Should IPL performances matter while selecting national teams?

There is no doubt that IPL has done a great service to Indian cricket by bringing together world's top cricketers to play alongside our own young and experienced cricketers. That results in a great learning experience for the youngsters and teaches them how to handle pressure in tough situations. However should this razzmatazz version of cricket be the sole criteria for the selectors while selecting the national team?

IPL no doubt continues to unearth many young talents for the country and the youngsters should ne encouraged and given the right platform to show their talent. However bringing them into the National team just based on their performance in one season of IPL would be foolish. Let them grind out in the domestic circuit, let them play a few seasons in Ranji trophy and Duleep trophy and gain experience. Selection should be such that no one takes his place for granted.

Of course usually performances in the IPL is not looked at alone, their past domestic records too is taken in consideration before selecting the team. However there have been times when certain players who made a mark in a particular season of IPL are at once brought into the team if he manages to catch the eye of the captain or the selectors. I feel instead of fast tracking them into the national team due to their IPL performances like Axar Patel or Sanju Samson or Hardik Pandya, these players should be asked to prove their mettle in the domestic circuit. Only if they perform there on a consistent basis, should they be brought into the team.

Some of the new prospects for the future are Karun Nair, Lokesh Rahul, Krunal Pandya, Manan Vohra, Dhawal Kulkarni, Rishab Pant, Sarfaraz Khan, Surya Kumar Yadav and Yuzvendra Chahal. These players should be nurtured with care and not be let to go astray like Sreeshanth.

Read More

Andy Murray wins 2016 Wimbledon men's singles

Andy Murray wins Wimbledon men's singles title after beating Milos Raonic 6-4, 7-6, 7-6 in under three hours.

Adding to his 2013 title, Great Britain’s Andy Murray defeated Canada’s Milos Raonic in straight sets on Centre Court to win his second Wimbledon title and third Grand Slam overall. This is Murray’s third Grand Slam with another being the US Open.
Murray defeated his towering opponent, playing his first major final, 6-4, 7-6 (3), 7-6 (2) in two hours and 47 minutes. The Scot was contesting his 11th major final, not facing Roger Federer or Novak Djokovic across the net for the first time.
Murray won the first set 6-4, thanks to a single break of serve.
In the second, neither man could manage a service break. In the ensuing tiebreak, Murray dominated, winning seven points to just three for the Canadian. The third set played out just like the second, with neither player able to gain a service break. Raonic did have to save several break points along the way.
In the tiebreak, Murray jumped out to a 4-0 lead. Raonic saved a match point before a netted forehand sealed Murray’s win.

To think there was a time when it looked as though he might never get there. How he’s pushed himself, how he’s worked, how he’s exploited every last drop of his wonderful talent. Linking up with Ivan Lendl was a canny move as well. His form was already awesome but he’s gone from strength to strength since then. There can be no argument that he’s a worthy champion. No one has played better. And he had to be good today, with Raonic a very tough opponent. Yet Murray got that break in the first set and he played outstanding tennis in the two tie-breaks. What’s next for him? The defence of his Olympic gold is coming up.

Read More

Needless Controversy between Ravi Shastri and Sourav Ganguly

Shastri has created an unnecessay controversy which was needless. A person of the caliber of Ravi Sasthri should not have washed the dirty linen in public. What ever be the reason for not selecting him, he should have reacted in a dignified manner. It seems like he was over confident of getting the post, and when he was not selected, he lost his cool.

Days after he was overlooked for the Indian cricket team's head coach's job , a disappointed Ravi Shastri lashed out at Sourav Ganguly for skipping his interview, and accused the former skipper of being disrespectful.
Ganguly, one of the members of the Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC) also comprising Sachin Tendulkar, VVS Laxman and co-ordinator Sanjay Jagdale, was entrusted with the responsibility of interviewing the 21 shortlisted candidates for the top job, for which Shastri was one of the front-runners.

During Shastri's interview process, Ganguly, who is also the Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) President, was out for a meeting which miffed the former Mumbai all-rounder.
Shastri has said that he was disappointed and felt disrespected by Ganguly's behaviour and advised him not to repeat such things in the future.
"Nothing surprises me in Indian cricket anymore. A member of the committee (Ganguly) wasn't present and that was disrespectful to the selection process," Shastri said.
"A person was disrespectful of a candidate who he was going to interview. He was disrespectful to the job he was entrusted with."
"Next time, be present in a meeting, especially when it is as important as this one," the former Indian team director advised the Bengal southpaw.

The 54-year-old said he was disappointed because he had put in a lot of hard work during his 18-month stint with the national squad and will not be there to take it forward.

Ofcourse all of the selection committee members and the aspirants should have been physically present during the interview. There should have been no exceptions. If the selectors cannot find time to be present during the interviews to pick the coach for which they have been chosen, they have no business to be in the committee. Similarly, the aspirants also should have attended the interview. It is unfortunate that all the selectors were not in the meeting and candidate(s) also did not appear before the committee. This sort of casual approach of conducting and appearing for the interview through video conference was most unfortunate. BCCI was also guilty of allowing such a casual approach.

Read More

Anil Kumble appointed coach of the Indian Cricket Team

Former India captain and the country's most successful bowler, Anil Kumble has been appointed coach of the men's cricket team for one year, the BCCI announced. His first assignment will be India's four-Test tour of the West Indies.

The question of who would take over as India coach has been a talking point since Ravi Shastri's tenure as team director ended after the World T20. Some of the uncertainty was addressed when Anurag Thakur, after his appointment as BCCI president, said the vacancy would be filled before the Tests in the Caribbean.

The BCCI put out an advertisement for a new coach in the first week of June and received 57 applications, including Kumble's. However, it appears he was not among the 21 names shortlisted by the BCCI secretary Ajay Shirke's office. The Cricket Advisory Committee, comprising Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly and VVS Laxman, assigned to pick India's next coach asked for Kumble's name to be included, at which point he became an instant favourite.

The committee interviewed Kumble and a handful of other candidates in Kolkata on Tuesday, and on Wednesday, they made their recommendations to the BCCI. Thakur, along with Shirke, made the final call.

Although Kohli has been reportedly keen on continuing the association with Shastri, but the BCCI offered Kumble a one-year term to help him acclimatise to the job better and to give themselves the cushion to reassess if needed. Ravi Shastri had guided the team to successive Test series wins, in Sri Lanka and against South Africa at home, besides overseeing India’s World T20 campaign.

Kumble's lack of experience is made up for by his standing as a player and captain in an 18-year-long international career. He finished as India's highest wicket-taker in Tests, and the third-highest overall, with 619 wickets, including a best of 10 for 74 against Pakistan in Delhi in 1999.

After being appointed Test captain in November 2007, he led India in 14 matches, winning three, losing five and drawing six, until his retirement a year later. Among his notable victories as captain was the Perth Test in January 2008, which was played after the controversial Sydney Test where, among other issues, India faced allegations of racism from the Australia side.

Kumble is the first Indian to be appointed full-time India coach since Kapil Dev resigned in September 2000.

Read More

Who should be the Indian Cricket Team's next Coach?

Cricket coaches are literally crawling out of the woodwork. The Board of Control for Cricket in India’s call for applications for the post of Indian team coach has attracted no less than 57 aspirants. Everyone, from former India captains to legends to selectors to mere players has thrown his hat into the ring in the hope of raking in mega bucks and basking in the limelight for the next couple of years.
Some applicants have not coached any team, not even their state or junior sides. But they hope that the Board will overlook this anomaly while identifying the best man for the job.
The intriguing question is: who is the best man?

Nobody doubted Greg Chappell's greatness as a player or even as an astute thinker of the game. But he failed to carry the team and get it to see his point of view.
Great cricketers do not necessarily become good coaches. On the contrary they could be a liability.
For instance, Sachin Tendulkar is on record that he was disappointed with Kapil Dev as coach. “During my second stint as captain, Kapil Dev was the coach and I had high expectations of him in Australia," Tendulkar wrote in his autobiography. "He was one of the finest cricketers to have played for India and one of the best all-rounders of all time,
“I have always maintained that the coach’s job is an important one, for he is in a position to play a key role in formulating team strategy. Who better than Kapil to come up with options for me during a tough tour of Australia?
“However, his method of involvement and his thought process was limited to leaving the running of the team to the captain, and hence he did not involve himself in strategic discussions that would help us on the field.”

This disappointment with great cricketers in not confined to India alone. West Indies’ gifted all rounder Franklyn Stephenson acknowledged Curtly Ambrose as one of the greatest fast bowlers of all time. But he also reckoned he was “the worst cricket coach ever.”
One theory as to why great cricketers don’t make great coaches is that they come to the job with giant egos and this does not go down well with current players. For the latter, self-esteem and self confidence are paramount to success and they need a coach who will pump them up. However ex-greats struggle to get down to doing this and hence fail the individual and the team.
India had similar issues with Greg Chappell as coach. Nobody doubted his greatness as a player or even as an astute thinker of the game. But he failed to carry the team and get it to see his point of view.
Later, much later, his contention of having a huge pool of reserve players was appreciated. But by then it was too late. He had burnt his bridges with key players and that cost the team plenty.
On the other hand, some of the best international coaches have been average cricketers or very low-key personnel.
The best examples are Zimbabwe’s Duncan Fletcher and Andy Flower, Bob Woolmer, Australian John Buchanan and South African Gary Kirsten.
Buchanan, a non-Test cricketer, had played just seven first class matches for a poor batting average of 12.3 and as coach had his share of praise and criticism.
Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting who were at the helm when Australia won 15 and a record 16 Tests on the trot respectively, showered him with praise and said that he was an integral cause for the outstanding success of the great Australian teams of the late 1990s and 2000s. But Shane Warne rubbished his coaching, saying that he had a knack “to complicate simple things”.
Warne believed that Buchanan’s tenure coincided with Australia having a great set of cricketers and his coaching had nothing to do with the success.
Zimbabwean ex-cricketers Duncan Fletcher and Andy Flower met with astounding success as England coaches. Fletcher inherited a terrible English team and was subject to excessive criticism from the media who could not digest a Zimbabwean coaching the England national team.
Fletcher, who coached England and later India, stayed away from the media, hardly gave any interviews and quietly went about plotting victories for his team.
In 2005 he became the first England coach in 18 years to win the Ashes and a grateful country was so thrilled that they bestowed the OBE and British citizenship on him!
Later, as low key coach of the Indian team he strategized brilliantly and won eight series in a row. In fact he had been recommended by outgoing coach Kirsten who himself had stayed in the background even as he worked hard to help the team achieve success.
Fletcher’s countryman Flower too did a fantastic job with England, piloting them to two Ashes wins (at home and in Australia) and the 2010 ICC T20 World championship victory. Flower, of course, had been an outstanding batsman at the international level, but stayed low key while coaching England.
One average Test cricketer who put technology to good use while strategizing for South Africa was Bob Woolmer. He brought in a number of innovations to coaching which are now standard fare.
Thus even as the BCCI wades through the 57 applications one crucial fact becomes apparent: Greatness in one field is no guarantee for success in another. There could be exceptions to the rule. But that remains to be seen.

Read More

Anil Kumble too applies for the post of Indian Cricket Coach

Former India captain Anil Kumble has applied for the India head-coach position advertised by the BCCI recently. The deadlines for the applications closed on June 10, and on Sunday the BCCI announced that a total of 57 applications from both Indian and overseas candidates had been received.

After Ravi Shastri and India's current chairman of selectors Sandeep Patil, Kumble is the third high-profile applicant for the job, which became vacant after the previous coaching staff's tenures expired at the end of the 2016 World T20. Although Kumble, 45, has no coaching experience at any level, he has been a mentor in the IPL, initially with Royal Challengers Bangalore - where he was the captain in 2009, when the franchise finished as runners-up - and later with Mumbai Indians.

Kumble applying for the job has come as a total surprise to many in the BCCI, considering his lack of coaching experience. Incidentally, among the various criteria published for the applicants, the BCCI had said that candidates should have coached at the international or first-class level. It was also mentioned that the "preferred candidate should be qualified through a certification/assessment program conducted by any of the Full Member countries, and currently possess such a valid certification."

Kumble does not tick either of those criteria, but his pedigree as a player is peerless. India's highest Test wicket-taker with 619 scalps, including a best of 10 for 74, he led India in 14 Test matches with three victories, five defeats and six draws.

After retiring, in addition to overseeing his company Tenvic, which mentors athletes, Kumble remained connected with cricket. He is currently the chairman of the ICC cricket committee, which recently met in London. He had also served in various roles in Indian cricket: he was the chairman of the National Cricket Academy when Patil was its director, and also headed the BCCI's technical committee. Outside the cricket field, one of his biggest achievements was winning the president's post at the Karnataka State Cricket Association. Not many players in contemporary cricket had gone so swiftly into administration over the past two decades, but Kumble, along with his former Karnataka and India team-mates Rahul Dravid, Javagal Srinath and Venkatesh Prasad proved that players could also be role models as administrators.

The list of 57 applicants for the India coach job will be pruned by Ajay Shirke, the BCCI secretary. The shortlisted names are likely to be passed to an advisory panel, comprising former players, which will trim it further. The final decision on who is the next India coach will be taken by the BCCI top brass, and it is likely the new coach will be announced at the BCCI working committee meeting in Dharamsala on June 25.

Last month Anurag Thakur, after taking over as BCCI president, had indicated that a new coach will be appointed by the time India leave for the Caribbean for a fourth-Test tour in July-August.

Read More

Saina Nehwal wins Australian Open Super Series Badminton title

Saina Nehwal wins Australian Open Super Series Badminton title by defeating Sun Yu 11-21, 21-14, 21-19 in the final. Ace Indian shuttler Saina Nehwal has won the 2016 Australian Open Super Series Badminton tournament title in women’s singles category. In the final match played at Sydney, Saina defeated Chinese Sun Yu by 11-21, 21-14, 21-19 score. It was Saina’s first title of year 2016 season and overall second Australian Open title of her career. She won her first Australian Open title in 2014.

Indian ace Saina Nehwal received a huge boost ahead of the Rio Olympics as she clinched her second Australian Open title after defeating China’s Sun Yu in a thrilling three-game final of the Super Series badminton tournament in Sydney on Sunday.
The 26-year-old from Hyderabad eked out a 11-21 21-14 21-19 over the World No. 12 Sun in a fighting summit clash that lasted an hour and 11 minutes in Sydney.
London Olympics bronze medallist, Saina, who had beaten two world champions — Thailand’s Ratchanok Intanon (2013) and China’s Yihan Wang (2011) in the quarterfinals and semifinals –, thus clinched her maiden title of the season and pocketed a cheque of USD 56,250.
It is Saina’s second Australian Open victory, having clinched the title in 2014 as well.
It ended a rather long title drought for the celebrated Indian, whose previous title before Sunday was at the India Super Series in New Delhi in
last year.
Saina had defeated Sun five times in the last five outings but she faced a tough challenge against the 22-year-old Chinese, who took just 18 minutes to wrap up the opening game at the Sydney Olympic Park.
Sun dished out a fast-paced game, which Saina failed to break initially.
The Indian struggled with the length of the shuttle and committed a few unforced errors early on as the duo moved together till 4-4.
Saina missed a couple of points at the net and also hit wide to allow Sun a lead of 7-4.
The Indian failed to connect and reach for a few returns which allowed Sun to extend the lead at 10-5.
At the break, Sun lead 11-6 when Saina’s backhand return failed to cross the net.
Two wide returns by Sun helped Saina narrow the gap but the Chinese kept engaging her in fast rallies, not allowing her to play her own game.
The Indian also faltered in judging the shuttle at the backline three times to see Sun lead 17-10.
With Sun covering the court well, the margin of error was nil for Saina and she eventually conceded the opening game after losing a video referral following a wide shot.
After changing sides, the second game started on an even-keel as the duo were locked 4-4 again. Sun used her deceptive shots to wriggle out of tricky situations and also covered the front court well to lead 6-4.
Saina grabbed a couple of points to draw level and with Sun sending the shuttle outside twice, the Indian led 10-8.
She entered the interval with a three-point lead when Sun hit the net.
The Chinese grabbed two quick points after the break but Saina continued to break the pace by playing few attacking shots and drawing the Chinese close to the net with deceptive strokes.
The result was Saina leading 17-12.
With Sun hitting the net, Saina grabbed six game points and converted the first after the Chinese found the net again.

Read More

Novak Djokovic wins 2016 French Open men's title

World number one Novak Djokovic beat Britain's Andy Murray to win his first French Open title and complete the career Grand Slam.

With this French Open title, he becomes the first to hold all 4 Slams simultaneously since Rod Laver achieved the feat 37 years ago. The Serb, 29, won 3-6 6-1 6-2 6-4 to win his 12th major title and become the first man since Rod Laver in 1969 to hold all four Grand Slams at once.

Murray had hoped to secure the third leg of his own career Slam, having already won Wimbledon and the US Open. The Scot, 29, was Britain's first male finalist in Paris since 1937.

Second seed Murray played superbly to win the first set but could not convert a break point early in the second, and Djokovic took control to win in three hours.

He becomes only the eighth man in history to have won all four of the sport's major singles prizes - and could yet match Laver's achievement of winning all four in a calendar year.

Djokovic looked determined to make up for losing in three previous Paris finals when he broke the Murray serve to love with a brilliant opening game, but the nerves were soon apparent.

A beautiful lob saw Murray hit straight back in game two and, playing aggressively at every opportunity, he powered into a 4-1 lead as Djokovic misfired with his forehand.

Murray clinched the set at the third opportunity - after a generous overrule that drew boos from a crowd seemingly backing Djokovic - and some stunning defence earned the Scot a break point at the start of the second set.

Djokovic needed to turn the tide and he did so with a smash, before grabbing the lead when Murray double-faulted at break point down.

The Serb then began to dictate with his backhand, firing a winner down the line for a decisive second break as Murray's first-serve percentage slipped below the 50% mark.

Djokovic continued to press, setting up break points at 1-1 in the third set with a forehand winner and watching as Murray dropped a volley into the net with the court gaping.

Read More

Lee-Tina win the Mixed Doubles title at French Open 2016

Leander Paes and Martina Hingis beat Sania Mirza and Ivan Dodig to win the French Open mixed doubles final at Roland Garros. The unseeded Indo-Swiss pair eked out a 4-6, 6-4, 10-8 win over the second seeds in a match that lasted an hour and 28 minutes. Martina Hingis and Leander Paes each completed a career Grand Slam in mixed doubles by winning this title.

When the two pairs of Sania Mirza-Ivan Dodig and Leander Paes-Martina Hingis entered the mixed-doubles final of French Open 2016, it was clear from an Indian perspective that at least one Indian will win a French Open title! A win for Paes would have meant a Grand Slam for him in mixed doubles – i.e. winning all four Majors – something he has already achieved in men’s doubles - an unprecedented and daunting task for someone who is 42 and still chasing the dream of representing his country at the Olympics. He succeeded in achieving the feat.

The 42-year-old Paes has now completed a Career Slam in mixed doubles. It was Paes’s 10th mixed doubles title and 18th Grand Slam title overall. For 35-year-old Hingis, it was Grand Slam title number 22nd and her fifth trophy in mixed doubles.

Despite being the oldest player on court, Paes's alertness and presence of mind made the difference to the outcome of the match. He converted every little opportunity into points. He put away volleys from ferocious returns of both Sania and Dodig and has staked a claim to be part of India's mixed doubles team at the upcoming Rio Olympics.

Paes also owns eight Grand Slam men's doubles trophies. while Hingis - a member of the International Tennis Hall of Fame - has five in singles and 12 in women's doubles. Heading into Roland Garros, she had won three majors in a row with Mirza as her doubles partner, but they lost in the third round in Paris.

Second seeds Dodig-Mirza got off to a good start as they won the opening set 6-4. Both were complementing each other well and Dodig's big serve helped the pair in the first set.

Dodig was excellent with his service games in the opening set and hardly lost points. His powerful returns combined with Sania's powerful game made it very tough for Paes and Sania.

Sania Mirza, in particular, was powerful from the baseline as she worked her angles to outsmart Paes-Hingis, who were stationed near the net. It was a strategy which worked but lasted only for a set.

Paes-Hingis fought back to first take the second set 6-4 and the Championship tie-breaker 10-8. Emotions ran high after the win as Paes was nearly in tears when he thanked the support staff, Hingis and his father.

Read More

IPL matches scheduled in Maharashtra in May shifted out

In view of the grim water crisis in Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court has ruled that all the IPL 2016 matches scheduled in Maharashtra after April 30 must be moved out of Maharashtra. A bench of Justices VM Kanade and MS Karnik, hearing a PIL by NGO Loksatta Movement challenging use of large quantities of water in stadiums at a time when the state was reeling under severe drought conditions, asked the BCCI to respond in three days.

The judges also asked the board whether it can contribute to the Chief Minister's drought relief fund. As the BCCI said it had supplied 40 lakh litres of water to stadiums per day for IPL tournaments so far, the judges asked whether it was ready to supply the same quantity to water-starved villages in and around Pune.

The ruling affects 13 matches, including the final which was to be held in Mumbai on May 29. Pune will miss out on six matches, including the Eliminator and Qualifier 2, while no games will be held in Nagpur. The state was earlier scheduled to host 20 matches.

Last week, the court had sought an explanation from the BCCI and the three state associations on why water should be "wasted" on hosting the games when the state faced one of its worst ever droughts. The court later allowed the opening match to be held as scheduled in Mumbai on April 9, and asked the Maharashtra state government and Mumbai's civic body, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, to respond on plans to tackle the issue of water shortage. On Tuesday, the court orally asked the BCCI if matches could be shifted out of Pune.

In its defence, the BCCI had stated that less water was used to prepare the ground for an IPL game when compared to an international fixture. The board also stated that it intended to use treated sewage water for ground preparation in Mumbai and Pune. Mumbai Indians and Rising Pune Supergiants, the franchises based in Mumbai and Pune, had proposed to contribute INR 5 crore to the Maharashtra chief minister's drought relief fund and supply 40 lakh litres of water to drought-hit areas at their own cost.

While the BCCI is mulling its next move, IPL chairman Rajiv Shukla has admitted that moving games out of Maharashtra is a logistical problem for the board. He also pointed out that no objections of this kind were raised when Mumbai and Nagpur hosted World T20 matches last month.

"Organising the IPL is a gigantic work. It's not easy. All preparations had been done, completed," Shukla said. "Now shifting the matches will be a problem. So far, we have not got the written order, after we get that, we will study the order and work out an alternative plan. We always respect the court. We need to talk to other franchises. We will have to work it out.

"The key problem is water for farmers, which we are trying to find a solution to. We were willing to give water, contribute to the CM's fund. Now shifting matches will be a problem. If matches are to be shifted, where will they be moved, how will they be moved, all these issues are involved. And this comes after nobody raised an issue about the 24 World T20 matches that were held recently.

"Nobody raised these issues for six months. Whatever was required, we were willing to do. In fact, I would like to point out that a lot many other sports and cultural events are going on in Maharashtra, which also use water and they should also help."

Anurag Thakur, the BCCI secretary, said there was an attempt to create negativity over issues: "We are not using drinking water, we have said that we will use treated sewage water only. How many swimming pools of five-star hotels have been shut? Have people stopped watering their lawns? There is an attempt to create negativity on every issue these days. IPL was to use 0.00038% of water so that shows the requirement was not much."

Read More

Harsha Bhogle removed from the IPL Commentary team

It is unfortunate that we have lost a good commentator who has good knowledge of the game.
Nothing wrong in praising other team players when they played well. In this case it is Bangladesh players. He has done this as he is a professional. In fact India has badly in this game and don't deserve to win. They won it because of foolish shots by Bangladesh players and of course by some good thinking on the part of MSD.

Gone are the days of smart and witty commentary, one you can enjoy along with the match! It all started after India vs Bangladesh World Cup Match. It was a really close match which India definitely won due to smartness and presence of mind of our skipper Dhoni! Thats all well done! But as a cricket lover you wouldn't undermine the fact that Indian team almost lost it due to their mistakes!

So as a cricket commentator how will you analyse the game? By running all over the ground chanting Bharat Mata ki Jai? Or you will appreciate the efforts of both the teams and highlight their weaknesses as well?

I have read few reasons for his termination from IPL2016 which is not reasonable. One is that he has appreciated the Bangladesh players for their effort against team India in WCT20. It was a fair comment and nothing wrong in appreciating the opposition for the wonderful fight back. Team India did nothing before the last three balls of the match. It was Bangladesh game to win, but luckily India snatched it from them. And Amitabh Bachchan commented about the Indian commentators on social media which is not good.

I am an Indian team fan and I was equally saddened by Harsha's comments but that doesn't mean he is incorrect! He did his job way better than others but what did that yield him? Look at the remarks of a grown up and legendary personality.
This was a world T20 match and the commentators are not hired for their nationality. So who on the earth are you to tell him to be nationalist when it comes to his job?

These recent incidents reveal an ugly and dangerous trend that has started emerging – our cricketers and the board that manages them has stated to believe that they are above any form of questioning. The idea very simply is “either you are on my side or you are my enemy”.

I have been listening to Harsha right from his AIR radio commentary days. In fact I have grown up with his commentary as much as with Sachin's straight drives. I have often felt he is too verbose, and that he should learn from some other pastmasters in the art of being concise. He, along with Gavaskar and Shastri was over-exposed and so he lost the charm of being an infrequent and welcome visitor. However, never ever did I think that he was anything but a mouthpiece for BCCI. I always felt Harsha represented the best in Indian commentating, although it came short of the best in the world. This ouster only shows that BCCI works like a corporate and so tolerates no criticism. Commentating is an art of criticism, positive or negative. Nobody should chain up any art form. Yes, there are norms and standards, but Harsha never flouted any of those. This is simply not done, BCCI.

Read More

MS Dhoni - is no more Captain Cool

Ever since MS Dhoni, a rather tetchy MS Dhoni, called Sam Ferris of the Cricket Australia website up on the dais at the end of India’s semifinal loss against West Indies in the World T20, a debate of sorts has been on. Ferris had asked a question about Dhoni’s international future. It’s a question he has been asked more than once since he packed his Test whites away in Australia a couple of seasons ago quite out of the blue. And it’s a question that has irritated him no end, something he has expressed in less dramatic ways in the past.

Some feel what Dhoni did was fun, kind of smooth, nothing to get het up about. He is ‘Captain Cool’, after all. The other lot think he was out of order, a bit too prickly for his own good.

I have been a bit torn about this from the time I saw the video but the more I think about it, the more I feel Dhoni was off on this one.

Not that I don’t empathise. India had just lost and that question is an old irritant. He could have barked back an answer. He chose humour – even if he was needling and patronising.

A simple “I’ll tell you when I decide” would have sufficed. That’s just me, though. I probably won’t be asked about quitting till I’m 60 (I hope; it would be awfully embarrassing otherwise). It won’t be news when it happens. No discussions on succession will take shape after.

Dhoni’s announcement to step down from the Test captaincy was sudden and unexpected, three-fourths into a series away in Australia. Not to forget, the man said after India’s exit from the 50-over World Cup last year, “I am 33, I am still running and I am still fit. Next year (after the World T20) will be the right time to decide if I should play the World Cup in 2019.”

This is next year. It is after the World T20. So why not ask the question? How is it, to use the man’s words, firing “the wrong ammunition at the wrong time”? How is it ammunition at all?

And it’s got nothing to do with Ferris, or me, having a son good enough to keep wickets for India or, as is the case, not. The same way the headline writer who came up with ‘Endulkar’ was just being witty-nasty and not trying to push her/his son, if s/he had one, into the No. 4 slot.

I can see Dhoni’s problem. The question is a constant reminder that he is getting on a bit – he’ll be 35 in a few months – and each time it crops up at the end of a disappointing show from the team he leads, it’s almost like a suggestion that he isn’t good enough anymore. Add to that the fact that Virat Kohli is nudging Sachin Tendulkar in the popularity stakes these days, and the Test team the younger man is in charge of has been winning more often than it isn’t. Dhoni’s position might not be under any threat, but social media often makes it seem like it is.

Dhoni is mostly polite and humorous, a professional, but even he does crack.

Unfortunately, this came soon after that other press conference, the one at the end of the Bangladesh match that India almost lost. “I know you aren’t happy that India won … listen to me, your tone and your question says that you aren’t happy with this result. Okay?” he said when asked about India’s struggle before the one-run win.

If that wasn’t pretty, what followed on Twitter was even less so. Amitabh Bachchan was not pleased with the TV commentators, who, he felt, spoke more about ‘the others’ than ‘our players’. The movie star was a fan airing his thoughts. But Dhoni endorsed that tweet quickly, throwing in a “nothing to add”. It’s one thing for Bachchan to feel the TV commentators should be cheerleaders for the Indian team, but for Dhoni to think so as well was, frankly, bizarre. Especially keeping in mind the political goings-on around India at the moment, where everything starts and ends with an idealised patriotism.

Yet, it’s probably not fair to place the blame squarely on Dhoni. Haven’t commentators, and even journalists, been fawning fans-in-disguise often enough? That “I know you aren’t happy India won” statement – journalists are supposed to be neutral, but maybe we have given Dhoni & Co the impression that we are travelling groupies of the Indian team.

Is that the real problem then? In the pursuit of that one exclusive quote or interview, or, these days, even a selfie, have we created a situation where cricketers can get away with bullying? The laughter in the background when Dhoni was fooling around with a visibly uncomfortable Ferris suggests as much.

Don’t get me wrong. I admire Dhoni greatly (not that it matters to him or anyone else). I think he has been one of the greatest things to happen to Indian cricket in the longest time. And I certainly don’t think it’s time for him to go, not from limited-overs cricket. Not for as long as he is playing and leading as well as he has been, especially during the World T20.

That’s not the point, though. The point is about a touch of humility, which Dhoni seems to have lost to an extent along the way, something we, as journalists, have facilitated, possibly encouraged. Many of us have stopped asking questions. Some of us even hang on to a “no comments” as an exclusive quote. Some of us would rather get a smile of acknowledgement from Dhoni or Kohli than do our job.

Perhaps the first step ought to be for us as journalists to look within. Dhoni’s conduct that evening was quite out of order. But it’s what led to it that might be the bigger problem. That’s what needs resolving first.

Read More

Why we lost to West Indies?

All our batsmen (Kohli especially) did an outstanding job, but the bowlers basically gave it all away and we have to accept that. We lack speed, we lack sting and we lack the skill to "Bowl at Will". Just to put things in perspective for all readers, by "Bowl at Will", I mean- As a first class cricketer (Bowler here) playing at the International (the highest) level, a bowler is ideally expected to be able to pitch the ball where he wishes to, atleast 70% of the times.

All the Windies' players are physically very strong men- great height, broad shoulders and muscular build; and if the ball happens to middle their bats (by chance, since more than half of them do not have footwork or technique) when they mightily swing their bats (more often than not towards the Leg Side), there is very little chance of the ball not making it outside the fence.

The key to bowling to a West Indian batsman (inclusive of the likes of Gayle) is to attack their legs and target the Block Hole, which forces them to bend and dig out the ball or play clumsily to get the ball away from the pads, thereby increasing the chances of them chipping the ball in the air, or bowl wide outside the off stump, with fullish length, since they arent capable of scoring on the Off Side, in case you intend to save crucial runs, not really attempting to knock a wicket.

In the semis, we bowled short of good length when the wicket was not offering any bounce and the balls right at their waists, which made sixes and boundaries, easy pickings for them!

Kohli scored at a strike rate of nearly 190. How much more could he do? Only Andre Russel scored at a better rate and that too was due to shoddy Indian bowling. Just imagine if all other batsmen would have scored with same rate, India would have mounted 230 runs on the scoreboard. So one shouldn't say that running twos was Kohli's downfall. In fact he was the only saving grace for India in this match.

India defeated only one good team in Australia and they were without their best bowler starc, and it was all Kohli in the tournament who took India this far like Sachin did in 1996 world cup. Otherwise we might have lost to Pakistan as well. The win against Bangladesh was sheer luck and some mindless batting by the Bangladeshis.

Maybe we were lucky to go this far and we should accept that the hitters of West Indies are way more fierce than ours.We needed a Yusuf Pathan or a Yuvraj Singh as an equalizer but it was not to be. Maybe someone like Shami or a pace bowler instead of a batsman would have done the trick. Anyway,after the match every one is wise ,after looking at the results its very easy to point out what went wrong.I believe that with a misfiring majority ,the captain mobilized his resources very well.. he along with Virat and Nehra atleast , should be given a thumbs up if not the entire team.

Read More

Virat Kohli and Run-chases

Virat Kohli. What an outstanding player he is turning out to be. India would look very ordinary without him. He is just self confidence personified. A lot of youngsters and children who are watching him bat right now will learn a lot from him, just as Virat learnt from the great Sachin. Very hard working and extremely talented cricketer. India is blessed to have him in the team at the moment.

Virat Kohli's unbeaten 82 helped India seal the semi-final berth in the ICC World T20 and beat Australia by six wickets in their final group game at Mohali. Chasing 161 after losing the toss and being asked to bowl first, India needed a big performance from their top order and Kohli delivered for the umpteenth time.

I didn't think Kohli could ever surpass his famous assault on Sri Lanka is Oz but he did today. Absolute magical innings. It is a miracle that a team with a misfiring Rohit, Dhawan, Raina and Yuvraj is through to the semifinals. And that miracle is called Kohli. Can he carry the pathetic Indian top order for another two matches?

There are times when words aren't enough to describe a performance on the cricket field; the adjectives seem clumsy, the praise clichéd, and the description utterly prosaic. Virat's performance today was such that it renders any effort to describe it obscenely inadequate.

To finish off a close game is special; to finish off a seemingly lost game single handedly is extraordinary; but to finish off seemingly lost games, in do-or-die situations, single handedly, while playing on your terms, match after match, is nothing short of legendary. Take a bow Virat; you justified your name, which roughly means Gigantic, today.

Kudos to Nehra as well, for that was a great performance under pressure. Well done to MSD, what are we going to do without him, for superb bowling changes and keeping things calm, as usual, after that horror show of a start.

 

Read More

India-Bangladesh match in World T20 - Humdinger of a match

Phew! What a humdinger of a match it was! Mushfiqur and Mahmudullah needed only 2 runs in the last 2 balls and both got out going for the glory and thus India stays alive after this heart-stopping match. Now, the match between India and Australia is going to be a virtual Quarter Final. Bangladesh played brilliantly throughout the match but only the last 3 balls. They executed their plans perfectly. So we should call them a small team. India must learn from this match and the mistakes it made. We were just lucky that we made it through. Dhoni too should be credited for his strong captaincy. Bangladeshi team too shouldn't feel demoralised, they played brilliant cricket. People will never forget this match for years to come.

And it seems fitting when Pandya is the man called upon to bowl the final over. He is virtually mobbed by supportive team-mates when he gets the ball in hand. There are whispers in his ear from Virat Kohli. Dhoni deals out instructions. Ashish Nehra gives advice. Through the course of his walk from long-on to the top of his bowling mark at the opposite end of the ground, Pandya has more arms around him than a 21st-century warlord.

This is all for very little, because in truth, he bowls a poor over. Mushfiqur Rahim is sublimely calm as he drills the second ball through cover. He showcases the wit that made him a former captain when he paddles the next ball past the wicketkeeper for a boundary.

Two runs needed from three balls. Bangladesh have the tournament favourites and their baying home fans by the throat. The World T20's biggest upset is at the tips of their fingers.

But this is the end of their 237 balls of glory. In the seconds after that shot is hit, something profound is lost. Mushfiqur gets in Pandya's face. He flails, he screams, he snarls, he pumps his arms.

In three balls, Bangladesh lose sight of the distance they have come. They forget the captain that has inspired them. In three balls, Bangladesh turn out the light.

Everyone who saw yesterday’s match can testify what a rollercoaster ride it was. Mushfiqur’s timely fours in the final over definitely swung the match our way. Yet the night ended in heartbreak and despair for Bangladeshi fans and Mushfiqur Rahim apologized to the nation for the unprecedented loss.

Bangladesh needed two off three balls to win against India and stay alive in the ICC World Twenty20 yesterday and there were Mushfiqur Rahim and Mahmudullah at the crease to win the game.

They were the most experienced batsmen that Bangladesh had to stroke those two runs off the last three balls to create a small piece of history at the M Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bangalore. Instead they surrendered three wickets and lost the match by one run to bring about widespread dejection in the Bangladesh camp.

The last three balls in this India-Bangladesh game were monumental events that will remain carved in the memory for a long time. Some will recall with pleasure, others with pain. Especially the last ball of that game. Dhoni had to trust his instincts and make a decision in a micro second to whether throw the ball at the stumps with his gloveless hand or just sprint and win a direct one-one race for victory against the non-striker. Was there ever a int'l game when a side lost the game losing three wickets in three balls with two runs to get? I don't think so. And it is a mathematically improbable that we will ever watch it again in our lifetimes. Hands down the moment not just of the Super 10s, but in the history of the T20 world cups. It is already remarkable now that India have reached semis and will look even more stunning if India win the World Cup. If in fact, India win the world cup, expect a Bollywood blockbuster with that last over depicted as a pivotal scene in the movie.

Read More

New Zealand cricket great Martin Crowe passes away

The former Test captain of New Zealand cricket team, Martin Crowe passed away yesterday having suffered a long fight with cancer. He had been diagnosed with follicular lymphoma in October 2012 and underwent treatment for the cancer but it returned in September 2014. Doctors identified his condition as double-hit lymphoma, a rare and aggressive blood disease. Only 5% of those diagnosed with it live for longer than 12 months.

He chose not to continue with chemotherapy, opting instead to “chill out at home” as he managed his illness with natural remedies.

Crowe said his diagnosis had helped him realise what was important in life. “The main thing is the love I have for the people around me, and I only really focus on compassion and forgiveness because that’s the only way and I didn’t used to do that at all. I took too long to grow up, and now I’ve got that perspective on what my life should be about I’ve probably never been happier.”

The former Black Caps captain scored 17 centuries in 77 Tests for his country and was considered one of the greatest batsmen of his generation, leading his country between 1990 and 1993. The elegant right-hander also scored 4,704 runs at an average of 38.55 in one-day internationals. In 1991 he was named New Zealand sportsman of the year and was also awarded an MBE for services to cricket.

He was at his inspirational best during the 1992 World Cup, when he led New Zealand with flair to reach the semi final in front of a partisan home crowd.

Crowe’s influence in New Zealand cricket continued in recent years as mentor to Martin Guptill and Ross Taylor. New Zealand opener Guptill said tips from Crowe had elevated his game, and a message from the former Black Caps skipper was behind his unbeaten 237 in New Zealand’s 143-run World Cup quarter-final win over West Indies in March.

McCullum said Crowe had been invaluable in working on the batting of senior batsmen Taylor and Guptill. 

Read More

An end to the Big Three cricket boards bullying the rest of the ICC

I completely agree & support Shashank Manohar scrapping Big 3 formula which is a major obstacle and roadblock to the Growth of Game Cricket at the Global front.
Manohar & co. must scrutinize each and every single decision made under Srinivasan administration period in the office of both BCCI and ICC as it is Black Period in the History of Cricket. ICC & other Full members must take steps to promote & prevail growth of the Game Cricket at the Global front beginning with Strengthening Cricket of Associate Countries from the gross route level.
ICC must review number of participants in the World Cup 2019 and take all the necessary steps to ensure at least 12 Teams participation if not 14 Teams like the Successful 2003, 2011 & 2015 World Cup Tournaments.

However some members in the BCCI oppose this move of Mr. Manohar, especially the people in the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association (TNCA). Shashank Manohar had suggested at the last ICC board meeting that he would speak to the BCCI about the possibility of giving back a percentage of India's share of ICC revenues. The Tamil Nadu Cricket Association (TNCA) has taken strong exception to recent comments made by BCCI president Shashank Manohar with regards to the constitutional revamp carried out at the ICC under the chairmanship of his predecessor N Srinivasan. Srinivasan is the president of the TNCA.

TNCA secretary Kasi Viswanathan has written a letter asking Manohar whether he had told the ICC board that he was willing to dilute the BCCI stake on powerful committees of the world body and revise the contribution costs the BCCI was supposed to gain from the formula worked out by the Big Three, which was approved in 2014.

Manohar, who replaced Srinivasan as ICC chairman, has noted in the past few months that he does not agree with the Big Three boards - the BCCI, the ECB and CA - "bullying" the rest of the ICC.

At the last ICC board meeting in Dubai in January, Manohar suggested to the Full Members that the he would speak to the BCCI about the possibility of giving up about 6% of India's 22% share of ICC revenues back to the world body. Manohar had made both these statements in a personal capacity.

Viswanathan questioned how Manohar could make such statements without having discussed and explained the reasons first to the BCCI members. The letter sent on February 15, was also addressed to BCCI secretary Anurag Thakur, joint-secretary Amitabh Choudhury, treasurer Anirudh Chaudhury, the five vice-presidents of the board and all its full members.

"Is it true that you have made any statements in the ICC giving up BCCI's permanent membership in the ICC Committees?," asked Viswanathan. "Have you made any commitments to the ICC on BCCI's share of contribution costs? If the answer to one or both of the above questions is in the affirmative, kindly let me know under what authority have you taken this decision when this matter has not been discussed in either the Working Committee meeting or the General Body meeting of BCCI held recently?"

The TNCA letter came up for discussion at the BCCI special general body meeting, held in Mumbai on Friday. According to a member of the Srinivasan camp, Manohar told him the seven Full Members in the ICC (Bangladesh, Pakistan, New Zealand, South Africa, Sri Lanka and West Indies) along with Cricket Australia told him that they supported undoing the revamp carried out by the Big Three.

"He [Manohar] said he never committed to asking for less money and that he hasn't given up [BCCI's rightful share]," the Srinivasan camp member said. "He said: 'In order to protect our interests, instead of giving up 21 percent, I said I will share something and make sure we get at least 16 to 17 percent. That's the deal I want to do.' He told me that."

The member also said Manohar had told him he had not committed to any definitive figure during his interactions with the ICC board members on what percentage the BCCI was willing to give up. "He told me: 'I can assure you I never mooted this idea. I told them I can't take a decision without consulting the members'."

Without naming Srinivasan, Viswanathan impressed upon Manohar that after being ignored for "several years" by the ICC, the previous BCCI administration had worked hard to "achieve important breakthroughs" for Indian cricket. Viswanathan even listed three specific achievements.

The first was a BCCI nominee being elected as the inaugural ICC chairman when the previous rule would have meant the BCCI nominee's next turn at the ICC presidency would have only come in 2023 under the then prevailing rotation system. The second was the BCCI having a permanent seat on the powerful Finance and Commercial Affairs Committee and on the Executive Committee of the ICC. "Thirdly and above all, ICC saw reason and logic in BCCI's demand for a higher share of the broadcast income of ICC. All of these were discussed and approved by the Working Committee of the BCCI on 23rd January 2014," Viswananthan wrote.

Viswanathan noted that it had come as both "shock and surprise" to read Manohar's comments that he wanted to "dilute" the second and third points. "To our collective shock and surprise, possibly pandering to some dissenting media press report regarding this matter, it appears that in your recent meeting of the ICC held in Dubai last week, you have made some suggestions to the ICC Council by which the second and third points above referred are sought to be diluted, if not removed altogether."

Viswanathan explained the revised formula under which the Big Three would be guaranteed handsome monetary returns for their contributions to ICC revenues. "From the pre existing measly 3.39% (USD 52.5 Million out of Gross income of USD 1.56 Billion), BCCI, Cricket Australia and ECB were recognized as the primary contributors and hence entitled to a major share of the revenue. Accordingly BCCI was to get 22.37% (USD 570.5 Million out of gross revenue of USD 2.5 Billion) from ICC which in monetary terms works out to approximately Rs. 3,822 Crores, the said amounts being receivable from the period commencing from 2015-23," Viswanathan wrote. "It is also ensured that for the subsequent period from 2023-31, the BCCI would not receive less than this share of revenue from ICC for participating in ICC events. These monies are to be ploughed back into the game and to develop infrastructure in the grass roots."

Viswanathan questioned Manohar about how he could take decisions without consulting the rest of the BCCI. "When your action could cost BCCI hundreds and thousands of crores by way of revenue," Viswanathan wrote, "was it not legally and morally obligatory on your part to take into confidence the member associations whose bottom-line is finally affected?"

Read More

With Shivnarine Chanderpaul's retirement, ends an era in batting

Such was his consistency that, in the end, my mental impression of Chanderpaul's simple presence eclipsed the memory of his technical specifics. He was just there - resolute, uncompromising, grimly watching another batting collapse - but always there. If a marine metaphor must be used to describe him - and Chanderpaul always attracted one particular comparison - it has to be barnacle. A barnacle that opposition captains must have often wished they could blister.

Batting, it has been observed ad nauseam, captures the melancholic essence of life. It can be viewed as an existential tragedy in miniature, a lifetime's story writ small, as the batsman walks to the crease, does what he may, and finally succumbs (in most instances) to the inevitable sentence of time. Chanderpaul did better than any other West Indian (save, bizarrely, for Courtney Walsh) when it came to dodging bullets, with 49 not-outs. One short of a fifty: it seems another fitting near miss, to go with the all-time West Indian run record, for the apparently indomitable Shiv.

For many, Chanderpaul will have been the final cricketer among their contemporaries, as Alex Massie observed in his tribute. For me, though, Chanderpaul was not of my generation, but of my generation's preceding generation. He was the last player who had seemed to have always been playing to me, the last player that I could not consciously remember a time before. Cricket, according to my history, was divided into BC and CE - Before Chanderpaul and the Chanderpaul Era. As his career went on, and on and on, Shivnarine Chanderpaul became a link to my youngest self, a means by which I could trick myself that I had a measure of control over the passage of time.

Anyone in range ran the risk of being forced to discuss the "elder statesmen" of the game, the longest-serving players. Kumar Sangakkara, Misbah-ul-Haq, Ricky Ponting, the usual suspects. Then I'd point out that Chanderpaul predated them all, some not even debuting in the same decade, and relapse once more into marvelling at his longevity.

Certainly his batting belonged to a different era. In a world of "positive cricket", there appears to be little prospect of another Chanderpaul appearing. Perhaps even less chance than another Lara, for while the modern opportunities in T20 for a Lara-like genius are clear to see, will any young player feel a 21-year, 164-Test career to be worth the candle? Look around and I - not to mention Jon Hotten - can't easily see who might be the next West Indian batsman to 11,000 Test runs. Or 10,000. Or 9000. Or 8000. Chris Gayle, on 7214, might have a shot, if his back can be held together for long enough. For any of the current team, even 6000 would be a massive achievement - just scraping past the halfway mark of Chanderpaul's 11,867.

It is fitting that his departure, protracted and acrimonious as it was, reflected his characteristic unwillingness to exit, the fairly unambiguous "I am not retiring" texted to his coach being a case in point. His refusal to be prised from the crease continued to the last.

In a way, the life-batting metaphor emerged across his career on the macro as well as the micro scale. And because of the aforementioned link to my childhood, as long as Chanderpaul's career continued, I could discount my getting older, if not entirely ignore it. But now his enforced exit from the crease - the "bullet" he could not dodge - brings home the underlying angst of the batsman leaving the crease. At least, it does to me, in a way that no other player is likely to be able to do in future.

Thankfully, of course, we are only describing a retirement, not a passing. The exit from the crease remains only a metaphor, and there is no literal bullet, something that cannot, sadly, be taken for granted in the world climate that cricket now operates in. We have yet to see what field Chanderpaul's second innings will be played in. One imagines, though, that it will be marked by tenacity. The simple method of never knowing when he was beaten is a strategy that seems to have served Chanderpaul well enough over the years.

Having approached the metaphysical, it's time to return to ground level, quite literally. Chanderpaul left his mark on me.

Read More

Angelique Kerber stuns Serena Williams to win 2016 Australian Open women's title

Angelique Kerber stunned the overwhelming favourite Serena Williams to win the Australian Open on Saturday and thwart the American top seed`s bid to equal Steffi Graf`s Open-era record of 22 Grand Slam titles.

The seventh seed played some exceptional tennis to upstage the World No.1 and toppled the 34-year-old Serena Williams 6-4, 3-6, 6-4 to win her maiden major title in three grueling sets which lasted two hours and 10 minutes at the Rod Laver Arena and become the first German Grand Slam champion since Graf at the 1999 French Open.

The ultimate measure of Serena Williams is that all this century, the entire cohort of women tennis players has been out to get her, unavailingly. Fifteen different players have popped up out of that ruck to play her in finals, and 14 have been ruthlessly slapped back down. In finals, she was near to invincible, in Melbourne finals unbeaten. Here, she was playing to match Steffi Graf's aggregate of 22 major championships. But if records are there to be broken, history is also there to be made. Coolly, brilliantly, Angelique Kerber made it. "Unglaublich," her compatriots would say. Unbelievable.

For most of the night, not even an algorithm could have made sense of proceedings. When Kerber won the first set, half the world's data banks must have exploded. When she made an early break in the third, the other half must have self-immolated, too. When she made the winning break, even the hastily dusted- off abacuses would have fallen apart. But the centre court crowd could verify it all with their own ever widening eyes.

Sometimes, you would have sworn Kerber's lefthandedness disoriented her; she hit to Kerber's backhand, realising only as the ball passed over the net that it was fore. The angles were all different, and Kerber kept measuring them off. As the match took its shape and direction, Kerber could see what she would have known beforehand, that all she had to do was to keep the ball in play. It is a big "all". But with deceptive poise, and then reassurance, and then aplomb, she did.

Read More

The Santina juggernaut rolls on in the Australian Open

The Santina juggernaut rolls on as Sania Mirza and Martina Hingis win their 3rd Grand Slam title, 36th match on the trot. The top seeds fought past the seventh seeds Andrea Hlavackova and Lucie Hradecka 7-6 (1) 6-3 in the women’s doubles.

In a perfect climax to their stupendous run, Sania Mirza and Martina Hingis were on friday crowned the Australian Open women’s doubles champions after they tamed the spirited Czech duo of Andrea Hlavackova and Lucie Hradecka in straight sets for their 36th win in a row, here.

The top seeds fought past the seventh seeds Andrea Hlavackova and Lucie Hradecka 7-6 (1) 6-3 in the women’s doubles final that lasted one hour and 45 minutes.

It was their third consecutive Grand Slam title for Sania and Martina, having won the Wimbledon and US Open in the 2015 season.

In an incredible feat, Sania and Martina have now extended their unbeaten run to 36 matches, winning eight titles in a row. They won five straight titles in 2015, starting from the US Open and before the Australian Open now.

It was Sania’s second title at the Australian Open, having won the mixed doubles in 2009 with Mahesh Bhupathi.

The final though was not a stroll in the park for the world number one team with the Czechs putting up a great fight in the opening set. The match was littered with breaks with the two teams struggling to hold serve throughout. The top seeds were challenged in the opening set but sealed the second in emphatic fashion.  

Read More