In one of the English county championship matches, Viru and an Englishman were facing Abdul Razzaq who was making the ball talk with his reverse swing. Quite impossible to face, Razzaq was running though the batting order. In between the overs, Viru nonchalantly informed his partner that he has a plan for Razzaq in his mind and with the same nonchalance next over the ball was dispatched out of the park, never to come back again. Phew! Problem solved!! New ball in!!! Good Bye reverse swing!!! Get back to basics!!!
True or false, the story tells a lot about the character of Viru. Simple solution to an otherwise difficult problems. That's Viru. Rather, "Keep It Straight and Simple (KISS)" has been his mantra right from start and to his credit, he has never ever mended it. Careless, fearless, Out of the box and above all always his own self. "When you commentators (Goeffrey, Gavaskars et. al.) discuss about batting, its techniques etc., it looks as if it is the most difficult pursuit in the world. I know only one simple thing. See the ball and hit it.", He had commented to Harsha Bhogle on one of the TV shows and doesn't he make it look so simple?
Peeping into the history, there have been three prolific batsmen who metamorphosed Indian approach to batting. Gavaskar in late 70s and early 80s showed us how to stand and stand tall. Weathering the storms of Roberts, Halls, Marshals, Holdings etc. Indian team learned not only to save games and but they earned the pride too. Tendulkar (Sheru) in the early nineties started demonstrating how to walk and at times run. He offered confidence that we have it in us to take the attack to the opposition and at times we can indeed dictate terms. Unfortunately, he did not receive adequate support from team mates to keep that pressure for long (a day or 2 straight in a test match) in the early nineties. Soon realized that the longer he stays at the wicket, more beneficial it is for the team and (probably) had to alter his game to a reasonable extent. The usual flamboyance was replaced by caution with aggression approach. The behind the wicket minimal risk shots were invented and longer he stayed at the crease, the team looked better. Otherwise it was like Sheru gone, match gone.
Starting Ganguly's tenure as a captain and settled quality middle order (Dravid, Sachin, Ganguly and Laxman) at his disposal, Sehwag has started to offer us a dream that we can fly and fly high. To his credit, Viru has never changed his apporach to the game. Probably because, he could always rely on the cushion of the prolific middle order batting line-up. With his brutal ability to hit the ball hard at will, he has changed the role of an opening batsman in Tests. The usual role of the opener has been to leave as many balls as possible, take the shine off the ball so that it becomes easier for the middle order to plunder the bowling. Viru, even in a short period at crease, not only takes the shine of the ball but also changes the shape of it, setting the opposition to the back foot early on. The longer he stays at the crease, more devastating is the effect. Be it the first ball after lunch or the last ball before the end of days play, he plays every ball the way he wants to. The position of the game, nature of the wicket, reputation of the bowler seldom intervene in the decision making. Average balls never receive any respect and bad balls are always treated with disdain. Remember, he went from 294 to 300 during his first 300 @ Multan with a flamboyant six. How many can ever do that? and how many can go public after missing another saying, "(No big deal.) It was a missed opportunity, but there will always be a next time." Striking, isn't it? Looks like he treats tripple 100s just as another 100 or a 200. To me, there is a very thin line between confidence and arrogance. For brave hearts like Viru the boasting probably suits the most and touchwood he gets another chance sooner than later.
I really wonder what would have happened if Viru phenomenon would have occurred to Indian cricket ahead of Sheru? Sachin surely has an early bird advantage over Viru. Owing to the rule that the best batsman should bat @ no. 4 in Test cricket, Viru would definitely have been given that role in the absence of Sheru and Sheru would then have had to open the innings for team India. If Viru then had altered his game? and if Sheru would have remained his aggressive self? Would Viru have proved to be a better finisher of the game? and if Bradman would have felt Viru bats very much like him? The questions are fun to address. Thoughts are welcome...
True or false, the story tells a lot about the character of Viru. Simple solution to an otherwise difficult problems. That's Viru. Rather, "Keep It Straight and Simple (KISS)" has been his mantra right from start and to his credit, he has never ever mended it. Careless, fearless, Out of the box and above all always his own self. "When you commentators (Goeffrey, Gavaskars et. al.) discuss about batting, its techniques etc., it looks as if it is the most difficult pursuit in the world. I know only one simple thing. See the ball and hit it.", He had commented to Harsha Bhogle on one of the TV shows and doesn't he make it look so simple?
Peeping into the history, there have been three prolific batsmen who metamorphosed Indian approach to batting. Gavaskar in late 70s and early 80s showed us how to stand and stand tall. Weathering the storms of Roberts, Halls, Marshals, Holdings etc. Indian team learned not only to save games and but they earned the pride too. Tendulkar (Sheru) in the early nineties started demonstrating how to walk and at times run. He offered confidence that we have it in us to take the attack to the opposition and at times we can indeed dictate terms. Unfortunately, he did not receive adequate support from team mates to keep that pressure for long (a day or 2 straight in a test match) in the early nineties. Soon realized that the longer he stays at the wicket, more beneficial it is for the team and (probably) had to alter his game to a reasonable extent. The usual flamboyance was replaced by caution with aggression approach. The behind the wicket minimal risk shots were invented and longer he stayed at the crease, the team looked better. Otherwise it was like Sheru gone, match gone.
Starting Ganguly's tenure as a captain and settled quality middle order (Dravid, Sachin, Ganguly and Laxman) at his disposal, Sehwag has started to offer us a dream that we can fly and fly high. To his credit, Viru has never changed his apporach to the game. Probably because, he could always rely on the cushion of the prolific middle order batting line-up. With his brutal ability to hit the ball hard at will, he has changed the role of an opening batsman in Tests. The usual role of the opener has been to leave as many balls as possible, take the shine off the ball so that it becomes easier for the middle order to plunder the bowling. Viru, even in a short period at crease, not only takes the shine of the ball but also changes the shape of it, setting the opposition to the back foot early on. The longer he stays at the crease, more devastating is the effect. Be it the first ball after lunch or the last ball before the end of days play, he plays every ball the way he wants to. The position of the game, nature of the wicket, reputation of the bowler seldom intervene in the decision making. Average balls never receive any respect and bad balls are always treated with disdain. Remember, he went from 294 to 300 during his first 300 @ Multan with a flamboyant six. How many can ever do that? and how many can go public after missing another saying, "(No big deal.) It was a missed opportunity, but there will always be a next time." Striking, isn't it? Looks like he treats tripple 100s just as another 100 or a 200. To me, there is a very thin line between confidence and arrogance. For brave hearts like Viru the boasting probably suits the most and touchwood he gets another chance sooner than later.
I really wonder what would have happened if Viru phenomenon would have occurred to Indian cricket ahead of Sheru? Sachin surely has an early bird advantage over Viru. Owing to the rule that the best batsman should bat @ no. 4 in Test cricket, Viru would definitely have been given that role in the absence of Sheru and Sheru would then have had to open the innings for team India. If Viru then had altered his game? and if Sheru would have remained his aggressive self? Would Viru have proved to be a better finisher of the game? and if Bradman would have felt Viru bats very much like him? The questions are fun to address. Thoughts are welcome...
5 comments:
Certainly true: Viru is redefining TEST cricket with the magnificiant strike-rate.
Chuckle ;-) --> He offers the benefit of watching T20(costly tickets !!) in a TEST cricket(cheaper tickets !!).
I am not much of a cricket person anymore. I am glad you enjoyed Sahwag's way.
Thanks Ganesh and Mridula:
Everybody enjoys Sehwag bat. No second thoughts :-)
2009 is a wonderful year to Indian Cricket. Reaching to No.1 position in Test cricket, scoring highest runs in one day, individual international records by Sachin & Sehwag. Wah, Jai Ho!!
Yes Peru!!!
Thanks to collective efforts for over a decade, India is really a very good team now.
A very good bowling strength. mature batting line-up. decent variety of spin options. All is well till it lasts. What happens after the biggies retire and how good the youngsters co-op with the pressure, 'll determine the future, which to me looks really bright.
Post a Comment