News reports and photos - India/Eng 2008

[zubinpepsi]

The foreground and the back ground tell a tale of extraordinary cricket.

the background screen is simply awesome.. very classy....

[Shane]

The BEST !!!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[goose]

Will the real winner raise his hand ? http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/cricket/will-the-real-winner-raise-his-hand/2008/12/16/1229189623611.html

Will the real winner raise his hand Greg Baum December 17, 2008 Sachin Tendulkar. Photo: Reuters Advertisement SOMEWHERE far away, in a hot place with lots of guns, Sachin Tendulkar made a fifth-day century to lead India to improbable victory against a hitherto dominant England. It was Tendulkar's 41st Test hundred, and he dedicated it to the 172 victims of last month's terrorist attack on Mumbai. Cricket, latterly a grubby business, was ennobled. But you were easily forgiven for overlooking the feat, because in Australia, an out-of-work drug addict had a stroke of luck and scratched his ****. When it comes to distorting perspective, there is no place like home. Today in Australia, there will be more high-profile, lavishly covered ****-scratching, but also some cricket, when Australia plays South Africa at the WACA Ground. "The top two teams in the world, challenging each other," Australian captain Ricky Ponting wrote in his newspaper column yesterday. But is that a home truth, or the truth as it looks from home? The International Cricket Council rankings say it is first versus second, but in cricket, as in all sports, perception frequently lags behind reality. To January this year, Australia won 16 Tests in a row. Since, it has won four of 11 — two each against the West Indies and New Zealand. It has played India six times, winning none, losing three. South Africa has been sound, winning nine of 13 matches in the calendar year and losing only to India in Kanpur and a dead rubber against England. Two victories were over Bangladesh: ie, byes. But it did beat India at Ahmedabad — a feat that was beyond Australia. Seemingly, it is a team with a new mindset. India has won six of 13 matches, losing to South Africa and twice to Sri Lanka, in Colombo. But it is plainly a side on the up. It is undergoing generational change, making it hardier and more adaptable. It has twice won matches away, redressing an old failing. Since Perth, it plainly has had Australia's measure. Now it has overthrown England from behind. Of course, it beat Australia from an innings behind in Calcutta in 2001, but that proved to be an historic freak. This has a more permanent feel. "Gradually, certainly, India are moving towards a stage where to win is not a hope but an expectation," wrote Cricinfo's Sambit Lal. "To call them the new Australia will be glib. Australia's reputation has been earned over a decade-long dominance. But India are acquiring an aura of their own." Australia has set the mark, but it is not playing up to its own standard. At some point, what was recognised as a faltering must be acknowledged as a decline. One calendar year proves little, but two would. Sadly, the cricket world is in such upheaval that no thesis is easily tested. Australia's status will be clear after six Tests against South Africa and five against England. But India's series against Pakistan next month is likely to be cancelled, and thereafter it will have to make its own amusements on visits to the West Indies and New Zealand. That is tomorrow's business. Today, it is Perth. "The main event is finally here," exclaims Cricinfo. But will it be the winds of change, or just another draught?

[Holysmoke]

*raises hand*

[Guest Hiten.]

*raises hand*

not wiener :finger:....WINNER!

[f.b.m]

Why not a Wiener? Hell, I'm a Wiener!

[DomainK]

This one from SachDan:

[SachDan]

The Tendulkar debate has shifted gears By Suresh Menon Four years ago, the debate in India centred on whether Sachin Tendulkar was finished as an international batsman. Now the debate has shifted gears, and the discussion has settled on another Tendulkar subject: will he score 50 Test match centuries? That's nine centuries away and the batsman is 35, but it is his 41st century that has started the speculation, and I daresay, some serious betting. His last nine centuries came in 43 Tests and over four and a half years; in Sri Lanka earlier this year as he finished with a highest score of 31 in six innings, Tendulkar was being written off again. Yet, now with centuries in his last two Test matches, and more significantly, a century in a fourth innings chase and victory, Tendulkar seems to have regained his place on the pedestal and in the hearts of his countrymen. Now everything seems possible. The magic is back. Fantasy has met reality. By scoring the century - and by a happy coincidence bringing up the three figures and India's victory off the same shot - Tendulkar has come to terms with some lurking demons. That he has not batted India to victory enough number of times in the fourth innings has been a constant criticism. Almost a decade ago, at the same venue, he made a superb 136 against Pakistan as India chased 271 for victory. He was seventh out at 254, and India lost by 12 runs. On Monday, he controlled the middle part of the innings, guided Yuvaraj Singh into playing the innings that might consolidate his position in India's middle order, and finished it all by thumping the air like a goalscorer in a World Cup soccer match. It had all come together for India's greatest batsman. Yet, for once, the Man of the Match award went to the right player. Well as Tendulkar played, and despite two centuries by Andrew Strauss, the single decisive effort was indeed Virender Sehwag's 83 off 68 balls. Skipper Kevin Pietersen has come in for criticism for his field placings and England's lacklustre bowling. But his team lost the game on the fourth afternoon when they scored just 54 in the middle session (with two boundaries), and led India to believe that this was a team that did not know how to win. This was a better bowling attack, more balanced than the one fielded by Australia in the previous series. England underlined that by dismissing India for 241 in the first innings, but just when their spinners ought to have taken charge, the inexperience of debutant Swann and the lack of cricketing nous by the left armer Monty Panesar let them down. Panesar was over defensive, and there was no one to jerk him back into reality - this was a Test match and he was expected to take wickets! For India, victory may or may not have helped cover up some deficiencies. The most glaring, of course, is Rahul Dravid's continued non-performance at number three. This struggle is as much a misery for his fans as it is for himself. Can India afford to keep him on? Harbhajan Singh has been bowling too fast, too flat and needs to rediscover the form that has fetched him over 300 Test wickets. He is no longer a supporting act, but the side's number one spinner - a fact that does not seem to have sunk in sufficiently. Mahendra Singh Dhoni's captaincy follows the laissez-faire route where the seniors are concerned. He has been supportive of Dravid and feels Harbhajan has the experience to sort out his problems. But sometimes a word in the ear can make a difference.

[rkt.india]

has anyone seen the video of Atul Sharma which Ian Pont mentioned?

[cochise]

Excellent article by Roebuck: http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/382487.html

Win-win situation Every now and then a Test match comes along that transcends the moment and lifts the spirit. Chennai was one such December 17, 2008 If ever cricket needed to rise to the occasion it was over the last few days in Chennai. Emotion plays an enormous part in sport. Try as we might with computers and figures and replays and analysis, sport is still concerned with the spirit and the split-second. Sometimes it sends the spirit soaring, and in that moment all the fuss and attention seems justified. At other times it sinks into the tawdry and mundane and hardly appears worth the bother. But sport is most missed when it is denied, when matches cannot be staged, competitions are cancelled, stadiums closed. It was the removal of the tribute to WG Grace from the Long Room that alerted MCC members that war was coming and long, dark nights lay ahead. As far as previous generations were concerned, sport was most appreciated after the two World Wars. Nowadays we argue about trivialities, work ourselves into a lather about slow over-rates and no-ball rules and sightscreens that will not shift. In 1919, though, and again in 1946, crowds flocked to cricket grounds and players dusted off old trousers and oiled bats just so that the game could be played. Somerset fielded almost the same team in 1947 as in 1937, yet it was almost good enough to win the championship. Hardly any new players had emerged, a decade had been lost. But the fact that standards had dropped did not matter; cricket was being played, a world had been preserved. It was a life-reaffirming experience Don Bradman had to be persuaded to play again after the second war, and the strongest argument put to him was the need to raise morale. People were suffering from lost friends and family members, and rations, and bombed-out buildings. All the more reason for sportsmen to get back onto the field and provide entertainment and enrichment. Everyone knew it was going to be hard, everyone wanted to laugh and love, and sport could help in that healing process. After all it is an expression of mateship and youth, and it had tradition and history and health and hope. Matches between India and Pakistan have likewise often been moving occasions, as the enmity of nations was put aside and everyone remembered they came from the same place, spoke the same language, wore the same clothes, were the same colour, ate the same food, had the same yearnings, and ought to be pals. During the 1996 World Cup, Indian and Pakistani cricketers played in the same side after the Australians and West Indians had refused to go to Colombo, and that, too, was a fine occasion. Pakistan won a close match in Chennai years ago, whereupon Wasim Akram took his players on a victory lap and the crowds cheered. Here is sport's truest self. Often betrayed, often exploited, but somehow intact. Sceptics might argue that England returned to India after the Mumbai blasts because they wanted to take their share of plums from the IPL pie. Perhaps it was a consideration. Mixed motives are commonplace. It is rare for any act to be entirely pure. But it is dull and dreary to dress every act in the clothes of cynicism, for then a man can never laugh except at his own cleverness. The fact remains that Kevin Pietersen did bring his boys back, all of them and the vast entourage that accompanies England teams through thick and thin. The fact remains that England agreed to play two Test matches in a country still shocked by outrages intended to spread terror and division. India, too, met the challenge. By all accounts the security was tight but not oppressive, and towards the end the crowds flocked to the stadium to support the teams. By all accounts, too, the visitors were as popular as the hosts, which has not always been the case. Happily, the sides produced a wonderful match. Often it happens that way. Every now and then sportsmen sense that they are part of something much bigger than themselves, an event that reaches into hearts and minds, and a contest that goes beyond mere cricket. And then they reach outside themselves and the petty interests that dominate all our lives. That the match was an epic lasting five days before ending on its highest note with its greatest player surpassing himself added to the effect. Every now and then sportsmen sense that they are part of something much bigger than themselves, an event that reaches into hearts and minds, and a contest that goes beyond mere cricket. And then they reach outside themselves and the petty interests that dominate all our lives Of course the Test was closely followed in Australia. Nothing else was happening locally, and anyhow the Aussies had recently suffered at the hands of the Indians and wondered how the Poms might fare. For three days it appeared that a resolute England outfit might prevail. Andrew Strauss batted with skill and gumption, while Paul Collingwood surpassed himself. Collingwood and Ashwell Prince can be listed among batsmen with records that defy the talent apparently at their disposal. Between their mighty innings, Graeme Swann struck yet another blow for finger-spinners by breaking through the Indian top order. Remember when orthodox spin was a thing of the past? Now it is making an unexpected comeback, with all sorts of supposedly humdrum operators troubling batsmen. Jason Krezja, Nathan Hauritz, Swann and Paul Harris have contrived to take wickets. As the fourth innings began, India needed to score 387 to win. Of course everyone knows the story, but that has never mattered in books or movies. Probably England had already lost the initiative with a timid batting display on the fourth afternoon. Far from imposing themselves they seemed scared of defeat. It never takes long for sentiments of that sort to be sensed by an alert opponent. By the time the home openers marched to the crease the Indians had a spring in their step. Sport is a state of mind Judging from their responses to his vivid innings, England had not previously seen Virender Sehwag at his most audacious. Bear in mind that 12 months ago he had lost his place in the side. Australians, on the other hand, are well aware of his powers. Now he caused such disarray in the opposing ranks that in a trice fieldsmen were running hither and thither, most of them ever further from the bat. Yet Sehwag is no mere thrasher. Rather, he is an intelligent and consistent batsman who has managed to remain instinctive and creative. It is a most unusual combination. He is not remotely as barmy as he seems. Although he was removed before stumps, he had given the Indian innings its momentum and caused a furrowing of brows in the England camp. Happily, the last day lived up to expectations. Of course, the match might have gone the other way, but India was not to be denied. No less significantly, the home side was sustained by two exceptional cricketers playing highly significant innings. Until a month or so ago Yuvraj Singh was cast as a lasher of bad bowling suited to slow pitches and lacking the footwork needed for five-day cricket. True, he had belted hundreds against a Pakistani attack lacking the services of its fastest bowler, but the track had been as dead as pacifism. He seemed to be destined for a brilliant but brittle career, to become a glamorous millionaire with a shallow record. Accordingly it came as a surprise to discover that respected domestic players and Yuvraj's supposed rivals held him in high regard. One explained that he had stood at the bowler's end while the lofty lefty played some of the most stunning shots he had seen - blocks that went to the boundary, and effortless clips that cleared the ground. Next came a sturdy showing against England in the ODIs. Yuvraj constructed match-winning performances, indicated in a weight of mind as well as stroke. Still he needed to back it up at a critical moment in a Test match. For his part Tendulkar had managed to become the highest scorer the game has known without quite convincing local thinkers that he was a match for Brian Lara. Although his qualities were acknowledged, the harsher observers felt he had let India down at vital moments on the fifth days of Test matches. In short, he had won matches from the front but not the back. They questioned his temperament, pointed towards the quixotic Trindadian's mighty efforts in run-chases. Nor were these sages persuaded by arguments that no man has ever been without fault, or that taken as a whole, Tendulkar outstripped any contemporary and almost all predecessors . As always in these cases, there was just enough merit in the argument to demand a response as opposed to a scornful dismissal. And there was only one man capable of making that reply. Time was running out. Tendulkar had shown signs of his best form against the Australians, but had also displayed growing vulnerability, suffering from several bizarre lapses of concentration. All the more reason to take the opportunity presented on the fifth day in Chennai. No champion likes to leave anything on the table. And Tendulkar did seize his moment, did play the conclusive innings, did win a Test against the odds, did keep his head for five intense hours. It was not merely a superb innings. It was a veritable masterpiece. And so the match ended with Yuvraj and Tendulkar supreme and England beaten but not disgraced. Over the years I have sung Tendulkar's praises many times, pondered upon Yuvraj's merits, and condemned English softness and lack of self-awareness. Now I am happy to salute everyone taking part in this stirring contest, especially India's triumphant fifth-wicket pair, and an opponent that lost a match but made a lot of friends. Peter Roebuck is a former captain of Somerset and the author, most recently, of In It to Win It © Cricinfo

[Anakin]

Excellent one from Roebuck