Steve Waugh, deservedly, got the farewell of a lifetime in his last Test series. I suspect, though, that the send off will be even more fervent, Down Under, as and when VVS Laxman announces his retirement.
In 50 Tests, the elegant strokeplayer from Hyderabad has made seven hundreds, four of those against Australia. In one-dayers, that record is even more skewed, he has only three hundreds, which seems a poor return for his immense talent, but on the plus side, all three centuries have come against his favorite opposition.
Something about the Australians seems to bring out the best in him. He debuted in 1998, but went 17 games without a century (in fact, just one 50 in all that time, and an average of just over 7) before getting his first century; 101 against Australia at the Nehru Stadium in Margao. He then went another 34 matches without a century, and broke that with a 102, again vs Australia, at the Roop Singh Stadium in the 2003 home series. In seven games since then, he couldn't even manage a 40 -- but then, along comes another 100 against the Aussies.
In a recent edition of Panix Station, someone asked why Laxman, despite being such a brilliant stroke-player in Tests, couldn't quite cut it in the shorter version. And while his innings is on, I got just over a dozen emails from various cricket fans, asking what the heck VVS was doing out there and wouldn't it be better for all of us if he were back in the hut.
In context, a breakdown of his 103/113 is interesting. His first 50 came off 74 balls; the second 53 off just 39.
Break that down even further, in his first 50, he had 35 dot balls, 34 singles, two twos and three fours. In his second 53, he had 8 dot balls, 19 singles, seven twos, and five fours. (Take into account, too, that till the 29th over, he was batting with Sachin Tendulkar, who thanks to an injury to his Achilles tendon, was hobbling; a fact that cut out the short singles altogether for both batsmen, hampered strike rotation, and resulted in almost zero attempts to turn ones into twos).
Those numbers add up to the identikit of the classical one-day anchoring innings, a careful beginning, a period of consolidation, then calibrated acceleration at the finish. So what's the betting this one will be forgotten before the year is out, and Laxman will be back to wondering why he doesn't make the one day side with any consistent frequency? (Laxman debuted in 1998 and has played 61 ODIs; Viru Sehwag debuted a year later, and though he became a must pick only after being upped to opener, has already played 20 more).
Laxman's problems stem from two factors. One, India has a problem of plenty especially in the middle order; this makes it likely the selectors will always prefer one of the younger, faster players to arguably one of the slowest movers in the field and between wickets.
The other problem is intrinsic to his own style of play, Laxman is elegance personified in Tests, but in the one-day game where the premium is on innovation, his classical style is increasingly anachronistic. The guy can't hit a shot in the air to save his life; his bitterest enemies won't accuse him of playing the reverse or paddle sweeps or nudges over slips or any other of the non-regular shots that are bread and butter to his peers.
You get the feeling he needs to reinvent himself a touch, and in figuring out how, he might with profit want to spend some time with that other classicist in his side. There was a time, and not so long ago either, when fans insisted Rahul Dravid had no business playing the one day game.
They had a point, Dravid was so classically correct that opposing captains merely had to set textbook fields, and then sit back while he dug a hole for himself and his team. I remember once asking him about this, his inability to score singles, and whether it would not be an idea if he were to start innovating a bit more, and leaving his classicism for the Tests.
At that time, Dravid argued that he would leave flamboyance to those who were more fitted for it, and stick to his natural style of play. But it soon got to a point where, to protect his place in the side, he had to volunteer to reinvent himself as a wicket-keeper batsman, thus enhancing his utility to the side.
Not any more. In the last year or two, he has retooled his game, and learnt the knack of using his wrists to shut or open the bat face just enough to find the gap, where earlier he was finding the fielder.
The first goal he set himself was to reduce the number of dot balls in his innings; he's gotten so good at it that these days, it is rare for him to have a strike rate of less than 90.
Consider the construction of his latest innings, the 74 off 64 at the SCG today, which was the guiding force in a third wicket partnership of 133 at a healthy 6.76: his 64 balls faced contained a mere 14 dot balls (Tendulkar 42 in 95, though admittedly injured). Against that, he had 35 singles, 10 twos, and one three besides the four fours.
In fact, when he got to his 50 off 49 balls, he had just one four, against 29 singles and 7 twos.
Dravid got to this point by freeing up his game from the straitjacket of his own orthodoxy; it is a template Laxman might want to consider.
Postscript: Did anyone see Brad Williams appeal to the umpire after getting Saurav Ganguly out?
He didn't have to, that dismissal was clear as crystal. But during the just-ended Test series, first Agarkar, then Brett Lee did the celebratory war dance without actually turning around and appealing to the umpire.
The ICC, which seems more concerned about protecting the umpire's seemingly fragile egos than in analyzing their competence, promptly put out a ukase whereby if a bowler did not actually appeal directly to the umpire and wait for his decision before celebrating, he would be fined for a first offense, and would be liable for even more drastic penalties for a second strike.
The law has already claimed one victim -- New Zealand's Kyle Mills was, earlier this week, hauled up before the match referee after umpire Darrell Hair booked him for celebrating without checking whether the appeal had in fact been upheld.
"This is a level 1.5 breach of the ICC Code of Conduct," ruled match referee Chris Broad who, ironically, was an enfant terrible in his own playing days. "Kyle has been officially reprimanded and any reoffending (sic!) of a similar nature within the next year would automatically see him charged with a level 2 offence which would bring more serious consequences. All players have been officially advised by the ICC of the on-field standards of behavior expected under the code."
I hope Clive Lloyd, the match referee for the ongoing VB Series, takes note of Brad Williams' celebration today, and similarly reprimands him. And before you ask, this is not another in the 'why do Aussies get away with murder?' series.
The point is, the rule itself is silly; one of those instances of using a big stick simply because the teacher has one.
But silly or no, the rule is in place, and therefore needs to be enforced uniformly, otherwise, it is going to be one more in a long list of grievances players, and teams, have built up against the ICC and its enforcers.
Also see:
