Time to shed ‘Calypso cricketer’ tag, again

For as long as I can remember, I've been a fan of West Indies. It started, I think, in 1989, when, as a five-year-old living on the western coast of India, I watched an India-West Indies game, and thought that the West Indians were my own people – from the west of India.

By the 1992 World Cup, I was old enough to have checked an atlas to find the islands that made up the West Indies, but I loved Richie Richardson's hat and Curtly Ambrose's bowling action enough to continue supporting them. Even over India.

While my lasting memory from the Hero Cup was Sachin Tendulkar's over against South Africa, I remember being quite upset when West Indies were mowed down by Anil Kumble in the final. When the ‘Padams’ series of 1994 happened, in gully cricket, my bat became completely secondary to my batting. A year later, West Indies surrendered a Test series for the first time in my life – to Australia, at home. In 1996, Australia stole a World Cup final berth from under their noses. Then, they lost a Test series 3-2 to Australia, this time away. Something told me that being a West Indies fan would be infinitely tougher that point onward.

Brian Lara remained an obsession. I derived warmth from the sight of the ageing duo of Ambrose and Courtney Walsh continuing to make batsmen tap-dance. It got tougher after their retirements. The tireless Shivnarine Chanderpaul provided much comfort, and occasionally, the others provided some excitement. Overall, though, I consoled myself with sporadic displays of spark, or the rare successful skirmish, the occasional individual brilliance amid a regularly shambolic team performance.

I watched Fire in Babylon recently at Sathyam Cinemas in Chennai. The crowd was of two kinds – youth, who had heard so much about "that West Indies team" and old men who had felt the fire of that team crackling through their radios. It was nostalgia for some, and reflected nostalgia for the others.

Fire in Babylon is a compelling narrative. It has bright, striking and awe-inspiring protagonists who speak with honour and pride about the time when they ruled the world. It sets them among the cultures – as the movie reminds you repeatedly, there is no one West Indian culture – they are so proud of. It sets them amid the politics that so defined their existence (CLR James wrote that, in the West Indies, you had arrived if your company was of a lighter skin-tone than you).

It also tells of the reputation they carried prior to those glory days, that of the entertaining losers. ‘Calypso cricketers’ was the term, those happy-go-lucky entertainers, who might just pull off something exceptionally brilliant, but just don't do it with the regularity or professionalism of a champion. Those amiable, popular, fun losers…

The term could also be used to describe the West Indies team of today. In Chris Gayle, Kieron Pollard, Darren Sammy, Marlon Samuels, Dwayne Bravo and Andre Russell, they have a surprising number of batsmen who can clear the boundary with damaging consistency. In Sunil Narine, they have a freak spinner, whom, despite two years of video analysis, no one seems to have an answer to. All these cricketers, barring Sammy, are among the top-billed in T20 leagues across the world. Still, people would not have been surprised if they had imploded in crucial games at the World Twenty20.

The batch of ’76 was humiliated by defeat to Australia. That made them push themselves harder. World Twenty20 aside, the current team has been losing consistently for a decade and a half. Clearly, the humiliation of defeat can't jolt them much anymore. Clive Lloyd's men were pushed into a corner by racism and discrimination. They represented, symbolically, black peoples all over the Commonwealth – no other blacks played international cricket at that point. Sammy's team does not face that pressure.

But the West Indies today have their own set of issues. The players have had innumerable issues with an erratic board. The ensuing rift within the side led to the exile of their best batsman. The coming together of various "dots on the map" into one regional team seems artificial. Perhaps this is the reason why West Indian players find it easier to choose club over international cricket – it is one artificial entity over another, isn't it?

To that extent, the success of the West Indies lies in something similar to what Lloyd's team faced – an assertion of their identity. Of showing that there is more to their game than raw power, but retaining that power, unquestionably their biggest strength, at the centre of their game. Of showing that the common West Indian cricketing identity still means something to them. Of showing that they can play, consistently, effectively, efficiently and yet thrillingly, flamboyantly, instinctively, as one single cricket team. If those guys did it, why can't we?

Taylor made for Tests

Ross Taylor and Glenn Turner seem like opposite sides of the coin, when it comes to comparing New Zealand batsmen. Just compare their ESPNcricinfo profiles. Taylor is described as “an aggressive top-order batsman... (who) scores heavily from the pull and from slog-sweeping the spinners and his free-flowing game has made him a hit with crowds.” By comparison, Turner is described “as the most professional cricketer ever produced by New Zealand, ...an immaculately straight-playing opener, who defended with a solidity of technique few contemporaries matched. His most characteristic shots were the off-drive and a beautifully-timed drive to midwicket with the face of the bat turned on impact”.

For two players who seem so dissimilar, their Test stats are almost identical.

Player	Tests	Innings	Runs	Avg	100s	50s
Ross Taylor	41	75	3025	42.60	7	16
Glen Turner	41	73	2991	44.64	7	14

By comparing only Taylor and Turner’s Test careers (and ignoring Turner’s hundred first-class hundreds and the fact that he spent possibly the most productive part of his career not playing international cricket), Taylor, at least statistically, is almost the equal of a man, who is rightly regarded as one of New Zealand’s greatest batsman. Turner is held in high esteem, illustrated by the fact that he received a unanimous verdict (along with Martin Crowe and Richard Hadlee) when New Zealand’s best Test XI was selected on ESPNcricinfo a couple of years ago.

Given his similar Test record, I’d be surprised if Taylor would be viewed as a potential candidate for such a team yet. There seems to be a feeling that Taylor doesn’t value his wicket enough, that his aggression is out of place in the longer form of the game. But often his best Test innings have been characterised by a willingness to play shots and by that, I don’t just mean playing a slog-sweep to every second ball.

If you want evidence for this, just look back at that 113 he got recently in the second Test against India. He played aggressively, put the bad balls away but did it by playing shots all around the ground and not just exclusively through the leg-side as sometimes is his modus operandi. Eleven boundaries and a six were hit between backward point to straight, only five fours and a six went leg-side.

For someone who is often criticised for poor judgment and shot selection, Taylor is statistically one of the best Test batsmen produced by New Zealand. Only two New Zealand players, Martin Crowe and Stephen Fleming, who played more than 50 Tests managed to maintain an average of more than 40 and Taylor will surely soon join them. I’m going to gloss over the fact that he has the fourth-best average of New Zealanders in one-day internationals (behind that man Turner, Crowe and Roger Twose).

There is reason to believe that Taylor’s best years are still ahead of him, especially as he seems to have responded well to the captaincy. I’m not naïve enough to suggest that Taylor is necessarily in Turner’s class (at least not yet). We all know the arguments that Test batting is much easier now than it used to be, with bigger bats, smaller fields, mellow pitches and mediocre bowlers.

The rise of T20, often maligned, has also had an impact on batting and I don’t necessarily mean that it has had a negative one. Batsmen are now aware of scoring areas and options that wouldn’t have been contemplated even a decade ago. I’m also aware of the folly in using only stats as a measure of a player’s worth. One of cricket’s greatest strengths and also one of its major weaknesses is that, like baseball, there are statistics that can be used to dissect a player’s performance, statistics that can be used by even the most casual of followers to discuss the merits of players. Other sports are different, more subjective. It’s hard to quantify who is a better forward in football or who is a better winger in rugby, who is better, Federer or Nadal? But we know that a player with a batting average of 50 is probably better than a player who averages 40.

Someone said that statistics are the triumph of the quantitative method, and the quantitative method is the victory of sterility and death, which is a flash way of saying that statistics tell us that Steve Waugh was probably a better player than Mark Waugh but they don’t tell us about Mark Waugh’s cover drive. Statistics tell us that Glenn McGrath has the better average but he didn’t excite like Waqar Younis in his pomp. So I don’t want to read too much into Taylor’s stats but they do suggest that he may well finish his career as one of New Zealand’s best batsmen.

However paradoxical it may seem given Taylor’s reputation, he is a much more valuable and important Test player than a T20 player for New Zealand at the moment. At the international level, he has struggled to impose himself in T20s as an average of 25 and a strike rate of 121 will attest. These figures are much lower than his non-international T20 appearances, proving why he is a valued commodity in domestic cricket, both in New Zealand and in other competitions, notably the IPL and how much he has disappointed in the international T20 game.

I’m at a loss to explain why he seems to struggle in the international T20 arena. Maybe his one-dimensional approach (in T20s, he is prone to over-use the slog-sweep) gets found out at international level by world-class bowlers but works at lower levels. Of course, a player of Taylor’s class could make a 40-ball hundred tomorrow and make these words look foolish and obsolete. At the moment though, he is overshadowed in the New Zealand line-up by McCullum and by Guptill (who was recently ranked as the world’s best T20 batsman) and even arguably by James Franklin, who has made himself into quite an adept T20 batsmen. The IPL may love his slog-sweep but for me, I’d much rather see Roscoe’s cover drive. 

Why isn't Albie's potential being maximised?

South Africa’s use of the world’s most experienced Twenty20 cricketer continues to baffle. Amid the third consecutive thrilling climax of the World T20, Albie Morkel cut a forlorn figure in field. Brought back into the attack in favour of Johan Botha and JP Duminy – who had conceded 15 runs from a combined four overs – Albie conceded 20 in seven balls to Umar Gul and Umar Akmal that allowed Pakistan back into a contest they went on to claim.

Albie's contribution to the match – two overs for 26 runs, 9 off 6 with the bat, and a catch in the deep – hinted at a man who had not been an influential figure in the game. But sadly, it has too often been the case for someone who is the world’s first to reach 200 T20 appearances. Albie is also the second-most capped South African T20I player (he has played 41 games, only one fewer than his captain AB de Villiers). And yet, his near omnipresence on the team-sheet has been counterbalanced with near indifference when it comes to match contributions.

In T20Is, he has been Man of the Match just twice – far less than similar players in other sides. By contrast, Shane Watson and Shahid Afridi have both picked up seven such awards. But it’s not his fault. Much of his lack of impact is due, arguably, to the South African management’s insistence to hold him back from the action. Their use of Albie the batsman is puzzling. Here's a man who has the highest strike-rate (142.33) of any South African to play more than 15 matches, and has cleared the ropes 151 times in T20s – 53 more than the next best in the squad (JP Duminy). And yet, he has faced a mere 359 balls in 41 games. That is, on an average, around nine balls per game. Rarely has he been given the opportunity to spend time at the crease. On only four occasions has he faced more than three overs.

And despite performing admirably when he has – passing 35 on each occasion – he's too often been forced to wallow lower down the order. His strike-rate has actually declined the lower he has come in, falling from over 160 batting at No.5, to below 130 batting at No.8.

Given this history it was a shame - but by no means a surprise - to see him walk to the crease with just 2.4 overs remaining in the South African innings against Pakistan. But for all South Africa’s talk of using Albie as an impact player, it is hard to argue that leaving him so late – behind even Farhaan Behardien, who is statistically inferior to Albie in every aspect of batting – was in the best interests of the team.

Albie the bowler has proved no less frustrating. Given his bowling pedigree outside the international stage, possessing an economy rate hovering around 8, it is not surprising that his opportunities have been limited with the ball. But he has bowled just 92 overs in his T20I career.

He’s also bowled more balls (551) than he has faced (359), despite having poorer returns as a bowler (economy 7.99) than as a batsman (strike rate 142.33). But as a bowler, he’s only completed his full quota nine times.

On most occasions he has been asked to bowl two overs or less of his quota, and hasn't picked up more than a couple of wickets in an innings. Outwardly, Albie doesn’t seem too fazed. Now into his 30s, evidently personally and financially secure as a cricketer, he rarely appears agitated at his lack of opportunities for his national team. Indeed, the fact that he has been such a regular selection for the South African team would provide him comfort that the management is at least cognizant of his abilities as a cricketer. But in the interest of getting the most out of his talent for the benefit of the team, the management must let him face more balls. Hashim Amla faced many more than that (529) in a single innings against England just a couple of months ago.

Given South Africa have suppressed Albie's impact for song long, it is unlikely they will change track. So even if they lift their first global trophy next Sunday in Colombo, we can fully expect Albie to pick up his medal despite being no more than a bit-part player.

One ball, 286 runs: fact or fiction?

Cricket has built up more than its fair share of urban legends over the years. Just as with any other subject, some of them are so far-fetched and easily proved false it's surprising that anyone could believe them at all.

It only takes a brief check of the results between the two teams to show that Pakistan have not beaten India in every ODI they've played on a Friday, while the story that Adolf Hitler had the German cricket team killed suffers from the rather obvious flaw that Germany did not have a national team during the years of the Nazi regime. A few, on the other hand, turn out to be true: CK Nayudu really did hit a ball into the next county (batting in a tour match at Edgbaston, he hit a six onto the opposite bank of the River Rea, which at the time formed the boundary between Warwickshire and Worcestershire), and Ajay Jadeja is indeed related to KS Ranjitsinhji, albeit by adoption rather than blood.

Perhaps the most interesting of the legends are those on the middle ground: improbable, but not inconceivable; difficult to prove, yet also difficult to disprove. A common theme for such stories is the sought-after record for the most runs scored from a single hit. The first class record is 10 (set by Albert Hornby in 1873 and equalled by Samuel Wood in 1900), but tales from club cricket claim figures far higher than this.

In Fore's Sporting Notes and Sketches in 1894, Somerville Gibney writes: "Without doubt the biggest hit of the year was one for 93! It was recorded in an evening paper — and I give it as there stated. The Peckham Pushers were playing Camberwell Albion, on the 26th of May. Albion made 129, and there remained fifty-five minutes for play. The Pushers could only look for a draw, and sent in JH Brown and A Archer. From the very first ball Brown made a big drive, the ball lodging in a rook's nest. While a fielder was getting the ball, which could be seen, and was therefore not lost, they ran 93. The Pushers eventually knocked off the remainder, and won by four wickets."

The story travelled halfway around the world, appearing in the Inangahua Times in New Zealand in July of the same year - but is it true? What was the evening paper which Gibney mentions as his source, but does not name? The South London Observer was widely circulated in the area in the 1890s, and regularly carried reports of club matches in Peckham - but no trace of this one. Perhaps, more tellingly, it does not even mention the Peckham Pushers or Camberwell Albion at all. Nor, as far as I can find, does any other publication except in relation to the rook's nest story. Two active clubs could scarcely have escaped the notice of a newspaper which regularly reported on cricket in the area. It seems that the story is a fabrication, and whoever made it up also made up the names of two clubs to feature in it.

Among its ‘Sporting Notes and News’, the Pall Mall Gazette of 15th January 1894 carried this: “Western Australia is advancing rapidly, but it seems to be still a little behind in the matter of scientific cricket. A match was recently played at Bonbury, Western Australia, between the Victorian team and a scratch XI from the neighbourhood. The ‘gumsuckers’ went in first, and the first ball bowled was skied into a three-pronged branch of a tall jarrah tree. The home team cried 'lost ball', but the umpire ruled that as it was in sight it could not be lost. The Victorians started running, while the West Australians sent for an axe to cut down the tree. No axe being obtainable, somebody brought out a rifle, and the ball, after numerous misses, was shot down. The score on the one hit was 286, and the Victorians ‘stood’ [declared] on that, and put the other side in. The Victorians won.”

The most noticeable point about this story is that the match is supposed to have taken place in Australia, but the newspaper reporting it is one published in England. Is there any contemporary Australian source for the story? Apparently not: its first mention there is on 2nd March that year in the Inquirer & Commercial News in Perth - but that article does not vouch for its truth, only for the fact that the Pall Mall Gazette published it.

The story appeared in other Australian newspapers in the following months, and even made it to the US, with a mention in the Lowell Daily Sun in Massachusetts on 15th May the same year - but while the latter published it as fact, all the mentions in the country where the feat was allegedly achieved express scepticism, with theWestern Mail in Perth referring to it as 'that enormous fairy tale' and saying 'a hit for 286 licks all cricket creation, using the word in its imaginary sense, of course'. The story of the hit for 286 has been repeated countless times over the years, and is probably the most popular answer when the question of most runs off one ball comes up on internet forums, but appears to be nothing more than an invention of the Pall Mall Gazette.

A more modest claim, but one which appears to be true, is one ball for 17 by Garry Chapman in a club match in Australia, when the ball was hit into a patch of long grass and the fielders struggled to find it. As luck would have it, the Banyule CC website features a collection of anecdotes from the club's history written by Chapman himself, so we have an account from the horse's mouth: “Vinny umpired against Macleod as Borrie and I ran, walked and, finally, staggered our way to the world record of 17 runs from a single ball (p. 247 Guinness Book of Records 1992). We were enjoying ourselves. ‘Twelve…’ we’d shout as we headed back for another. "Thirteen..." and so on. At the end of it all Vinny had the final say. He turned to the scorers and, in his wonderful Yorkshire voice, he announced, ‘Scorers, that be seventeen!’ He turned to me and confided, ‘Aven’t got signal for seventeen!’ He then proceeded to lecture the Macleod blokes on the intricacies of the Lost Ball rule.”

In the absence of evidence in support of any of the higher figures claimed, it seems likely that Chapman's 17 is indeed the world record for most runs scored off one ball, but if anyone knows of a substantiated instance of more than that, I would be fascinated to hear of it.

Is the fitness support system failing the bowlers?

It is difficult and unfair to criticise what you do not fully understand. So I write this piece with due respect to the profession that I am about to ask questions of, partly to educate myself when the responses flood in and partly to ask some questions that many ordinary folk are also asking.

A few months ago I questioned the value of the support staff that are now an integral part of any first-class cricket structure. Those pieces attracted some comments from around the world, the general consensus seeming to lean towards the theory that modern cricketers just don’t seem to be doing enough bowling to properly prepare their bodies to withstand soft-tissue injuries.

Four months later and it doesn’t look there are any answers to this complex issue. Let’s contrast the Pat Cummins and Shane Watson cases then: Watson was withdrawn from the Champions League Trophy in South Africa to supposedly help him to rest and recover so he would be fit for the Test series. In theory, that strategy made sense. You can only assume that the combined intellect and experience of the medical staff tailored a program of recovery, sleep, diet and stretching that would ensure Watson would be in tip-top shape for the Gabba. Yet, despite all of this expertise and cotton-wooling, he was unable to bowl more than six balls without incurring a soft-tissue injury. It simply defies belief. Either the preparation was inadequate or he wasn’t warmed up properly but the bottom line was that despite all the cossetting, his body was unable to bowl six balls of medium without damaging a muscle. Which begs the question; what more needs to be done to ensure he can get to a point where he can bowl at least two overs?

Contrast Watson’s situation with Cummins and you get the polar opposite. Cummins was not withdrawn from the Sydney Sixers campaign in South Africa and was allowed to keep playing, presumably also under the supervision and care of equally knowledgeable and dedicated medical staff. Despite this care, he is now sidelined for a whole season, although a stress fracture is more structural than soft-tissue and therefore perhaps more of a technique issue.

So it appears that neither strategy appears to be working. Mollycoddling a player and wrapping him in cotton-wool does not guarantee that he can get through a single over of bowling in a competitive context. Allowing a bowler to play competitive cricket (albeit still under strict supervision and some cotton-wooling) also results in a season-ending injury. What more can we do to get a professional cricketer, whose sole job these days is to play cricket and look after Body Beautiful, with an army of expert medicos and conditioners, fit enough to do his job? They don’t have to work normal jobs like the cricketers of yesteryear, they travel in Business Class with flat-back seats, they sleep in single rooms so they are not disturbed by room-mates, their diet is strictly monitored, they stretch for hours each day, they have ice-baths and massages whenever the experts tell them to. Is there anything that we are missing?

It’s the soft-tissue injuries that are inexplicable. You can understand broken fingers, sprained ankles and perhaps even rotator cuff injuries through over-bowling. You can understand cracked ribs when batting in the nets. I simply cannot get my head around how you can possibly get injured after bowling just six balls, presumably after an extensive warm-up routine supervised by experts. 

I have bowled a million overs in my life and I have never torn a muscle. Ever. With minimum warm-up routines, no compression garments or therabands and no special diet or hydration. Sometimes I have run straight from the car park, having mowed my yard in the morning and washed the dog, to bowl 20 overs on the trot. My body is still being pushed as far as it can go so the argument that I’m not bowling at 150 kph doesn’t really wash. My boots are not new, I do not have hydration drinks brought to me every few minutes and I didn’t get much sleep the night before because my baby was crying. You would expect someone like me to frequent the local physio. Admittedly, I have a natural advantage over someone like Watson in the sense that you cannot strain what you do not have. As I have very few muscles anywhere in my body, it would be a medical miracle to find one that was prepared to rip.

I come back to my core question; what does the medical profession need to learn about itself to keep improving in this regard? Clearly the current system is not working. That much is self-evident. So we need to learn from this and come up with a system that produces more durable cricketers. Perhaps they need even more tender care. Or perhaps they just need to swallow a bit of cement and harden up. What’s so wrong with going back to a system that just puts the onus back on the players to get fit or get out? Whatever you need to do to do your job properly, just figure it out and we’ll just judge you on your performance on the park. If that means surrounding yourself with sleep/diet/medical/yoga experts, then choose your poison. Some may choose to just bowl themselves into fitness and rhythm in the nets, like cricketers of yesteryear who also hardened their bodies (through necessity) by having to work labouring jobs. Whatever method they choose, is it perhaps time to dispense with all the compulsory scientific and medical staff and put the onus back on the individual to do whatever it takes to get himself fit?

I realise that my rhetorical questions are unlikely to be seriously considered but I can still ask the question with an impish smile. The bottom line is that for all those who defend the current system, it is clear that it is not producing results. That much is fact. What is not clear yet is how we can better prepare cricketers for a normal day’s work without them calling in sick? I daresay a system that had no central contracts but was based on a “you play, we pay” payment model might just work. Clearly there would need to be an allowance made for impact injuries or accidents sustained at training or in a game situation but for those players who do nothing but prepare for a game of cricket with highly paid experts and the very best care that money can buy and are still unable to take the field, something needs to change. Simply adding more medical staff, more tests, more sleep monitoring and more stretching is not producing better outcomes. 

More bowling perhaps? Mow the lawn, wash the dog? God forbid, find a normal job in the off-season? Or is that too simplistic?

Champions League or IPL 2.0?

At its core, the Champions League T20 is a brilliant idea; the top T20 sides around the world, congregating for an International-domestic tournament. Two weeks of slap-happy cricket, throwing a spotlight on players of the future, or in some cases, players who may have only ever been renown within their nation’s fan following. It can be a great yardstick as to the depth of the national pool of T20 players, or perhaps just an example of some local sides with strong with a weight talent. However, the 2012 CLT20, more than the previous two seasons, has seemed a little more like IPL 2.0.

Team Qualification: In the first two editions of CLT20, three IPL teams played, compared to the two from Australia and South Africa, and a sprinkling of single teams from other nations. In the third year, Kolkata Knight Riders were able to compete for one of the open slots, successfully making four IPL teams in 2011. This year, four of the eight automatic qualification slots have been given to the IPL sides. This now means sides from New Zealand, Sri Lanka, the West Indies, England and Pakistan, make the tournament only if they secure one of the two remaining spots. While the BCCI is the major stakeholder in the CLT20 (along with the Australian and South African cricket boards), having so many teams from the one domestic group takes the sheen off the international appeal. 

IPL vs Home Conundrum: Easily the most contentious aspect of the CLT20 is player allegiance. In this day, when T20 Leagues represent a good financial opportunity for a player, it is not unusual for someone to be signed to multiple domestic sides. One would think that the player would automatically play for their home province. Unfortunately, players have the luxury of choice, and more often than not, are picking their IPL sides over their home franchises. Who can blame them? With so much prize money up for grabs, the player wants to ensure their best chance of winning the tournament. For the health of cricket, the triumvirate of cricket associations must come together, and alter this rule. The exodus of T&T players, the Morkel brothers and Brett Lee (just to name a few) from their local sides dilutes the intended purpose of the competition.

Home-grown players: Here lies an issue with both the IPL and SLPL sides. Within their respective leagues, IPL and SLPL sides are allowed to field a maximum of four and five international stars respectively. However, with most other T20 competitions, this is a maximum of two. The effect here is twofold. It not only gives the IPL and SLPL sides the possible advantage of fielding a side with more quality cricketers, but once again contradicts the concept of the domestic team. It may even trivialise the contest, for if the Sydney or Perth sides played Chennai Super Kings, it may be possible for 14 of the 22 players appearing to be Australian. Whether the other nations are allowed more, or IPL and SLPL sides are restricted to fewer, all sides competing in the CLT20 should have a standardised number of allowed international (that is foreign) players allowed in one side.

As stated, the Champions League is an exciting tournament, and one which will no doubt provide a great spectacle from start to finish. The only qualms, keep it even, and keep it domestic… in an international sense.

SOURCE:http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2012/10/putting_the_champions_back_in.php

Afghanistan give India scare but run out of gas

India 159 for 5 (Kohli 50, Raina 38, Shapoor 2-33) beat Afghanistan 136 (Nabi 31, Balaji 3-19, Yuvraj 3-24, Ashwin 2-20) by 23 runs
Scorecard

	Shapoor Zadran's lively first spell, in which he removed India's openers, set the tone for Afghanistan © AFP  Enlarge

Bubbling with enthusiasm and energy, Afghanistan gave India a scare with the ball and a half with the bat, but 20 overs proved to be too long a time for them to sustain that quality and keenness. They could have had India at 79 for 5, but dropped Virat Kohli and Suresh Raina within eight deliveries only for the two to add a total of 53 further runs. They also conceded 16 extras to facilitate India's recovery to 159 runs, but Mohammad Shahzad, Nawroz Mangal and Mohammad Nabi chased with spirit and with gusto, taking them to within 43 with four overs to go, but R Ashwin dismissed Nabi for a 17-ball 31 to kill the chase.

Two sides turned up at the R Premadasa, the underdogs who were clearly enjoying their day on the world stage, and the fancied team who seemed to have the weight of the world on their shoulders. With India's bowling and fielding nearly conceding 160 against an Affiliate team, MS Dhoni surely has the weight of the world firmly on his shoulders. Bigger tests await India, but tonight was about Afghanistan putting up the first show for a minnow in this tournament.

It was the tall left-arm seamer Shapoor Zadran who gave Afghanistan an intentful start. The first ball he bowled, the first of the match, was dug in short even if wide outside off. By the end of that over he was beating Gautam Gambhir for pace. The official broadcasters recorded it at 150.3kmph. In his next over he got one to stop a touch, and Gambhir played on. That earned Shapoor a third over at the top, and he finished his job on Virender Sehwag: beaten twice outside off before edging through.

At 22 for 2 in the fifth over, Kohli respectfully expressed his inability to do anything wrong, reaching a sixth fifty in his last six international innings. When he lofted Gulbodin Naib for a straight six in the eighth over, the run-rate crossed six for the first time since the innings first achieved some shape. The spinners, though, put a lid on that momentum. Yuvraj Singh edged a cut to short third man off Karim Sadiq in the 11th over.

Sadiq and Nabi proceeded to exert pressure on new man Raina who soon lobbed straight back to Nabi, but perhaps in his eagerness to celebrate he let it spill. In the next over, Sadiq nearly got his second but the hit burst through Samiullah Shenwari's hands at long-on. From a possible dominating position, Afghanistan had now let indiscipline creep in both their fielding and bowling. Shapoor came back to go for 14 in his last over that included a typical extra-cover drive from Kolhi and a high full toss to Raina.

In the next over, Raina was dropped again. Dawlat Zadran came back to get Kohli a ball after he had reached his fifty, but he undid his good work with six wides in the 19th over that also incuded three lovely yorkers. Nabi bowled a superb 20th over full of yorkers until providing Dhoni with two low full tosses that he sent for four and six.

That wasn't about to dent Shahzad's spirit, who had promised a Dhoni-style helicopter shot in the lead-up to the match. He duly delivered it, off a full ball from Zaheer Khan no less, and Afghanistan were 24 for 0 in three overs, just the rate they needed. L Balaji stopped that rot for India by getting Shahzad with a bouncer, but Afghanistan were far from giving up.

Mangal hit Balaji and Irfan Pathan for a six and a four, sending Dhoni to his magic man Yuvraj, who delivered immediately with an lbw off a straight delivery. When he took two in two in the 12th over to reduce Afghanistan to 75 for 4, the game seemed over. India's bowling weakness, though, was about to raise its head. Nabi hit Zaheer's length bowling for 16 in the 16th over, and if India didn't quite panic they couldn't have been far off.

In the next over, though, Ashwin did Nabi in with a long pause before delivering, and getting him to mis-hit to long-off. That flattened the chase, but it was an effort that a lopsided tournament so far badly needed.