Play it smart sir

The euphoria of the T20 win seems to be slowly fading and the harsh reality of the position of the men in blue in the 50-50 and Test versions of the game slowly seem to be seeping back in the minds of the cricket fans following the 1st 2 one days against Australia.


The South African Cricket Board deserves full kudos on arranging a successful tournament and even the coverage by espn-star sports was well worth mentioning. And one of the reasons i mentioned the latter is because of the choice of their commentators, and, among them the one i consider the most knowledgeable and practical person, Ian Chappell.

During one of the matches (I don’t remember which) Chappell and David Lloyd were giving the commentary when the talk turned on to the free-hit rule. David LLoyd was telling when the bowler bowls a no-ball caused by overstepping, the batsman gets to face an extra ball in which the only way he can get out is through a run out. Then Chappell replied "Oh.Ok.In that case what if the bowler bowls a wide in the next ball. Does that mean the batsman now has to face an extra ball for the wide and then the free-hit does not apply for that extra ball? In that case the bowler can bowl a wide always?”

Finally they confirmed with an ESPN staff there that even if a wide is bowled the free-hit is transferred to the ball after that. So that literally threw Ian's ploy, as they say in cricket, straight out of the window. David LLyod then jokingly told Ian "Looking for loopholes always, aren’t you?" And to that Ian gave, according to me, the most apt, logical and practical answer. He said "You are not doing your job as a captain if you are not looking for them".

I think Chappell's answer makes a lot of sense in today's competitive world where besides working hard people are also expected to work smart. However i will restrict this article to about being smart when playing cricket.

I think the criteria to be able to play smart cricket is relatively more relevant in the context of the one-day and t20 formats of the game where a piece of cricketing brilliance can change the entire equation for either of the teams in a matter of an over. People at times try to draw a line between playing smart cricket and playing in an unsporting manner. But i feel that as long as the game is played within the defined rules there is no such thing as unsporting cricket.

For illustrating my above viewpoint lets consider the infamous incident involving Greg Chappell in a one-day match vs. New Zealand. People (Critics and cricket fans) termed the underarm bowling incident as an insult to the spirit of the game. But if you analyze it from a viewpoint of a captain there’s not much fault one can find in what Greg did that day. True, probably the tactic was not exactly an ethical ploy, but then weren't those rules a part of the game? Why didn’t the people who framed the rules oversee the impact earlier? Do all players play within the ethical limits at all times?

In my personal opinion Greg didn’t play unsporting cricket. He merely played smart cricket and used the rules of the game at that time to his advantage. I sympathize with the New Zealand batsman who had to face that last ball, but frankly, that cant be termed unsporting according to me.

How many of the batsmen walk back when they get a faint edge that is not detected by the umpire? Steve Waugh himself has said that he never used to walk back without seeing the umpire's decision for the simple reason that no one else did it!!!!

Playing smart cricket is something that every modern day cricketer should be armed with. What the Australians and South Africans lack in terms of pure technique at times is nullified by their amazing fitness levels, agility and most importantly playing smart cricket at the most needed times. Even the legendary Pakistan captain Imran Khan admitted that it was difficult to inculcate good technique among Pakistani batsmen since the domestic cricket structure was very poor when compared to say, Australia. Therefore, he said, coaches of Pakistan should look for cricketers who are gutsy, talented and street smart.

Playing smart cricket was the forte of the Kiwi team in the 1992 world cup. Under the captaincy of Martin Crowe they tried out tactics like opening the bowling with Deepak Patel and the more famous pinch-hitting to manipulate the field restrictions in the first 15 overs. And that almost took them to the finals but for the fact that another supremely talented cricketer named Inzamam stopped them in the semis.

The Australian team, which has been the pioneer in introducing new concepts of coaching, used the services of Edward De Bono in giving talks on lateral thinking. They also introduced the concept of relay throw in fielding and have employed it to good effect. The next level of smart cricket according to former Australian coach John Buchanan is "Ambidexterity" i.e. w.r.t. Cricket the ability to bat and/or bowl effectively with both hands. This concept though in a very nascent stage may well change the way the game is approached and could have a huge impact on the game. Imaging Sachin batting right handed for a while and then deciding to bat left because of a new bowler or a change in field or in the same way a Wasim Akram bowling left handed and then deciding to bowl right handed suddenly!!!!

As the players get more professional and the game gets more competitive and the stakes keep getting higher the need for playing the smart way seems to get more significant. Lets hope its all for the betterment of the game, for ultimately the game wins.