The Return of Orthodox Off-Spin

(Also posted at: http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sport/the-return-of-orthodox-off-spin)

Classical finger spin bowling – particularly the right arm off-spin variety – has returned to the fore in recent times. Australia’s Nathan Haurtiz and, more prominently, England’s Graeme Swann have been enjoying a fine run of form, and appreciably are in their respective teams as genuine wicket taking threats as opposed to playing the roles of unadorned containing acts. In a game that is increasingly being stripped of its traditionalism, this renaissance of attacking, orthodox off-spin bowlers has made for delightful viewing.

Admittedly, there have been a few off-spinners who have had a significant impact on cricket in the recent past. Muttiah Muralitharan has only just drawn the curtains on a glittering Test Match career that had seen him amass 800 wickets at an average of under 23 runs per dismissal. Yet, for all of his feats, it was Saqlain Mushtaq who laid out the modern-day requirements in an off-spinners range of varieties through an extraordinary mastery of the doosra. Saqlain’s early triumphs were so phenomenal that the doosra came to be thought of as a necessity in the armoury of every such spinner. The successes of some of the off-spinners – especially Saqlain, Murali and Harbhajan Singh – in the new millennium has no doubt been outstanding, but some of the sheen, at least from a classicist point of view, is eroded when considering that their achievements had much to do with them possessing an effective doosra – a delivery, which can perhaps never be bowled without an unnatural bend of the arm, and one which required the rules to be suitably amended, for it to fall within the ambit of the law.

It is greatly pleasing therefore, to see Hauritz and Swann spin webs around modern-day batsmen, not through the help of a doosra, but by relying on ageless qualities of drift, dip and turn. The dearth of finger spinning off-spinners in contemporary times has been a product, chiefly, of an attitude that such spinners devoid of a potent doosra have no place in the game, let alone be regarded as an attacking option – thereby condemning them to the depths of a Stygian gloom. Yet, this lack of trust arose during a phase when Daniel Vettori had been in his pomp. The Kiwi, no doubt a left-arm orthodox spinner, has served abundant evidence through his accomplishments that finger-spinners could have an attacking part to play regardless of their ability to bowl an ‘other one.’

Haurtiz and Swann, though belonging to a larger class of orthodox off-spinners are still different in their styles. While Hauritz – like most Australian offies – concentrates on pitching the ball well outside off-stump, Swann is a more direct operator, seeking to attack the off and the middle stump with every delivery. The absence of a doosra in their artillery must however, not be mistaken for a lack of variation in their bowling, for both these bowlers possess the ability to beat the outside edge of the right handed batsman by using either an under-cutter, or an eternally effective drifter – thereby offering their respective teams a compelling attacking option.

Swann’s rise to prominence has in particular been marvellous. Having picked up a remarkable 105 wickets in just 22 Test Matches, since the turn of 2009, he has transformed from a player renowned more for his off-the-pitch misdemeanours to a match-winner of immense stature. A superb home Ashes series last year was followed by consecutive man-of-the-match performances in the first two Tests away at South Africa – a showing which catapulted him to third place in the ICCs world bowling rankings. In a career spanning only 24 Tests, he has amassed 9 five-fors, while simultaneously playing a prominent role for England in the shorter formats of the game. But for all the distinction of the statistics it is his style of bowling that has charmed the most.

"I don't go along with the idea that finger spin is a dying art," Swann once said. "If it was, I'd have stopped doing it. It became unfashionable for a while because everyone was searching for wrist-spinners, but there's no two ways about it, if you bowl it properly and it's doing something, you can get good players out. Things are changing for finger-spinners again." I wouldn’t disagree and surely not on the back of Swann’s success over the last two years.

Classy Berbatov; and the Merits of 4-4-2

(First posted at http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sport/the-classy-bulgarian)

Dimitar Berbatov lit up Old Trafford with a glorious hat-trick that gave Manchester United a 3-2 victory against Liverpool on Sunday. The first and the third goal were both headers executed albeit, in uniquely dissimilar fashion. While the former was a nonchalant flick off Ryan Giggs’s corner, the latter was a regal finish that saw the Bulgarian out-jumping Jamie Carragher to meet John O’Shea’s right wing cross before planting the ball with a twist of his neck into the bottom right corner. As brilliant a header as the winning goal was, though, it was emphatically overshadowed by his second goal – a sight that was surely meant for the gods. After plucking Nani’s cross from the right flank, out of the air with his thigh, back to goal he unleashed an overhead kick that was as majestic in its beauty as ingenious in its conception.

Berbatov has had his fair share of doubters, with his languid style often mistaken for a lack of interest. But not least because of the 30 million pounds expended on him, Sir Alex Ferguson has resolutely retained faith in the striker. In the build up to the Liverpool fixture, Ferguson described Berbatov, in his program notes, as possessing ‘a touch of genius’ – a statement that was comprehensively vindicated by his splendid showing. With Wayne Rooney beset by problems aplenty in his personal life, United have needed Berbatov to step up to the plate. And step up he has, with his seven goals in six appearances this season already greater than half of the tally he managed in the whole of the last campaign.

Statistics however, fail to do justice to his talents. His ability to link-up play and the frequent displays of his extraordinary vision are a joy to behold. Even against Liverpool, apart from the goals that he scored, the manner of his affiliation with Wayne Rooney made for pleasurable viewing. A dummy that perplexed Carragher and released Rooney down the centre was particularly noteworthy for its ingenuity. His versatility however, remains to be proved beyond question. While his style seems perfectly complimentary to a 4-4-2, he is yet to demonstrate his abilities as the lone centre-forward in a 4-5-1 or a 4-3-3.

While on the subject of tactics, it is also fascinating to note that although the 4-4-2 is considered to have passed its sell by date as an attacking formation, Ferguson continues to place faith in the system. The recently concluded World Cup Finals, as Jonathan Wilson points out in his outstanding column in the Guardian, has served as a death knell for the system. The shape fashioned by Viktor Maslov with Dynamo Kiev in the mid 1960s had come to represent the archetypical formation of modern-day football. For years in the Barclays Premier League, teams rarely seemed to deploy anything but the 4-4-2 – viewed as the formation that distributes personnel across the pitch in the most proportional manner. Arsene Wenger is reported to have said: “I think the 4-4-2 is simply the most rational formation in most cases. With it, 60% of your players are occupying 60% of the pitch. No other formation is as efficient in covering space.” It was after all the preferred formation of Ariggo Sacchi, one of contemporary football’s most shrewd tacticians.

Yet in recent times, at least amongst the teams occupying the top echelons in the Premier League, the 4-4-2 has come to be replaced either by the 4-3-3 or the 4-5-1, depending upon the specific needs of the team or the personnel at its disposal. Roy Hodgson whose excellent run with Fulham was predicated upon a system involving a 4-4-2 has also joined the herd by lining Liverpool up in a conservative 4-5-1. Although some may argue that this is a product of the squad at Liverpool’s disposal with Fernando Torres – the only renowned forward available – the impact on the Manchester United-Liverpool fixture this past weekend that David Ngog’s introduction had dispels such a notion. Ngog may have his limitations as a footballer, but his very presence seemed to provide Liverpool with greater attacking options that resulted in two goals that may not have been created if not for the space made available to Torres by the Frenchman’s running. Although Manchester United, who themselves were arranged in a 4-4-2 with Dimitar Berbatov and Wayne Rooney plying up front, emerged victorious, Liverpool’s rearrangement in the second half with the substitution of Ngog for Maxi Rodriguez showcased some of the attributes that the 4-4-2 continues to offer.

The Indo-Pak Express

Also posted at http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sport/the-indo-pak-express

I was hoping to tell the tale of a fourth Indian Grand Slam champion. Unfortunately, Rohan Bopanna and his Pakistani partner, Aisam-ul-Haq Qureshi succumbed to the Bryan twins – Bob and Mike – in the final of the U.S. Open Men’s Doubles yesterday. But the pair, nicknamed the Indo-Pak express, as the final score (7-6, 7-6) suggests, did fine justice to its undeniable talent.

It was a testament to the quality of the two teams on show that there wasn’t a single break of service throughout the match, especially considering the blustery conditions. That Bopanna and Qureshi were excellent is also exemplified by Bob Bryan’s post-match comments: “This has been the best match we ever played. These guys played incredible. We had to step up and match their energy.”

The Indo-Pak duo remained aggressive right through the match, serving purposefully and volleying adroitly, with élan. Adopting the I-formation on both their first and second serves, they stayed true to their game plan, attacking the Bryans on every conceivable opportunity. If anything, it was their inability to play the big points well that turned the tide in the Americans’ favour, as evinced by the fact that they failed to convert any of the four break points that they had fashioned. Even in the tie-breaks, the Asians had surged ahead only to let nerves get their better at crucial junctures.

The victory marks the Bryans’ ninth Grand Slam triumph and they are now only two short of the Todd Woodbridge-Mark Woodforde axis. The win also means that Bob Bryan is only the fourth player to hold the Men’s and the Mixed Doubles at the U.S. Open simultaneously. But for all the feats of the Bryans, the match and perhaps the year as far as doubles tennis is concerned has belonged to the Indo-Pak duo who came together to play under the banner ‘Stop War, Start Tennis’, an initiative of Peace and Sport (an international organisation that seeks “to promote sustainable peace by raising awareness about and educating youth about peace using the structuring values of sport”).

These statements – whether viewed as political or otherwise – is however, aside from the remarkable season that the pair has enjoyed. The year has seen them lift the title at Johannesburg and reach the finals at Casablanca, New Haven, Nice and Napoli. In Washington, they had defeated the Bryans in the quarter-finals, only to fall to the twins in the semi-finals at the event at Los Angeles that preceded the U.S. Open.

There is no doubting that both Qureshi and Bopanna are commendable doubles players. Their respective games dovetail beautifully – the Indian possesses the more powerful serve and is better from the baseline, while the Pakistani has quick hands at the net and is able to vary the angles on his volleys with aplomb. They are no doubt late bloomers, (both are aged 30) but if they manage to stay united, they could well make more than a mere political mark at the world stage.

With the interest in doubles tennis having regressed over the last decade, the Bopanna-Qureshi combine could well reinvigorate the format. In paying tribute to the Bopanna-Qureshi pair, Mike Bryan said: “What they're doing to bring India and Pakistan together is pretty special. A sport can bring people together. These guys are going to be great for the game for a long time. Hopefully they stick together, and I think they will.” And brother Bob added, “They’re going to be around for a long time, I think, if they stick together. They do too many things well, big serving; they've got all the doubles skills. It’s going be good to have just another high marquee team, high profile team out there. It’s really going to help doubles.”

Spot-Fixing at Lords

(Also posted at http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sport/spot-fixing-at-lords)

A week after having waxed lyrical about the precocity of Mohammad Amir’s talents, it is utterly depressing to report on the spot-fixing claims surrounding the eighteen-year-old and his new ball partner, Mohammad Asif. For the sake of the game that I dearly love, I do hope that these allegations are untrue, but the evidence may well be too damning.

Yesterday, the British tabloid, the News of the World (NOTW) released a report, which stated that London based Mazher Majeed had accepted £150,000 to help uncover an alleged ring of spot-fixing. In video footage posted on the NOTW website, Majeed can be seen taking cash in return for predicting the precise deliveries in which the Pakistani pacers, Amir and Asif, would bowl no-balls in the ongoing Test Match between England and Pakistan at Lords. True to plan, the bowlers overstepped the popping crease on the deliveries as foretold.

I remember thinking to myself even as these no-balls were bowled, that there was something terribly iffy about them. Had it been Umar Gul overstepping the mark, it is quite conceivable that I wouldn’t have batted an eyelid, but Amir and Asif, rarely – if ever – overstep the popping crease. Even more astonishing was the extent by which they overstepped the mark, particularly Amir.

Some element of fixing is, perhaps, prevalent in every sport, but to think that it happens at the highest level of cricket is greatly disenchanting. We’d have been foolish to believe that fixing had been wholly eradicated following the unravelling of the scandals surrounding Hansie Cronje, Mohammad Azharuddin, Salim Malik, and several other less prominent figures. But with the International Cricket Council (ICC) having established an Anti-Corruption and Security Unit (ACSU), one would have thought that greater checks would have been placed to prevent the occurrence of such incidents at least at the highest level.

The NOTW report though, and the subsequent arrest of Majeed come as an excruciating blow to the ICC and its ACSU. Although players who were found guilty were accorded varying degrees of suspensions, including life-bans, there is a thought that the ICC failed to act satisfactorily in responding to earlier claims of match-fixing. The present controversy however, presents the ICC with a fresh opportunity to act decisively in ridding the game of its evils.

Majeed’s claims that apart from Asif and Amir, the Pakistani captain Salman Butt and vice-captain Kamran Akmal (no stranger to allegations of fixing) are also involved must be thoroughly investigated. The results of such an investigation ought to be openly presented to the public and those found guilty should be dealt with in a strict and unsympathetic manner. It would undoubtedly be a crying shame if Amir and Asif – both phenomenal talents – are banned from the sport that they practice with such panache, but eradicating the game of its ills should be of predominant importance.

The Prodigious Mohammad Amir

(Also posted at http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sport/the-prodigious-mohammad-amir)

Watching Mohammad Amir bowl in Pakistan’s recent test series’ against Australia and England has been a supreme delight. So much so that it has evoked memories of the great Wasim Akram – an astonishing feat for there have been few, if any, grander sights in cricket than Akram steaming in to release deliveries of vicious swing.

Boasting a vibrant run-up and a whippy high arm action, Amir, only 18 years of age, already possesses the ability to swing both the new and the old ball, in our out – a characteristic that set Akram apart from the rest. Yet, for all the precocity of his obvious talents, it is his ability to outfox batsmen, both by cleverly manipulating his use of the crease and by varying his line and length that stands out as a distinguishing feature.

Even if embroiled in a perennial state of turmoil, Pakistan, it appears can always take solace from the strength of its quick bowling department. In Amir and Mohammad Asif, it has perhaps the most proficient new ball pairing in world cricket. While, Asif – blessed with the supplest of wrists – relies on his guile and his consistency in line and length, Amir provides the more eye-catching entertainment with his prodigious ability to get nip off the pitch and to swing the ball at pace.

Owning the skill to manoeuvre the ball in whichever direction he pleases it to bend, Amir in his fledgling career has showcased irrefutable genius. Yesterday, he displayed a snippet of his class by turning the tide of his team’s third test match against England in its favour through a remarkable display of reverse-swing bowling that saw him amass four wickets for 51 runs, at the Oval. The delivery that dismissed Mathew Prior (caught behind nervously by Kamral Akmal) was, in particular, one to behold. The wicketkeeper – who had made a fine half-century in the first innings – was prised open, from around the wicket, with a ball that angled in, before veering away to take the outside edge of the bat.

Having, it seems, mastered the finer nuances of swing bowling at such a young age, one may argue that Amir’s success is all but assured. It must however, be remembered that there have been far too many instances where the most promising of youngsters have faded into oblivion. Bowling as majestically as Amir has done in England is unquestionably noteworthy, but it is essential that he carries this form and performs consistently in less helpful conditions to fulfil his rich promise.

This video offers a glimpse of Amir’s ability to reverse-swing the ball at pace.

Dutch Devolution

(Also posted at http://www.criticaltwenties.in/sport/the-dutch-devolution)

There is something utterly alluring about the Dutch and its football that has attracted me to it over the years. Maybe, it has to do with the fact that my initiation to the game coincided with the flowering of a ridiculously talented group of players trained at the Ajax academy (the class of Bergkamp, Kluivert, Seedorf, Davids and the De Boer twins). Or maybe, it’s the mythical resonance of ‘total football’ that had enraptured watchers of its time, leaving behind an indelible mark on the game. Or maybe, the reasons are more superficial; I vaguely remember answering, ‘orange’, when asked as a kid what my favourite colour was.

Being so, the World Cup final between the Netherlands and Spain left me with a strong sense of disappointment, not so much a result of the outcome (Spain was unquestionably a worthy winner) but the roguish style that was employed by the Dutch. In adopting a tactic that was designed to thuggishly intimidate and destroy Spain’s football, the Dutch not only betrayed the stupendous talent at its disposal, but also desecrated some of the celebrated grandiose of its former teams.

The Dutch game over the years has been characterised by its unique perception of space and resultantly an ability to construct moves of artistic splendour. The beauty of its football has been a product of creative thinking and an ability to do things differently, as opposed to an adherence to the predominant tactics of the times.

In his book, ‘The Brilliant Orange’, David Winner draws intriguing links between Dutch architecture and art and its football and in doing so, conceptualises the role played by the understanding of ‘space’ in its football. He argues, that to understand the idea of Dutch football, it is necessary to look beyond the game as played on the pitch and to analyse the ethos of the Dutch people and its approach to other streams of life. Dutch space, he evocatively asserts is different. He says ‘other nations and football culture may have produced greater goal-scorers, more dazzling individual ball artists and more dependable and efficient tournament winning teams. But no one has ever imagined or structured their play as abstractly, as architecturally, in such a measured fashion as the Dutch.’

Of course, the Dutch game took its time to reach a level of tactical sophistication. In fact, professionalism in football wasn’t prevalent in the Netherlands until the mid nineteen-fifties, a time at which it was one of the most backward states in Europe. But flanking a socio-cultural rebellion that has seen the Netherlands become one of the most progressive nations in the world was a revolution on the pitch that ultimately placed its football on the highest of plinths.

Ajax, first under the coaching of Rinus Michels and then under Stefan Kovacs, completed a unique feat of winning the European Cup in three consecutive seasons from 1971-1973, by playing a system that is now renowned as ‘total football’. The style involved astonishing fluidity of movement with players rapidly interchanging their positions; defenders turning into attackers, central midfielders moving into full-back and so on. That they performed their tasks to perfection was no doubt an upshot of having played together for years, but at the heart of their artistry laid an innate understanding of space.

Michels, moved on to coach Barcelona, joined soon by Johan Cruyff, and established the foundation for a bright future, which has culminated in the club’s and Spain’s recent success. But I must add that although Spain’s and Barcelona’s style is built on the bedrock of fluidity in movement, it is vastly different from the methods employed by Ajax and the Netherlands in the late nineteen-sixties, and nineteen-seventies.

Sjaak Swart who won eight league championships with Ajax states in Winner’s book that position-switching developed naturally and that for all the artistry, its football was direct. “In four passes we would be in front of goal. Nowadays they take twenty passes – backwards, sideways, backwards. We didn’t play like that. We went for the goal. We could play sixty minutes of pressing… I’ve never seen any other club anywhere who could do that.”

Spain’s football on the other hand is built on an ability to maintain possession of the ball and thereby wearing the opponents to submission. I say this to merely remove any misconception that Spain’s football is akin to that of the great Dutch teams of the years gone by and not to demean its football, which has been wondrous in its own way.

The Dutch on the other hand, as I said have always had an ability to think innovatively, especially about space which can so often be the decisive factor in football games. At the core of the analysis on the Dutch game of the past lies a premise that its football has an orientation garnered towards creation and not destruction. Against Spain however, the team seemed more intent on spoiling rather than inventing, a tactic that ran entirely counter to the cultural pedigree of its football.

It is no doubt unrealistic to expect a team to adhere to a system that was gloriously, if not entirely successfully, employed three-four decades ago as Rafael Honigstein points out. Tactics have evolved over a course of time and a side can ill-afford to compromise on defensive responsibilities for the sake of pure attacking beauty. Theoretically, Honigstein’s stance is sound, but the suggestion that this Dutch team was no more defensive than its predecessors is fallacious. Yes, the article was written before the final, at a time when the Dutch style hadn’t regressed as much as it had by the time they played Spain, but to imply that its football failed to thrill because the opposition was defensive is wholly off beam.

Perhaps in the years gone by, teams were tactically more naïve and weren’t astute enough to counter the attacking brilliance of the Dutch. But it wasn’t quite as easy as it’s sometimes made to seem. The beauty of the Dutch was not merely a consequence of the opposition allowing it space to operate, but on the contrary was founded on its own ability to manufacture and construct space.

In addition to Honigstein’s view, it must also be said that that total-football, as is understood in some circles, was not an entirely attacking strategy. The system was about controlling space; compressing it when without the ball and expanding it when in possession of the ball. Consequently, it worked wonderfully from a holistically strategic standpoint and not purely from an attacking perspective. The swift interchanging of positions by the players and a multifarious approach to the game was never a compromise on defensive duties, so to understand the tactic as simply an offensive ploy is erroneous.

My intention is not to deny the necessity for pragmatism. In a brief piece that I had earlier, I had argued that good football and beautiful football do not necessarily correlate and I am not loath to adding that the former is mostly a product of ‘pragmatism’, a word which, especially in footballing parlance, is grossly misunderstood. To be pragmatic is to be practical and regardless of its lack of aesthetic appeal, I believe, the tactics employed by the Dutch in the final were predominantly unworkable. No doubt, its decision to tackle with vigour helped stifle Spain for large parts of the game, but eventually it was bound to cost it dear.

It would have certainly been imprudent for the Dutch to attack unbothered by Spain’s reputation, but greater thoughtfulness was required to counter the opposition than merely following a herd of teams that have tried defying such a brand of football with vicious tackling. In recent times, any analysis concerning Barcelona or Spain sees a reference to Internazionale’s victory over the Catalan club in the Champions League semi-final. It must, though, be borne in mind that the second leg performance of the Italians, hailed as one of the greatest defensive performances of recent times, saw it play for the majority of the game with ten men. Undoubtedly following the sending off, Inter maintained shape immaculately and defended with aplomb, but it is important to note that this was achieved without resorting to excessively robust or brutal means.

One may also point to the fact that Spain’s goal came late in extra-time and that the fact that if not for its profligacy in front of goal, the Dutch may well have emerged successful. However, it’s significant to note that with a different referee, it may well have been a man-down minutes into the game. Some argue that the Dutch were entitled in endeavouring to win ugly, considering the failures of the past, which off-set some of its brilliant artistry. But to see the Dutch reduced to measures that are the norm for lesser teams was both impractical and a perfidy of its magnificent footballing history. With no sign of Bert van Marvijk, the present coach of the Netherlands, being replaced, it’s difficult to imagine a radical amendment in the existing system, which is not only tragic but also grossly obtuse.

Of Disputed Catches and Technology

Pakistan secured its first test-match victory in fifteen years against Australia by crawling home on the fourth day at Headingly. Beginning the day, needing 40 runs with seven wickets in hand, it converted a routine chase into an agonising one that required tail-ender Umar Gul to hit the winning runs – caused by a combination of poor shot-making by the batsmen, good catching by the Australian fielders, and fine bowling, perhaps for the first time in the series, by Australia’s front-line seamers.

A narrow victory however, could have well turned into defeat had Kamral Akmal been given out with five runs still required, when an attempt at gully by Michael Hussey was adjudged to have been grassed, by the third umpire. Referring catches to the third umpire, I believe, has been one of the greatest malaises of technology; catches held low to the ground never look conclusive on television and invariably the benefit of doubt goes to the batsman. In this instance, Hussey looked to have had his palms underneath the ball, yet as T.V. replays indicated a hint of doubt, Akmal was pronounced not-out.

Unquestionably, technology has been excellent for cricket – its seminal role in adjudicating run-outs, has been path-breaking to say the least. And it may well have a greater role to play in the future in helping settle a variety of contentious calls. With the increasing prominence of hawk-eye and hot-spot, the Umpire Decision Review System, currently being used with the consent of the competing teams, could soon become a norm.

However, it is important that the I.C.C., delineates clearly where and when technology ought to be used. The aspect of referring catches to the third umpire has been a prickly issue ever since the Indian tour of Australia in 2007-08 (more renowned for the spat between Harbhajan Singh and Andrew Symonds) – when in spite of a supposed agreement between the captains, Ricky Ponting and Anil Kumble, to go by the word of the fielder, the Indian batsmen stood their ground to dispute such catches. Whether the Australians were claiming catches that were in reality grounded was made harder to tell by T.V. replays which made them look even more dubious. As past cricketers will endorse, often catches when the fielder would have had his palms definitely underneath the ball are made to look suspicious by slow-motion replays.

In 2006, following an incident in Antigua – when M.S. Dhoni, ultimately walked off for a catch claimed at the boundary by Darren Ganga after replays were inconclusive as to whether Ganga had made contact with the boundary rope – the I.C.C. clarified that the benefit of doubt in such instances must go to the fielder. Yet, the aspect concerning to whom the benefit must be accorded when doubts arise as regards the grounding of a catch remains unclear. It is imperative that the ICC clarifies this matter, with immediate effect, by declaring that the benefit of doubt, with respect to catches disputed on the grounds of it having been grassed, be titled in favour of the fielder. Additionally, greater freedom must also be afforded to the on-field umpires who are often in a better position to judge the grounding of a catch, for technology rarely seems to provide a definitive answer.