Outside The Line

Sleepy Growls At The Easy Swoon

You ever seen a bear coming out of hibernation in the spring? It looks sprightly, and eager, and wicked skinny, with flaps of loose skin hanging down like old labia from his every quarters.

I was hoping to come out like that at the end of the winter -- yet another miserable, blustery one for the Kiwi books -- fresh and ready for new sights and new adventures; a springtime of body and mind. I didn't feel like being bothered before that. Sometimes, though, noises outside the den rock your sleep and force you to begrudgingly get up and check out the commotion.

Noises like this Guest Column on cricinfo, after the conclusion of South Africa's Test series against England...

I suppose I could count as a fierce Smith critic, since I have attacked him numerous times for his many sins. So is Houwing right? Is this the end of the road? Is there nothing left to do than kneel at the Capt'n's feet and repentantly accept his highly load?

Um, how about... no?

I understand that journalists, commentators, and those in the loop all love Graeme Smith. They can barely hide their chubbies under their pants half the time. And it makes sense. He's jovial and gregarious. He jokes with them.  Gives them good quote. Makes them feel like they belong. (He's even got the hot blonde girlfriend with no reservation about parading her hotness around in public). I get all that. If you wanted to have a cricketer over for a barbeque, Smith'll probably be the one.

But what exactly am I supposed to "salute" the guy for? For his team winning a series against a mediocre, has-been English squad? His 2nd-ranked team (which apparently also houses a better all-rounder than Garry Sobers) beating the 5th-ranked team, a team whose spearhead for the series was James Anderson, and who at one stage shared the new ball with Darren fuckin' Pattinson?! Get serious.

Oh that's right, it's because South Africa's first victory in hallowed English soil 43 years, right? That's why it's such an event. Brave King Graeme, conquering territory uncharted since 1965...

Well, not quite. Twenty-five of those years were covered by apartheid, so it doesn't seem fair to include them as part of the "legacy of loss" which Smith apparently inherited. (By that logic, we could also claim that South Africa went undefeated for a quarter of a century, and have suffered one of the most vicious continued declines, comparable to that of the West Indies, for almost two decades since.)

Even after readmission in 1992, though, it's not as if South Africa have performed that badly while touring England. They drew twice (in 1994 and 2003), and lost only once (1998) by a one game margin. Are these unbearable crosses to bear? Hardly. If Smith wants to impress, he can try beating the Aussies or the Sri Lankans on their turf. Then I'll listen.

But okay, fine, I guess England is somehow relevant in the grand scheme of things because, um... it's old. (And that oldness tradition, after being unabatedly pumped into cricketers' heads since childhood, can start to screw with their minds, cause them to feel an added level of pressure and make them a tad more likely to fail when playing against said old foe.)

So basically Smith & co. managed to not lose a series they should've been favoured to win from the start. Congratulations, boys, you didn't choke for once. Want a parade?

As for Smith himself, I'll credit him for his innings at Edgbaston. I have no problem with that.  To score an unbeaten century in the fourth innings while chasing 280 is an impressive feat under any conditions, and I'll be glad to applaud anyone for their batting prowess in a situation like that. Great knock.

But that's a mere batting feat, and the credit it deserves is purely on terms of batsmanship, of the same kind as Ashwell Prince's two very Chanderpaulesque centuries and Neil McKenzie's 500-ball extravaganza to guarantee the draw at Lord's. It doesn't deserve any greater praise because it comes from Smith, or from whoever happens to be the captain.

[N.B. The idea of a "captain's innings", incidentally, is another one of those cricket clichés that is hollow to the point of meaninglessness. Isn't every innings played by a captain, by definition, a "captain's knock"? If it isn't, then what quality does it possess that differentiates it from a regular good knock? Is there a certain kind of good innings played by a captain that does not qualify for "captain's innings" status? Why does a quality innings that just so happens to be played by a captain apply to a rarefied level of achievement?]

Schooled By The IPL (14% and 4 In My Head Edition) - May 19-20

                                  

Old-timer on an egg-timer... Jacques Kallis (Bangalore Royal Challengers)
Maybe, in order to keep the astronomical theme going, I should've awarded him the Pluto among Planets... award, since it's about time someone demoted Kallis from his rarefied status. Instead, here's a figure:

                                                                     14%

You know what that is? That's the percentage of deliveries that Kallis left in Monday's 25-run innings. Left them. In Twenty20! The very fact that the number is non-zero alone should be damning enough, but anything in double figures is just ridiculous. (And it's not the first time.)

As it stands, the matter here is quite simple -- Jacques Kallis is not good enough to play in the IPL, or any competitive form of Twenty20 at the top level.  Sorry, he's just not. For the season, he averages 18.1, with a strike rate of 106, no centuries or fifties, and two ducks. Perhaps his bowling might save him, you're saying? Think again: in 9 games, he's nabbed only 4 wickets at an average of 69.25, with the highest economy rate (9.55/over) in his team for any player who's bowled more than 4 overs in the season.

At $900,000, he is undoubtedly the bust of the draft, and one of the primary reasons why Bangalore are guarantee to get the inaugural Wooden Spoon in the IPL. And if it's true that Rahul Dravid was the one who chose him for the team, then he himself should be stripped of the captaincy immediately, since his reasoning powers must obviously be slipping in middle-age. Anyone who's ever watched Kallis play knew this was bound to happen.

Uncle J Rod already brought this up a few of days ago, and I wasn't going to mention it again, but Kallis' innings yesterday only reminded me of it, since it made me try to work out what the hell goes on in that cavernous amphitheater mind of his.

For anyone who hasn't read it yet, here's the official Q & A with the man himself. It's a classic. Tomorrow morning, I could receive a recorded audiobook copy of Vladimir Nabokov's lost manuscript, read by J.D. Salinger, hand delivered to my door by Thomas Pynchon, and that Kallis questionnaire would still be the most exciting discovery of the week. It's just that good.

Apart from a bunch of delicious nuggets about the man -- a) he considers "Implement" [sic] one of his strongest morals, b) he considers his Investment Advisor an "item" or c) his Investment Advisor is one of the 5 most important items in his life -- the ultimate find here is the question regarding Kallis' four dream dinner guests. Ready for it? Bill Clinton... Neve Campbell... Denise Richards... and Nelson Mandela.

Now, I know that was probably just some offhand response, with little forethought to it, made hastily to an uninspired webmaster on a deadline. Nothing more to it, right? Well... the thought still came to his head at some point, and thoughts don't come out of nowhere. There's a reason why it came to his head, and I've spent hours now -- almost against my will -- trying to work out why the hell anyone would want those four people sitting at a dinner table together. (Believe me, the last thing I want to with my day is figuring out Jacques Kallis' thinking patterns.)

Seriously, what can he be expecting? Mandela and Clinton to talk, while the two girls are going at it in the background? Is that what dinner parties are like at the Kallises' -- the boys talk while the girls lick each other just within eye's view? Or is it a more serious affair, with Mandela retelling details of his fight for justice and his 27-year prison sentence, leading Campbell to mention how much that reminds her of a plotline in the third season of Party of Five, centred on Bailey's character and his alcoholism? Or are the words "Nelson Mandela" added to every answer that white South Africans give about any topic whatsoever?

So many questions, so much confusion... will someone please get Jacques Kallis out the IPL and out of my head?!!

3 Bullets to the head...

• What the hell has came over David Hussey lately? His form has dipped gravely in the past couple of weeks, and that innings against Rajasthan was one of the worst I've seen from him so far in this tournament, culminating with a truly atrocious shot. He was years too early into the pull and ended up getting bowled by the Royals' 6th best bowler. Is that what sharing a locker room as Ganguly does to a person after a while?
  
  
• Whenever I see his surname and his initial on the scorecard, I keep thinking the name of Kolkata's wicketkeeper is "Willy Saha." I don't know why. His name is actually Wriddhiman Saha, but I think "Willy Saha" is a great name for a keeper. Who wouldn't feel confident knowing trust old Willy Saha is behind the stumps? So can we all just start calling him Willy from now on?
  
  
• I tried my hardest to come up with a segue for this, somehow tying it  to cricket or to the IPL, but I couldn't find anything. So here it is, the history of modern warfare told with food:
  
  

Pull A 'Senator Geary' On The Emperor And We'll Start Over

So it turns out it wasn't just my paranoid player-hatin' fancies after all... Graeme Smith really is an authoritarian douchebag who managed to hijack the South African locker room through cheap power maneuvering and divide-and-conquer tactics straight out of some thirdhand bargain-bin copy of 'The Prince.' There are accusations of divisions along seniority lines and of a "captain's clique" forming in the squad, which in turn have also brought up the typical (yet still understandable) questions about racial quotas and selection policies in the South African system.

I'd be a lot happier about all this pressure being put on Smith if I could at same time see some type of release for it elsewhere, but I don't. Smith has already crowned himself Emperor Graeme I, and there just isn't anyone around at the moment to threaten that claim. Boucher is too old (and a 'keeper), Kallis is autistic or something, and the rest of the squad aren't certain if they'll still be holding their spots in a year's time. No, the only thing that I can see bringing Smith down at this point is a sex scandal. And even then, who knows?

Bullets From The Head (Aus v. RSA)

[Note -- I didn't actually manage to make live notes during either of the Semifinals. I did not have my notebook with me in the stadium for the NZ v Sri Lanka match, and then we overslept by half an hour and missed most of South Africa's collapse the next morning. These are all notes jotted down from memory that second night.]

AUSTRALIA v. SOUTH AFRICA

-- Can Graeme Smith be fired now? Has he done enough already to be stripped of the captaincy? Why is nothing that ever happens to that team his fault? After seeing Jayawardene's incredible mastery of pace in an innings the day before, or Ponting's steady control every time the first wicket falls for Australia, Smith's idiotic lunge down the pitch in the 2nd over seems like a pure abduction of responsibility to me. Being captain isn't just about standing in the infield stroking your chin and looking pensive, or blurting out a few vapid clichés in the third person plural ("yeah, the boys gave it their all...") during the post-match interview. It's about standing up when your team needs you and putting the burden on your own shoulders. It's stating from the outset that you are there to stay. To lead. Like Steve Waugh or Imran Khan did. Like Rahul Dravid and Inzamam-ul-Haq do. Hell, like Trent Johnston does.  

But nothing will change, and Smith will continue as captain. I guess I might as well just accept it and switch to another target, so...

-- ...wow, how dumb and weak-minded did Jacques Kallis turn out to be? I had no idea. For someone with such amazing powers of concentration and discipline in his batting, he sure got dismissed in a way that would make even Marlon Samuels blush. A complete brain-fart that could well tarnish the rest of his career. And all that was needed to instigate it were a couple of lines in a ghostwritten newspaper column by Ricky Ponting a few days before the match. You'd think this was Kallis' debut series, or something.

I always wondered why Kallis was never involved in any captaincy discussions. I'm beginning to understand why. He's probably as dense as mountain air -- a batting idiot savant with a textbook technique and a bulldog build, but completely empty upstairs.

-- I'm still deep in my search of a single non-partisan soul in this entire region that actually enjoys watching Australia dominate. At the quiet suburban guesthouse outside of Kingston where we stayed, we met another nine people who had come for the World Cup: four South Africans, two English guys, an Australian mother and her teenage son, and a lone Kiwi. Not one of them could sit in the shared living room and watch more than 15 overs of the Australian run chase. About halfway through Hayden and Clarke's partnership, we all just gave up altogether and changed it to first leg of the Liverpool v. Chelsea Champions League semi.

I know it's no fun watching any team chase a score of 150, but shouldn't there be a certain awe and pleasure in watching such a powerful sports dynasty dominating its field? Wasn't Muhammad Ali impossible to ignore, even when he was clearly better than his opponent? Or Michael Jordan? Or Roger Federer? I can't bear to sit in front of the TV when Australia is cantering to victory. Watching Matthew Hayden clobber boundaries with mis-timed pulls on his way to 60 not out is like sitting through Detention at school, counting down the Runs To Get like you'd count seconds left on the clock.

Who Can Step On The Giant's Shoelaces? (RSA)

SOUTH AFRICA

The Money
Some would be tempted to say Jacques Kallis here, but in one-day games his match-winning potential is virtually offset by his match-destroying history. Having Kallis slow down the momentum of a quick Powerplay start is the last thing South Africa need when playing Australia. I wouldn't be surprised if Ricky Ponting lays off JK a little when he comes to the crease and gives him spread fields to keep him on strike, wasting balls.

Graeme Smith is the perfect man to bludgeon a rapid 80 in a low run-chase, packing his innings with those grotesque elbowy swipes and whack-a-mole inside edges for four, but he doesn't look the player for an unbeaten century under pressure against miserly bowling. Herschelle Gibbs is, well... Herschelle Gibbs. Deliciously easy on the eye, frustratingly gifted, and completely unpredictable. Boucher and Pollock are still out there, after all these years, still pinching those quick 30s and 40s that frustrate the opposition and build momentum for their team.

Ponting 0 [run-out <........>]
Gibbs and De Villiers make for a very sprightly combination inside the circle, mostly useful for run-saving purposes, though they can both be counted on for a blinder of a catch every three or four games. The team's outfielding is organised and professional, but some of those old legs near the boundary can make quick two's and three's an appetising prospect, especially if Makhaya Ntini is left out.

Rattle n' Hum
I'm sure Andre Nel likes to think he can rattle the Aussies -- and the South African brains trust keep trying to convince themselves that he can too -- but with that Bizarro Delivery Stride and lack of true pace, he's really just annoyingly irksome, rather than downright intimidating. Smith can puff his chest as much as he wants and stare in the Australians' direction with a George W. Bush-like "Bring 'em on!" squint, but until he stands on the podium with the trophy in his hands, it's all theatrics as far as anyone is concerned.

Other than those two, the rest of the team is full of old-timers whom the Australians have played and beaten dozens of times before and whose "rattling days" (at least in this rivalry) are definitely over.

Killer-to-Filler Quotient
It's hard to say exactly. South Africa have continued with their long tradition of making up for the lack of variety in their bowling with an extra supply of bits-and-pieces hustlers, like Andrew Hall, and more muscular depth in their lower order batting. Any one of their frontline bowlers can be taken to town on any given day, even Pollock, and their batters show a lack of adaptability when faced with serious bowling threats.

If Ntini is not played, his replacement -- probably Langeveldt -- can be guaranteed to be targeted for at least 80 off his spell by the Aussie top order. (That one you can take to the bank and cash right now, because it will happen.) Ashwell Prince is ideal in the face of a batting collapse, but he proves too conservative during run-a-ball boundary-fests. AB De Villiers is a safe bet for a duck against any team who can bowl straight for longer than two (he has had 4 ducks already during this World Cup).

Mental As Anything
What a difference a day can make. January 23rd, 2006, to be precise. If it hadn't been for the 872-run bonanza at the Wonderers, I would never have given South Africa a chance in hell in an elimination match against Australia. Even so, I doubt many people give them a chance for tomorrow's semi. They were thoroughly outplayed in their group match, they lost comprehensively to Bangladesh in the Super 8, and were half a coat of varnish away from losing 5 wickets in 5 balls against Malinga and the Sri Lankans. Those are not the credentials of a serious, world-beating team.

And yet, there is always that game, that record-breaking game, that series-winning game that no fan can forget, and surely no player in that team wants to either. Who knows if that magic can be re-captured, but the fact that we're even wondering whether it can means it would be foolish to ever discount South Africa completely.

No Capra endings (for Mr. Smith)

What the hell happened to South Africa? The South African team, I mean, in the last five years? How is it that they've gone from Lance Klusener and Jonty Rhodes to Graeme Smith and Andre Nel? When I started getting into the game, South Africa were one of the most inspired, colourful teams on the scene, full of varied characters working in unorthodox combinations. They had Gary Kirsten, wise beyond any man’s years, calmly guiding them from the front; Jonty, the Energizer Bunny of world cricket, always in the action; Neil McKenzie, a delightful cocktail of nervous tics and endearing superstitions; and, of course, Zulu -- the only man in the game whose nickname is chanted fervously by every crowd around the world every time he walks to the crease.

Now they just seem like a bunch of prep-school jockheads with a tight fitness schedule and a mean streak. Graeme Smith has by far the ugliest batting technique in the world, scamming runs out of most bowlers' inability to bowl to left-handers with wide stances and angled bats. AB De Villiers can open the batting, field, and even keep wicket, but I bet you could hear the ocean if you put your ear to his skull. As for Andre Nel and his whole Easily Excitable Douchebag persona -- it might seem more menacing if he could back it up with actual wickets. As it is, he's little more than a mild irritant

There are still traces of better days in the team -- Gibbs' easy belligerence at the crease; Ntini's energy and unorthodox, angled jabs short of a length; Pollock's loose-limbed strokeplay at the end of an innings -- but these are few and far between. Not even the joy I get from watching a tortured team trying to shake off deep-seated psychological issues from their past (and failing at every attempt) can cover the fact that I really don't care for South Africa anymore. I hope they lose to England today, for no other reason than to keep the West Indies alive in the tournament.

I'm blaming all this on Graeme Smith. Ever since he slipped his fat foot through the selector's door and somehow convinced the world that a pair of wide shoulders and an aggressive outlook are what makes a good captain and leader, the Proteas have sunk into a pit of graceless efficacy, outlasting weaker teams with over after over of one-toned right-arm pace bowling, combined with bursts of muscular boundary hitting by the experienced middle order. There is an almost monarchical air to his captaincy -- he stands atop everyone around as if appealing to divine right, with no one ever questioning his leadership credentials or holding him accountable for his team's failings. Why is he beyond scrutiny?

For some reason, everyone just seems to accept Smith as the natural leader of that squad,with little evidence to back that claim. It's not as if his tenure has been wildly successful, by any measure: South Africa have won 59% of their ODI matches under Smith; under Pollock, that number was 66%; under Cronje, it was 74%. In Tests, Smith's win-loss ratio is 1.36, Pollock's was 2.80, while Cronje's was 2.45.

Quickly, who's South Africa's vice-captain right now? Is it Prince? Boucher? Who knows? (I didn't know either. It's Kallis, as it turns out.) Smith has somehow found a way to overshadow anyone in his path and present himself as the sole face and identity of the entire South African cricket establishment. Gary Kirsten was moved down from his usual opening position when Smith came in and then retired a year or two later. Lance Klusener was just jettisoned completely after the last World Cup, even though he still had a valuable few years to give to the team (and, more importantly, the fans).

Meanwhile, after this tournament’s valiant South African choke –- oh, it’s coming, don’t worry -- Smith will probably be offered a bonus, then appointed captain for life, leading selector, and co-coach.

I never thought I’d say this (in any context), but… GO ENGLAND!

Being Selfish by Giving

Sometimes believing your own reputation can cause your downfall. Even when you do your hardest to avoid it. Jacques Kallis has been called "selfish" too many times to mention. The accusations are quick to ring any time South Africa loses and Kallis gets a strike rate lower than 100. It has already happened once during this World Cup: after the game against Australia. Kallis forced his way to 48 off 63 balls, in a game where the asking rate started at 7.6 an over. Was he being selfish in that game? Who knows? The only thing that matters is that some people wondered whether he was selfish, which in turn caused him to adapt his game in subsequent matches to deal with that very question.

During yesterday's game against Bangladesh, Kallis tried to forced the pace; he drove and cut against anything bowled slightly wide, keeping a strike rate over a 100 at all costs. The weird thing is that the more aggressive he became during the game, the more selfish he looked.

It's a funny thing, the "selfish" moniker. Kobe Bryant has often had to deal with it in the NBA. He can post monster games, 50 or 60 points at a time, and he gets accused of not sharing the ball enough. If he tries to curb his instincts and pass the ball more often, he is condemned for not using his gifts and relying on his inexperienced teammates to carry the load.

Kallis' burden is different. He is undoubtedly the most gifted and technically apt batsman in the South African lineup, but his talent can often cause him problems. After the "selfish" accusations following the game against Australia, it's clear that Kallis wanted to make a point. He hit a calculated 66 against Ireland, and then came out a-blazin' against the Bangladeshis. He was driving on the up, edging full-blooded swings through the vacant slip region, and pinching risky singles. And then he got out, mistiming a pull off Syed Rasel's slower-than-slow ball.

When you think about it, wasn't that the most selfish tactic he could have employed for that situation? He was so hell-bent on proving that he wasn't a ball-waster that he played unnecessary high-risk shots because they would guarantee him boundaries (and a high strike rate) if he connected. If he had actually analysed the situation rationally, he would have seen that the smart choice would've been to see off Mortaza's fire, keep his wicket intact, and then work the spinners around during the middle overs.

But Kallis couldn't settle for that. He had to accelerate unnaturally, trying to prove a personal point instead of doing what was best for the team. He didn't lose it for South Africa, but he refused to truly win it for them.

And that is why we will never stop wondering whether Jacques K. is a selfish prick or not.

Get out or die tryin'

How does Jacques Kallis get out? I know he gets out, I just can't envision in my head how it is that he does. He just seems to feather a ball to the keeper every so often, but there's no great pattern to it. A guy like Ricky Ponting has a basic script to most of his dismissals: there's a 5-10 ball frame in which he's vulnerable, when he lunges forward indiscriminately, his head falling away from the line of the ball, and he can be snared lbw or caught in the infield from an uppish drive. As soon as he smashes his first swivel-pull, though, forget about it. You lost your chance, G. You better work on a run-out from that point.

Kallis is different. Because his defensive technique is so solid, he can come in cold and block any ball expertly, looking as if he'd been at the crease for hours. He might be vulnerable, he just doesn't look it.

In fact, Kallis' main problem in cricket seems to be just that: he doesn't know how to get out. As a Test batsman, he's virtually faultless. His technique is water-tight, he can play in any conditions, and he has the stamina and mental fortitude for the grind. In one-day cricket, however, he can be a liability. It's not so much that he's selfish, but rather that he just can't curb his technically-correct tendencies. If the team is chasing a big total and Kallis can't find the gaps with his high-elbow drives and balanced cuts, he is unable to just resort to an ugly hoick across the line that could go for six or could get caught. He either gets through the period with orthodoxy, or he gets bogged down and loses his team the game. As to how he actually gets out, I wouldn't have the slightest idea.

We Was Robbed

Another YouTube moment robbed from the fans. This is now the best form we have to enjoy a classic passage of World Cup play. Thanks, ICC.

44.5	Malinga to Pollock, OUT, BINGO! Finally Malinga strikes, that is a superb bit of bowling. It's a slower ball on the stumps, Pollock just does not pick it, plays inside the line of the ball and loses his leg stump. Even with the game all but gone Sri Lanka are fighting. Pollock played a good hand but now he's gone!
	SM Pollock b Malinga 13 (23m 24b 1x4 0x6) SR: 54.16
44.6	Malinga to Hall, OUT, ANOTHER! Andrew Hall goes off the very first ball! It's another speared-in yorker, Hall just about manages to dig it out, but he can't keep the ball down ... it bobs up into the air for the man at cover to pouch easily! Is there a twise left in this game
	AJ Hall c Tharanga b Malinga 0 (2m 1b 0x4 0x6) SR: 0.00

Malinga on a hat-trick. What a funny little game this has been.
46.1	Malinga to Kallis, OUT, Would you believe it? Malinga has got the hat-trick! Full, furious, outside off stump, Kallis goes for a square-drive and nicks it behind. Loud appeal. Kallis stays rooted. Even louder appeal and Harper raises the fatal finger. SA eight down and choking real badly.
	JH Kallis c Sangakkara b Malinga 86 (187m 110b 4x4 0x6) SR: 78.18
46.2	Malinga to Ntini, OUT, And then they were one! Malinga gets four in four. Unbelievable! Screaming yorker and Ntini drives, plays all over it and ball crashes into the middle stump. Malinga is slinging down magic deliveries and SA are nine down.
	M Ntini b Malinga 0 (2m 1b 0x4 0x6) SR: 0.00