The 'Pigeon' rules the roost - even at the very end

The retirement of McGrath marks the end of an era in Australian quick bowling; that he wound up as the player of the series in the 2007 World Cup bears testament to the commitment he showed, enabling him to go out on top.

Never express, often metronomic, always thinking (and shaking his head), I've seen him convince far too many Sri Lankan batsman to nick one to the keeper or slips; as much as Australia will miss McGrath, other teams will breathe a sigh of relief.

Cricket World Cup 2007 - Final - SL vs. Aus

After a heartening performance throughout the tournament, Sri Lanka were swept aside by Australia, who won their third straight World Cup.

Faced with a good batting pitch to bowl on first, the Sri Lanka bowling turned out well below par, with only Lasith Malinga (and that too only in his first spell) looking to curb the Australian batting. After Gilchrist got after Vaas, a big start was assured; Sri Lanka did well however to pull the scoring back to allow an Australian total of 281, which at one time threatened to get up to about 310. Gilchrist's century (149) was brilliant, more so given that he was out of form coming into the final; he was a clear choice for the man of the match. The Sri Lankan attack was nowhere as disciplined as in the earlier stages of the tournament, giving 16 wides and 3 no balls. Curtailing the extras and bowling a tighter line would have kept Australia closer to 250, which would have allowed Sri Lanka to pace their innings a little less frenetically.

The Sri Lankan chase was perhaps a little too slow at the start, but Jayasuriya (63) and Sangakkara (54) clearly batted to a plan. However, the climbing asking rate accounted for several wickets leaving Sri Lanka totalling 215-8 in an end made controversial by some poor umpiring. Mahela Jayawardena, in a gracious gesture agreed to bat the overs through without excacerbating an already confused situation.

Overall, Australia were so dominant that it probably mattered little whether Sri Lanka batted first or last. Much is being made by Sri Lanka supporters of Gilchrist carrying a squash ball in his glove to help him with his grip, which sounds a lot like sour grapes; their argument is based on this giving Gilchrist an unfair advantage (if not illegally, at least unethically). To be fair, I trust this argument would extend to Sri Lankan cricketers wearing 'pirith nool' or Dilhara Fernando or Chaminda Vaas making the sign of the cross, with any divine help being provided thereafter being put down to an unfair advantage.

During the recent Indian tour, I felt Sri Lanka had to pull together far more to mount a credible challenge at the World Cup - this they did, at times brilliantly so. However, my second concern was how well the Sri Lankan bowling would fare when under fire - and sadly were found wanting in this most crucial of matches.

Looking to the future, if Sri Lanka are ever to be as dominant as the Australians have been of late in world cricket, they must look to win all their matches, getting the win rate up as close as possible to 100%. If they do this, World Cups and other trophies will follow automatically, I believe. The Sri Lankan team showed the right ingredients in playing with passion, pride and skill, showing both individual excellence and great team spirit. Given that this performance was away from home, it probably ranks even higher than the 1996 World Cup winning performance.

Scores: Cricinfo
Bulletin: Cricinfo

Cricket World Cup 2007 Highlight - Ranjit Fernando

There's been much said (a lot of it abusive) about Ranjit Fernando and his commentary skills. It got to the point where even if another commentator made a Ranjit Fernando-like observation, all would ignore it... all the while singing a hymn of hate for Ranjit Fernando.

Let's face it - Ranjit Fernando's commentary is poor, perhaps unbelievably so.

• He cannot analyze the game technically anywhere as well as a Richie Benaud, Ravi Shastri, Ian Chappell, Barry Richards, Sunil Gavaskar or prospectively, Kumar Sangakkara. He's not even an anchor (as it were) in the mould of Tony Cozier.
• He does not have the voice nor the presence to do the job he is doing, though I suspect he's a lot better than the rest of us at it.
• He repeats what others say, uses tired old cliches and gets the score wrong - a lot.
• He can't identify players correctly and in the England match, he got the result wrong.
• He can't even pronounce his countrymen's names (e.g. Tharangaa for Tharanga).
• He states the 'bleeding obvious' (as per Martin Johnson of the Telegraph, who states the bleeding obvious in pointing this out himself!), but for the open minded, he only does it more often than the other commentators. After all, any commentator who says a batsman hit a four, while the same is being displayed on the screen is guilty of this infringement - was Ranjit Fernando the only one? And yes, I'm equally guilty of stating the obvious in pointing out Martin Johnson - thank you, point taken, I'll try and stop doing that!

At least be thankful that Ranjit Fernando's got rid of his once trademark line of "oh, what glorious batsmanship!". And give him a break for the fact that Sri Lanka loses wickets when he is on commentary. If it is intentional on his part that probably makes him a better bowler than Muttiah Muralitharan.

But does the fact that he might be incompetent (and deaf and blind, maybe) make him eligible for accusations of 'sucking up to the white man'? Those who wrote the blog articles used English - does that make them suck ups to the white man? Can this ever be proved, should Ranjit Fernando decide to sue these individuals for libel? Oh, wait - they didn't leave their names and addresses, the bravos!

The folk accusing him of not taking up Sri Lanka's side during commentary seem to have forgotten that a commentator is supposed to be impartial; even if other commentators are not, that does not give Ranjit Fernando license to break that rule. Similarly, some folks think that he is representing Sri Lanka - which is scarcely true; instead he's doing a job (albeit poorly) with a team that includes members from other nations.

For those who want to vent - by all means do so, for theirs is the right to free speech. But doing it behind a screen name, pulling the target's family into it, accusing them of bribery to keep Ranjit Fernando on the commentary team? Must we stoop to conquer? Ethically, aren't those venting committing a much graver wrong than what Ranjit Fernando did? All those that way inclined, while also complaining about the way Australia plays cricket - aren't they guilty of double standards?

To how many of these people did it occur to criticize constructively? Suggesting that Ranjit Fernando take elocution classes to correct his pronunciation, study the techniques of better commentators, hold his opinion against others, be willing to venture an opinion from time to time in the minority (risky, but Sanath Jayasuriya takes risks all the time with his batting!)?

• Do I think Ranjit Fernando is a poor commentator? Definitely.
• Why? Incompetence, for the reasons listed above. That is the only argument the prosecution, in all good conscience, can bring.
• Is that the only charge? Yes - being human that's all I can identify, as I cannot know his intentions.
• Should he be replaced? Yes, most definitely, if a better commentator can be found in Sri Lanka.

If there is such a commentator, and I most certainly hope there is, the World Cup television rights owners should have selected him in the first place. But if a poor commentator should be removed (be it Ranjit Fernando or anyone else), make sure its done for the right reasons - that viewed objectively, he's a poor commentator. The removal of Dean Jones would be a case in point.

Why was Ranjit Fernando chosen in the first place? Viewed caustically, maybe the commentator selection panel sees something in him that we don't (much like Marvan Atapattu's retention in the side after continuous failure). Or maybe there just wasn't anyone available/willing at the time to take on the job, knowing that the sharks were circling, waiting to put up a blog if they weren't upto the sharks' oh-so-high standards.

We've all got faults - but wouldn't working to improve them (and helping others, even Ranjit Fernando, to improve) be the right thing to do? Shouldn't the fear of being in a glass house and the result of throwing stones come to mind at this point?

Until Sri Lankans learn to do these things, Sri Lankan culture has a much bigger problem than just Ranjit Fernando's commentary.

-EndOfRant-

Back again

Who'd have thought that blogging continuously would be so hard? Oh wait - that's what kept me from getting into it first time around...

Clearly, software development, studies and blogging do *not* go together... having the Cricket world cup go by did not help either...

Let's just hope I can get back and stay in the groove of blogging.

The Pursuit of Happyness

Will Smith plays Chris Gardner in this telling of a true, rags-to-riches story.

Chris Gardner sells (or more correctly, tries to sell) bone density scanners and is stuck with rent, taxes and a stack of parking tickets. His wife leaves him and Gardner takes custody of his son. Chris perseveres, trying anything to achieve happiness in life - teaching a few life lessons in the process.

Will Smith's acting was nothing short of brilliant, for me. There were times I caught myself rooting for him - which made me realize just why he got his Oscar nomination (Best Actor in a Leading Role) for this role. Strangely enough, by the same token, Thandie Newton's performance (I found myself actually hating her character) should be worth an award of some sort (and I'm not referring snidely to the Razzies!)

As much as the movie has motivational value, it's indeed ironic that the pre-success Gardners of today (the ones most needing its message) probably couldn't afford to watch the movie. Nonetheless, inspirational stuff - well worth watching.

Year of Release: 2006
IMDB Rating: 7.4/10 (11,666 votes, as at the time of posting)

SL vs. Ind, Vishakapatnam, 2007 (ODI 4)

A forgettable day for the Sri Lankan team, but a special one for Chamara Silva.

Yet again, after a top order collapse, the Sri Lankan middle/lower middle order showed fight to get to a score of 259/7 in 47 overs. Chamara Silva scored a superb run-a-ball 107 not out (12x4, 1x6) to make this possible, with help from Farveez Mahroof; Silva's innings bringing him the Man of the Match award.

The Sri Lankan bowlers then delivered a load of tripe (Dilhara Fernando was specially guilty of bowling both sides of the pitch) at the beginning, with Uthappa and Sehwag cashing in well. Sri Lanka had a slight chance of coming back at 118/3, but Yuvraj Singh took the game away with a 83 ball innings of 91 (not out). TM Dilshan bowled surprisingly well to keep even Yuvraj Singh tied down, the only plus point for the bowling attack - the quicks not showing much imagination at tying down the runs being by far the biggest negative.

There's a lot of work to be done, if Sri Lanka is to mount a credible challenge for the World Cup. Today's performance also raised a question mark of being able to adapt when under fire, a question that worthy World Cup winners should be able to answer...

Scores: Cricinfo
Bulletin: Cricinfo

SL vs. Ind, Margao, 2007 (ODI 3)

India won by 5 wickets, levelling the series 1-1, with one to play.

India came back strongly with Zaheer Khan's opening burst leaving Sri Lanka's top order in tatters... a part of their game the SL batsmen have to address in order to make a strong showing at the World Cup.

Still, it was good to see the middle-order show some fight and end up scoring 230 which was just about defensible on a two-paced pitch. A few years ago, being 4 down for a handful would have been considered just cause for totalling 110 or thereabouts but Russel Arnold justified the selectors faith in him for the World Cup by scoring 66* and managing the last 25 overs or so, like he used to do sometime ago.

Sri Lanka had their chances (with India 94/4) - and with Vaas and Muralitharan in the side, 230 would probably have been a winning score. Dilhara Fernando took a few wickets at the top, but the bowling lacked depth to deal with Dravid and Dhoni, both of whom played solid innings to take India home.

The second string bowling will have to improve - and quickly; Kulasekera seems to lack the pace to trouble top class batsmen and Dilshan tends to be expensive.

Still, SL has a got a positive to take out of this match - the fight they showed; it's just that you can't expect to win matches after digging yourself into a hole, all the time.

Scores: Cricinfo
Bulletin: Cricinfo

The Prestige

'The Pledge, The Turn, The Prestige'

One of the best movies of 2006, which for my tastes was a cut above 'The Departed', even. Not entirely sure what the criteria for the 'Best Picture' Oscar is -and I can't really comment, as I haven't seen all the other nominated movies - but am surprised 'The Prestige' didn't make it up there (which is based on my comparison with 'The Departed', I think).

The story is about two magicians (played by Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale), who continuously try to best each other with their magic tricks, with a moral emphasis on the cost of obsession. Both Jackman and Bale turn in good performances, as does Micheal Caine (that's usually taken for granted, though!), while Scarlett Johansson provides the required eye candy (though her delivery seems to be rather wooden, from time to time).

While the story itself twists and turns, I tend to see Angier (Jackman's character) as something of a victim, rather than the villain - as Borden (Bale) is the cause of a great loss to Angier. Still, if Borden is the hero, he is by no means an angel.

Christopher Nolan proved yet again why he's such a good storyteller - probably my fave, on top of 'Memento' and 'Batman Begins', though I wonder if that's limited to dark, twisted plotlines.

A very enjoyable movie - probably worth buying the DVD.

Year of Release: 2006
IMDB Rating: 8.2/10 (32,024 votes, as at the time of posting)

Aus vs. Eng, 2007 (CB Series, 2nd Final)

England for the World Cup? A thought that would have been laughable 2 weeks ago, now seems... somewhat less laughable? Even between innings, most cricket fans would have given Australia good odds of winning the match and taking the clincher at Adelaide - until the wickets started tumbling.

Add Pietersen and Vaughan to the mix and the batting starts to look much stronger, but Liam Plunkett and Sajid Mahmood will have to keep turning in similar performances if their World Cup dreams are to come true. Strauss' form, or lack thereof, might make him a casualty, but the bowling attack definitely requires beefing up to succeed on the placid Carribean pitches.

The fielding has been good (Collingwood being a cut above the rest), but never approaching the Australia team (it's hard to match Symonds, Hussey, Ponting, Hodge et al.). Nixon's glovework will probably keep him in the team for the duration, in addition to the amount of noise he brings to the middle.

Given their earlier performances this season, it was 'no way but up' for England. The question now is, on the bounce, how high can they rise?

SL vs. Ind, Rajkot, 2007 (ODI 2)

It was heartening to watch Sri Lanka win a match without Vaas and Muralitharan in the side, especially after India got to 129/2, chasing 257. The Sri Lankan spinners pegged India back, helped by some very good fielding in the mid-to-late overs but the win would certainly not have been on without Sangakkara's century (giving him a well-deserved man of the match award).

All this augurs well for the future, given that Muralitharan and Vaas can't go on for ever (or another 5 years, which ever comes first). Malinga Bandara performs well with almost every outing but seems to be swapped out way too often to do him any good. If Australia had done the same with Warne after his Test debut, we may never have seen him again (a good thing, I can almost hear Darryl Cullinan say).

What with some real pace from Malinga (who unfortunately went for 75 today, in 10) and swing from Farveez Mahroof, people are starting to talk of a second World Cup win, but the Sri Lankan top-order has to be far more consistent for this to become a reality. In this regard, Mahela Jayawardena's form (0 and 4 in the series thus far) must be of some concern.

Time will be the judge of whether Sri Lanka is good enough to take the World Cup again - for now, another couple of wins without Vaas and Muralitharan would help prove that this win was no fluke.

Scores: Cricinfo
Bulletin: Cricinfo