The case for Irfan Pathan

Who should be India's all rounder? India have invested a lot of time in Jadeja. Jadeja has come in for a fair bit of criticism in the recent past, some of it a tad harsh. He's done well with ball. He's economical, gets the odd wicket and generally bowls his full quota of 10 overs. Most of his matches have come in the batting paradises on offer in the subcontinent. So he does deserve some credit for that. The problem is his batting. Jadeja strikes me as the kind of player, who on a good day can pick up the singles and twos and hit the occasional boundary. He does not seem to be able to change gear though and at no 7, which is where he is going to bat, you need a player who can play the big shots.

Yusuf Pathan is another option. He's been found out in recent times largely due to poor technique especially against the short ball. Teams are going to keep bouncing him and unless he can overcome this particular weakness, he is likely to struggle. Yusuf is also not as a good a bowler as Jadeja is.

The only other option is Irfan Pathan. Pathan is quite obviously not the bowler he was in the early noughties. It's disappointing to see a natural swinger of the ball, resorting to the cutters and slower balls that he seems to bowl all the time at the moment. What we need to remember though is that Pathan, if selected, will be India's 5th bowler. He is not required to lead the attack. He can be used once the field is spread out and batsman are looking more at rotating the strike.

Where he really scores over the other two is his batting. Unlike his brother Yusuf, Irfan's game is built on a solid platform. He does the basics well. He does not have as big a problem with the short ball. He's got all the shots and has played some crucial innings' for India in the past. Irfan also has the ability to play the big shots that are needed lower down the order.

With not too much time to go before the WC starts, India certainly need to give Irfan a few games and see how he goes. If he can strike some form going into the tournament, he still has the potential to be an asset to the side.

Bangladesh

Bangladesh's approach during the game against Pakistan was astonishing. Whenever anyone has questioned Bangladesh's right to be playing cricket at this level, we have had angry responses from passionate Bangladeshi supporters. Whilst I appreciate the passion, the fact is Bangladesh are not yet ready for international cricket, nor do they look like beating any half decent team consistently in the foreseeable future. Occasional victories are going to happen - a team that plays 35 matches in a year are bound to win 1 or 2. But I really can't see them achieving anything beyond that.

Today's match or mismatch was a case in point. It reminded me of Sunny Gavaskar's infamous innings against England in this match http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65035.html. If Bangladesh do not have the desire to compete, they should not be playing, it's as simple as that. Yes they were most likely going to lose no matter how they approached it. But the fact that they did not even try is embarrassing to both cricket and Bangladesh as a team.

Yusuf Pathan

I've been mildly surprised to see the reaction the Yusuf Pathan dropping seems to have evoked. Whilst the majority, myself included, feel that the dropping is justified, there is a lobby that has reacted with surprise to his axing from the national team. The argument put forward is that he was batting lower down the order where chances to get big runs do not come about very often. This is probably true to a certain extent but is still no reason to continue with him.

Look at the statistics - 37 matches, average of 22 & 2 fifties. For starters in those 37 matches there must have been at least the few odd occasions where he got to bat with overs to spare. He has obviously failed to take those chances. The other problem is that Yusuf was selected as lower order biffer. He is not good enough to bat any higher. For those of you who still think its unfair, then who would you pull down the order to accommodate Yusuf?

It is also fairly obvious that teams have caught on to his absolute inability to deal with the short ball. Yusuf's average statistics seem even poorer when you take into consideration that the bulk of his ODI's have been played in the more favorable environments that are on offer in the subcontinent. He is yet to play a single ODI in Australia, England or South Africa. If he is unable to successfully combat the short stuff in India, what chances does he have on the bouncier surfaces abroad?

I'm no apologist for Srikkanth or his selection panel. But this time folks, I think he's got it right!

IPL & Pakistan

The exclusion of Pakistani players from the IPL has divided opinions like few other issues. Like most issues involving India and Pakistan, opinions have been mixed. Was the IPL right in keeping the Pakistani players out?

It is immediately obvious that the reasons for their exclusion are non-cricketing ones. Apart from the fact that Pakistan are world champions in this format, they have also easily been the most consistent team in T-20 cricket. Afridi, Asif, Aamer, Gul and maybe even Imran Nazir, Saeed Ajmal and youngsters like Umar Akmal would have certainly found bidders had they been from any other cricketing nation.

Pakistani journalists have lashed out at the IPL for ignoring their players. They have also claimed that there is a larger conspiracy here – namely to insult Pakistan and its cricketers. Some of the Pakistani cricketers have echoed these sentiments. The IPL for its part has said that the selection of players are the prerogative of the various franchises and that it had no say over who gets selected.

The franchise owners have invested a lot of money in the IPL. Like all business people their priority is to get a reasonable return on their investment. Given the fragile relationship that India shares with Pakistan at this point, it is only natural that the franchises were reluctant. The recession may have shown signs of receding, but the after effects are still being felt. Another bomb blast or terrorist attack in the near future and the participation of the Pakistanis would again be in doubt. The franchises were not prepared to take a risk and there is nothing wrong with that.

What could have been avoided though was the way the whole thing was conducted. The horrendous attacks in Mumbai happened well over a year ago and this situation is nothing new. If the franchises were reluctant to sign Pakistani players, then what was the point on going through the meaningless charade of asking them to apply? It would have been much easier to have just informed the players before-hand that they need not apply as the franchises were not interested.

Lastly for those claiming that India should have played the role of big brother and encouraged the Pakistanis to compete are missing the point completely. The IPL is a private owned league. The owners have not invested money to spread the cricketing gospel or for any other such noble cause. Their objective has been to make as much money out of possible from the new ‘craze’ that has engulfed world cricket. Given this it is hardly surprising that they have gone for players who they know would be available to them for as long as possible.

Total Cricket

Flexibility seems to be the in-thing in cricket today. Gone are the days where a batsman knew before a game where he was likely to be batting. In the context of Indian cricket, Greg Chapell first came up with this idea and its now being taken forward by MS Dhoni. Samir Chopra on Cricinfo reccently suggested that batsman needed to bat at fixed positions, but they should be able to change their game depending on the situation of the match. This in theory is a fantastic proposition but can it be implemented successfully?

Total football was a strategy that gained a lot of interest in the fifties and sixties The Hungarian side which had amongst others the great Ferenc Puskas believed that all players needed to be able to play in all positions. The theory believed that a defender should be equally adept at attacking as he was in defending. That Hungary side came closest to actually translating this theory into successful performance. But in the end the theory died out. People realized that it was next to impossible to master every skill possible. After all different players have different strengths.

Let us say for example that Suresh Raina gets the go-ahead to be India's number 3 batsman. Then even in the event of playing in conditions were the ball is swinging and seaming, Raina should be able to combat the seaming ball as well as Rahul Dravid. If this was indeed true, it would undoubtedly be fantastic. But this happening is extremely unlikely.

India at times in the world cup seemed to experiment a little too much even when it was clearly not required. I reckon India will be better served by having a stable batting order that can be flexible if the situation demands it.