India have worked hard to take command of this Test. If, however, they don't go on to win this Test after having all the luck in the match so far, they will know just whom to blame.

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/304133.html

[Ram]

All this talk of luck going India's way is absolute bull. All that matters in the end is whether you have the skill to back it up and India have shown they can adapt to the conditions better than England. They fully deserve to be where they are now.

[yoda]

yes, luck has gone our way, and it was about time. after the horrible series in the windies where rain and the umps ganged up against us, this is a welcome change.

[Ram]

Ok , you have duly fallen into the trap of the English commies , who want us to believe that luck has gone our way.

[yoda]

Ok ' date=' you have duly fallen into the trap of the English commies , who want us to believe that luck has gone our way.[/quote'] let's be realistic. we were an over or two from losing the first test. yes, RD's wicket was crucial, but we have been shafted by the umps AND have gotten screwed by the rain in the past as in windies. and in this one, atleast two lbws i saw weren't given both off monty one to jaffer (hit him just in-line much like the SRT decision of last test) and other to karthick off the sweep. but i totally believe we deserve these lucky breaks as we have been at the other end far too often.

[feverpitch]

let's be realistic. we were an over or two from losing the first test. yes, RD's wicket was crucial, but we have been shafted by the umps AND have gotten screwed by the rain in the past as in windies. and in this one, atleast two lbws i saw weren't given both off monty one to jaffer (hit him just in-line much like the SRT decision of last test) and other to karthick off the sweep. but i totally believe we deserve these lucky breaks as we have been at the other end far too often.

ok... so luck had no role in the fact that the poms got the best use of the pitch in the 1st test, esp in the 1st innings.

[Ram]

let's be realistic. we were an over or two from losing the first test. yes, RD's wicket was crucial, but we have been shafted by the umps AND have gotten screwed by the rain in the past as in windies. and in this one, atleast two lbws i saw weren't given both off monty one to jaffer (hit him just in-line much like the SRT decision of last test) and other to karthick off the sweep. but i totally believe we deserve these lucky breaks as we have been at the other end far too often.

As far as the series is concerned , yes we have been lucky. But wrt today's match situation , we fully deserve the position we are in . We have outbatted , outbowled England comprehensively so far.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Mandrake]

"From the evidence available so far in this series, it would seem God has taken up residence in India. The escape at Lord's was nothing if not providential and, at Trent Bridge, the breaks have all gone in their way so far proving - not the for the first time - cricket is as much a game of luck as it is of skill and pluck. And, above all, it is a game of fractions." Luck..hell yeah..about time after getting roasted time and again.Glad to know that this performance has driven the likes of Sambit Bal to tears:haha:

[veer]

sala your career at cricinfo is also about luck..

[Mandrake]

sala your career at cricinfo is also about luck..

well said veer....:hysterical::hysterical:

[Hawkeye]

To throw some clarity into whether there was an element of luck or not, those watching the SKY coverage might have picked up on the re-running of the two Panesar and one Anderson lbw shouts. Except for the last one the appeals should have been upheld. That coupled with the numerous times that the seaming deliveries skimmed past Jaffer's and Karthik's bat rightly suggests that the Gods of fortune had their blessings in the Indian camp. What the SKY commentators conveniently failed to emphasis was the gutsy innings delivered by the openers in difficult conditions with plenty of movement both in the air and off the seam. Quite simply you don't get to 147/0 when the ball's darting with just "luck".

[Ram]

Well said Hawkeye ! Excellent set of opening posts from you ! :thumbs_up:

[Predator_05]

Well' date=' what can I say about Cricinfo? Had it been any other team instead of India nobody would have said that they were lucky. Most of their writers are English. So you know what to expect from them.[/quote'] On the contrary, most of the writers who cover Indian matches are in fact, Indian. Sambit Bal, Vaidyanathan, Dileep, Vasu, etc.

[varun]

On the contrary' date=' most of the writers who cover Indian matches are in fact, Indian. Sambit Bal, Vaidyanathan, Dileep, Vasu, etc.[/quote'] Coconuts the lot of 'em

[silentstriker]

If you don't think India have been lucky, you are living in denial. There is nothing wrong with luck, and luck was squarely going against us during the series in WI, and a couple tests in SA. That's cricket. Until we find a way to make decisions 100% correct, these things happen. The important thing, as Sambit Bal suggests, is to capitalize on that luck. The WI couldn't capitalize on it against us, and SA could. It's to be determined if we can against England...

[King]

He had a go at the Indian bowlers too after day 1. This writer comes across as someone completely miffed with anything Indian. All he does is credit the conditions for Indian bowlers' showing on the first day. Wonder what he reckons about England bowling in these conditions. Of course he mentioned luck didn't he? All he's saying is if Indian bowlers bowl well it is because of the conditions and if Indian batters get runs it is because they were lucky. Conditions couldn't have been better for India's seamers Made to order Sambit Bal at Trent Bridge July 27, 2007 Zaheer Khan looked dangerous from the first over, both slanting the ball across and cutting it in © Getty Images Here's the irony of it: the Indian bowlers were always going to need conditions to be really English to have a shot at dismissing England cheaply. They got their way today. Rahul Dravid won a toss he perhaps wouldn't have minded losing for he was forced to choose to bowl whereas he prefers batting first, but it gave his bowlers the perfect conditions: the air was heavy, clouds hovered around, there was a nice breeze blowing, and the pitch was juicy. In fact, it could be said their day could have ended even better had one of their bowlers not sprayed it around. RP Singh got the most important wicket of the day and he induced a genuine edge from Ian Bell, but he was also the most profligate, straying both in line and length. That was a shame for he had been India's most impressive bowler at Lord's, where he bowled within his limitations. With eight wickets in the bag, he was perhaps seduced by his own wicket-taking potential and ended up not doing the job normally assigned to the third seamer: the job of keeping it quiet. And in fact, it had seemed like a familiar story at tea. After being reduced to 47 for 3, England had ended the session at 94 without further loss with Alistair Cook and Paul Collingwood latching on to some loose balls. They added 47 in 9.2 overs and England's run rate that point was nearly four. The momentum had turned, and an hour more of that and it could have been England's day. In fact, it was an indictment of India's leading bowlers that Sourav Ganguly opened the attack after tea but India were fortunate that he was up to the task. There had been a doubt before the match whether he would play and an even bigger doubt over whether he would be able to bowl for he had been afflicted with a stiff back. But in conditions that suited his kind of bowling, he was excellent, bowling a length that did not allow the batsmen the luxury of either driving or cutting. With the ball nipping around all day, he demanded caution. He was India's second most economical bowler of the day, just a shade behind Sreesanth, and for the second time in the series he nabbed Alastair Cook, who looked England's most assured batsman, leg before. Hawk-Eye showed the ball going over, but it was a wicket well earned. In many ways, it was the most crucial period of play for India. The 15 overs after tea produced only 18 runs and fetched two wickets. Ganguly's spell read 7 overs, 3 maidens, 11 runs and 1 wicket. It was as good a spell as you could ever expect from him. RP Singh got the most important wicket of the day and he induced a genuine edge from Ian Bell, but he was also the most profligate, straying both in line and length. Which was a shame for he had been India's most impressive bowler at Lord's where he bowled within his limitations. But with eight wickets in the bag, he was perhaps seduced by his own wicket-taking potential and ended up not doing the job normally assigned to the third seamer: that of keeping it quiet India were also grateful for an opening spell befitting a new ball bowler in Zaheer Khan. He had let his team down woefully in helpful conditions on the opening day of the Lord's Test but here he looked dangerous from the first over, both slanting the ball across and cutting it in. Andrew Strauss fell to a bad shot - and despite his first-innings half century at Lord's he has looked England's weakest link - but the ball that got him was just the kind of ball that was likely to get him. The fullness drew him tentatively forward and the movement found the edge. Strauss has an impressive Test record but he hardly has a stroke in front of the wicket. The Australians dried up his runs during the Ashes by bowling full to him, and the rest of the world is beginning to get wise to his limitations. Sometime soon England's selectors will have to start looking at options. The ball that found Michael Vaughan's edge was a peach. Zaheer had been slanting it away from him and had pinged him on the head with a short ball. Then there was the one that straightened off the pitch, forcing Vaughan to offer his bat. Zaheer was always menacing, apart from the second spell, when he went for runs against Paul Collingwood and Cook. Ganguly's effectiveness also hid Sreesanth's patchy bowling. As always, he bowled some good balls, but he often bowled wide on either side for batsmen to be bothered to play. He beat Bell several times outside the offstump but in reality none of those balls was close enough to get the edge. At stumps India, in capturing seven English wickets for 169, had justified their decision to bowl first but the harder job lies ahead. The conditions are expected to stay the same and England have the bowlers to exploit them. If England manage to take their score near 200, it will not be as meagre a total as it might seem. Given that more rain is predicted on Sunday and the drainage facility at Trent Bridge isn't anywhere close to what it was at Lord's the weather could yet again be a significant factor. But it must be said that it has also been a blessing. A glut of runs had been predicted for the series. But so far the contest between the bat and the ball has been thoroughly absorbing. High first-innings scores rarely produce thrillers. India have won the first day, but this match has just begun. It is full of possibilities.

[silentstriker]

I don't understand, where is he wrong? Indian bowlers aren't going to knock a side over with pace, nor the bounce. They aren't exceptionally tall, fast or accurate...they would obviously need English conditions. Even with English conditions, Sreesanth was pretty inaccurate...similar for RP Singh. Only Zaheer consistently put the ball in the right areas, and we know he is a (as Bumble puts it) 'daisy' bowler: some days he does and some days he doesn't. What is your beef?

[King]

I don't understand, where is he wrong? Indian bowlers aren't going to knock a side over with pace, nor the bounce. They aren't exceptionally tall, fast or accurate...they would obviously need English conditions. Even with English conditions, Sreesanth was pretty inaccurate...similar for RP Singh. Only Zaheer consistently put the ball in the right areas, and we know he is a (as Bumble puts it) 'daisy' bowler: some days he does and some days he doesn't. What is your beef?

Credit the bowlers for taking 60 wickets so far. It's all good to have conditions favour the bowlers but they have to bowl in right areas often. BTW this is English conditions and England batters should ideally be better adept at playing at home. Moreover England has been playing a lot of cricket at home recently. They just finished a test series and a ODI series against West Indies. The England batters have been in good form with the bat but have still been bowled out thrice. Does that tell a story? India has played Bangladesh in Bangladesh recently and have had 2 test match post world cup. India had last played test match against South Africa in South Africa quite some time ago. BTW do you remember how many times India knocked over South Africa in South Africa with pretty much the same bowlers? The conditions then weren't English, were they? Simply put the writer has absolutely no idea what's transpiring in the middle. When India bats well it's luck and when India bowls well it is because of conditions. If you haven't read once I urge you to read it again until you get the drift. If you don't get the drift, well that's your problem.

[Donny]

What the SKY commentators conveniently failed to emphasis was the gutsy innings delivered by the openers in difficult conditions with plenty of movement both in the air and off the seam.

Not so. The openers earned plenty of praise from the SKY (Fox here) commentators.