NEWS
SCHEDULES
COLUMNS
PREVIOUS TOURS
OTHER SPORTS
STATISTICS
INTERVIEWS
SLIDE SHOW
ARCHIVES

Heads or tales?

In our issue dated Tuesday, April 25, we had carried a letter from a reader, alleging that Rediff was lying when it made certain statements about an episode mentioned in the Justice Chandrachud report.

We have since received a lot of mails, asking for clarifications on a few counts. One, which was the match Manoj Prabhakar was referring to, when he said that Aamir Sohail and Mohammad Azharuddin had walked out to toss, and come back with some confusion about who had in fact called right? And two, did that incident really happen?

The game in question was the first match of the Pepsi Cup, played in Sharjah between India and Pakistan, on April 12, 1996.

Was there some confusion about who won the toss? To answer this, we attach, in full, a report on that match, written at the time by R Mohan, then with the Hindu. The relevant portion is italicised, and please note that while the story is carried verbatim, the emphasis added is ours, merely to highlight the response to the question. Follows, the report:

Aamir Sohail hits century: India comes a cropper again

By R. Mohan

This was just another episode in the long running serial which runs on cricketing Fridays once or twice a year. A tragedy of sorts once again for an Indian side which suffers so acutely from the Sharjah Syndrome.

Having pursued the questionable tactic of putting Pakistan in and facing the prospect of chasing a total against vociferous crowd support, Azharuddin`s team came a cropper, defeated as much by its lack of confidence as by Pakistan and Aamir Sohail`s excellence in the opening match of the Pepsi Sharjah Cup.

Old, familiar story

It is an old and familiar story, distinctly of deja vu, but one that must be told if only to record it for posterity. An Indian skipper, somewhat distracted to the extent of not knowing if the dirham coin had fallen in his favour, saw his counterpart seize the initiative not so much by adventurous batting as by steely determination in a workmanlike century in which substance was placed well ahead of style.

It is not my intention even to ask whether this was a team decision or the skipper`s own. But it is time he took the onus for taking the plunge into a chase again, so soon after the Eden Gardens experience. The playing conditions are entirely different here on a good batting pitch but a side short of confidence does not take such gambles. The chase came apart early despite the bristling aggression of Ajay Jadeja and the spirited effort of Navjot Sidhu in his 100th one-day International.

The late order reconstruction by Nayan Mongia (78 balls, 5x4,1x6) and Sanjay Manjrekar (84 balls, 2x4, 1x6) did bring on the illusion that this was something of a close contest. They brought respectability to a downcast India. In their proficient handling of the bowling in their century stand were sufficient signs that this need not have been such a one-sided contest after all. If only the entire Indian batting lineup can capture the `back to basics` principle and the work ethic.

The two may not command the inventiveness of top class one-day batsmen but they did place the conditions in their true perspective. They played the correct shots, took the right chances and ran their singles well until the climbing rate forced them into big hits. Seeing them bat it drives you to the conclusion that much of the pressures India feels may lie in the psyche than actually in the Sharjah environment. To bring about a change calls for dynamism from the top. The sixth wicket pair did India a huge favour by giving the hope that all is not yet lost.

The condemnation of India`s tactical blemishes on a bone dry wicket and very dry conditions in the morning is not to detract from the splendid work of Sohail and Saqlain Mushtaq. The skipper has reined in his volatile temperament and is a most responsible young leader now. He did not bat so much with flourish for which he is known but clung on and let his head dictate the course of events. In less than a month his character has been moulded in the cauldron of experience with a title triumph along the way having helped his state of confidence considerably.

If Anwar exposed the alleged bowling capabilities of most Indians, including the relatively new face Vaidya, with his own ability to play shots irrespective of the line of the ball, Sohail, `man of the match`, was the anchor man with patience for the job. Out on the field, he was his own self once again, setting attacking fields to his spinners and encouraging them to go after the men of the middle order more than trying to contain them. They had the decisive advantage of runs in the bank which may have helped Mushtaq to float his googlies up and throw temptation also in addition to the regular pressures.

The defeat is not the end of the world, nor is it the end of the tournament for India. There is plenty of room for comebacks in a double-leg league. It is the manner of the scattering of wickets early on which is looming as the indicator of a major problem and a pointer to a team on a downhill run. The early fall of Tendulkar to an indiscretion was in itself not so decisive a tragedy. The 3-13 record of India against Pakistan in Sharjah before this morning was a not so gentle reminder of the harshness of reality.

The high of 76 for one against a target of 272 was made possible by the enjoyable batting of Jadeja who went after Waqar Younis and brought off what was the stroke of the day a square drive on the rise. A landmark match may have come somewhat late in the career of Sidhu who would have played his 100th match long ago if not for injuries, real or imaginary, correctly diagnosed or falsely thrust on him. He was also batting to fulfil the new norm of being positive in the regime of Sandeep Patil when he was beaten in the air by Saqlain Mushtaq.

The off-spinner is fast emerging with a reputation for being the best in the trade. He gives the ball a proper tweak and sends it down in a nice loop. Additionally, he gets turn from pitches on which fellow members of the spin club are not exactly shining. He beat Sidhu with a ball that went straight through and beat the shot to the on side and set up the return catch. Very clever bowling.

Just earlier, Jadeja had been reckless in charging Saqlain immediately after lofting him for six, a top edge skewing the ball behind point and Anwar running back ensured he would indeed catch anything today. It was a sequence of horrors because in just the previous over a very tentative looking Azhar had tried to break free of the spinners` web and hit a baseballer`s catch to the deep.

What a contrast between the two skippers of whom one was ecstatic and the other crestfallen just over a month ago when India beat Pakistan in Bangalore. There is something decidedly different now about Sohail. He is no more the angry young man he was in Bangalore. Quite calmly, he left it to Anwar to provide the thrust which he did with his flair and with innovation. There was great scope for such innovation though with Vaidya providing all the fodder. A cover sweeper on the line for his second over was probably very revealing of the prowess of the pace bowler.

It is an irony of sorts that finally Anwar should play right across a straight ball from Vaidya to end the partnership on which Pakistan has thrived on for so long. The 77 was the base and despite the run outs of Rameez Raja and Salim Malik, in both of which Sohail had some role to play but only as runner who was responding to their call, the initiative was still very much with the batting side.

One of the reasons for this may be because Anil Kumble is still not bowling at his best. Not until he decided to go round the wicket did he find himself a better line to bowl. Has his classically high bowling arm dropped a bit because it is coming through quicker? That is a technical point he has to look at. And Raju found nothing in the pitch to aid him and it was another day on which spin was generally ineffective for India.

Maybe, that is the reason why Azharuddin chose to try his hand at medium-paced bowling. He has not done this for close to seven years since bowling three overs for 17 runs in the MRF-Nehru Cup semi-final against the West Indies in October 1989. The touch of despair in the captain to be in the very centre of things may just have been revealed in his picking up the ball. And his deputy had to chip in with his medium pace, too, which may be taken to be proof that on this slow pitch there was really nothing for spin.

With Sohail (127 balls, 8x4) playing the nip and tuck game to perfection, the innings was rolling more on what the middle order could do to provide the momentum which could take this total up towards par. Apart from the two run outs, the real break may have come India`s way when Inzamam-ul-Haq, looking so very lazily elegant as to make it seem almost a chore for him to clip one off his toes and square drive for boundaries, nicked a cut to Mongia. Appearances can be deceptive but in Inzamam`s case it does seem as if his body and his batting are in unison with his mood and his deportment.

The responsibility on Sohail was even greater on Inzamam`s fall. And he batted on calmly to his fifth one-day hundred and his first at this centre while Ijaz assumed the role of keeping things active. The off glide and the back cut were more in evidence than the cover drives Sohail can play with such authority. As he made room to hit Kumble and managed only to knock it back at Kumble, it would have been fatigue rather than the bowling which got him out.

The slog overs were the property of Ijaz and Rashid Latif and both of them are known to revel in the end game. Srinath must have been convinced this is a cruel game for fast bowlers when he was flat batted for six over extra cover by Latif. For Srinath had been so very impressive at the start, beating Sohail`s outside edge by a mere fraction a few times in the very first over. If ever this was a one-over contest, India would have emerged victorious quite comfortably.

Had it been a two-over match, India may have struggled because as it began its reply, Tendulkar was out in the second over, a victim of decisiveness in attack rather than the other way round, playing a flat batted shot aimed over point at a swinging, widish half volley from Aaqib Javed to be caught at extra cover. He came out with his bat face blank, bereft of the MRF logo which had landed him in trouble in Singapore.

Advised in a friendly way by the Match Referee Ranjan Madugalle this morning, Sachin decided it is not for him to fight these battles over logos with the ICC. In committing a second offence he may even run the risk of suspension which would be a terrible blot on his excellent behaviour record in seven years. It would be entirely up to the commercial interests around him to clear up the issue before the sticker comes on his bat again.

End

This report, written at the time by a journalist present in the stadium, clearly highlights that there was some confusion about who won the toss. Which in turn refutes Justice Chandrachud's contention that the incident never happened, and Prabhakar was lying when he claimed it did.

For your interest and amusement, meanwhile, here's a story that is part of cricket folklore. When you ask insiders when, and why, match referees began going out into the middle to arbitrate the toss, this is the story they tell you:

In New Zealand, during a series between the two countries in the mid-nineties, Ken Rutherford and Salim Malik walked out to toss. The coin came down and before Rutherford could even look at it, Malik calmly picked it up, pocketed it and walked off claiming to have won the toss.

Completely upset, Rutherford stormed into the Kiwi dressing room, angrily claiming to have been 'had' in public. And came the next game, it was a case of the biter bit. The coin went up, and as soon as it came down, Rutherford picked it up, and walked off claiming he had won it.

The stink the incident caused was, as folklore has it, the spark that caused the ICC to act and ensure that tosses were henceforth conducted under the eye of the match referee. Now, of course, you also have a television commentator coming out and emceeing it, much in the fashion of an MTV veejay.

Prem Panicker adds: In mails, I have been asked why I did not attack/refute/point out an elementary error in the letter that reader had sent us. In that letter, the writer had said that Prabhakar played his last ODI game in 1994.

Readers -- dozens of them, actually -- have written in to point out that Prabhakar had in fact played in the 1996 World Cup, and his swansong, if you can call it that, was the game against Sri Lanka at the Firozeshah Kotla in which his first four overs went for over 40 runs.

The reason why this point was not made in our response was because our focus was on the Chandrachud report, not an individual reader's angst-ridden email. The reason why we found it necessary to publish that email was because it posed a question that had some relevance to the report -- namely, how did Prabhakar know about the toss fiasco. We responded merely to that point, not to the misdirected, misplaced diatribe that comprised the rest of that letter.

Meanwhile, an apology -- in the piece in question, I had referred to the World Cup quarterfinal, in Bangalore, wherein Akram pulled out. The year of that game was mentioned, wrongly, as 1992. It was 1996. We apologise for the error -- caused by a typo, and insufficient proof-reading. Sorry, guys.

In passing, we had carried excerpts of the PIL filed by two young men in Delhi against the BCCI. Rahul Mehra, one of the litigants, sent us a mail, from which we quote the relevant excerpt:

"I would like to inform you that I have already started getting incredible response from your site and am finding difficult to cope up with the mails."

Thanks, you guys -- those two lads need all the support they can get. So keep them coming -- Rahul's email is attached to the transcript of the PIL linked above.