The art of taking power plays

In the second ODI between India and South Africa at Wanderers, South Africa required 46 runs from 19 overs at a rate of 2.42 with 7 wickets still intact,when they opted for batting powerplay. 5 overs later they had lost 3 more wickets, while scoring runs at a rate of 4 per over and the match was back in balance. India went on to win the nail-biter by 1 run.

Whether South Africa would have won the match if they did not opt for the powerplay is a hypothetical question which is anybody's guess; but the fact of the matter is that opting for the batting powerplay is a decision which most of the teams find tricky, especially during a run chase. There are so many variables attached to the decision that it becomes clear only in hindsight whether the decision to opt for the powerplay was a correct one or not. Consider the ODI between India and SA; if Smith and Miller had managed to score some runs by hitting over the infield, losing at most one wicket, taking the powerplay would have been hailed as a master stroke, with the argument that it allowed the batsmen to break free from the pressure created by the bowlers. Alas, that was not the case and South Africa lost their way during the powerplay.


Why Batting Powerplays don't work

Most of the time when a batting team opts for the powerplay, it is as if they are obliged to score runs quickly and quite surprisingly, they try to do so by slogging. Even batsmen with good techniques go for the horizontal bat shots and play across the line. Some times they do succeed, but most of the times they falter.

Another reason why powerplays don't work is the unreasonably high expectation teams have from them. Consider a scenario where a team is, say, 220-1 after 35 overs with two well-settled batsmen. The team aims for a minimum of 50-60 runs from the powerplay as the batsmen are well settled. On most occasions , the over-ambitious batsmen lose their wicket.

Sometimes the powerplay breaks the batting team's momentum. The batsmen would be scoring largely in singles and twos till the start of the powerplay and suddenly they find that the gaps in the field are plugged. One or two quite overs and the momentum shifts to the bowling side. This is not the case with the first powerplay, which coincides with the start of the innings or with the bowling powerplay, which most teams take right after the first one ( on a side note, its a surprise that there haven't been any innovative use of the bowling powerplay).

There are exceptions, though

However, sometimes the batting power play does work out for good. I remember the last ODI series between Australia and South Africa, where South Africa chased big totals in couple of tight games with the help of batting powerplay. Albie Morkel utilized them to perfection and scored some heavy runs during the powerplay which eventually won South Africa the matches. But again, such instances are quite rare.


Since there are so many pitfalls in taking a batting powerplay out of turn, most teams take it after the 40th over when batting first, preferably from 44th to 49th over. There is very little chance for things to go wrong at that stage of the innings. The decision is trickier when the team is chasing. No team or captain has mastered the art of taking the batting powerplay at the right time during a stiff chase. The ability of the captains to utilize the powerplays to their advantage ( or at least prevent it from being a spoiler) might just be the deciding factor in the world cup.

The curious case of Saurav Ganguly

So finally, no one bid for Saurav Ganguly. A great career coming to an unfairly ignominious end. Why did the franchisees choose not to bid for a player of Ganguly's caliber? The following could be the reasons:

Performance - In the 26 matches that he has played in IPL, Ganguly has a strike rate of 104.67. Compared to this, batsmen like Dravid, Wasim Jaffer and Laxman, who have a reputation of being slow scorers, have strike rates of 120.68, 107.44 and 105.45 respectively. Whichever angle you see it, Ganguly's batting performance was a big let down in the last 3 IPLs. This simple fact was perhaps drowned by his reputation.

Captaincy - Ganguly was one of the best captains India has ever had. There is no question about it. He had a keen eye for talent and had the guts to back it all the way. That is why the team he built had some talented young players like Sehwag, Yuvraj and Zaheer, all of whom he backed to the hilt. But given a team, which did not necessarily have the advantage of being more talented than the other teams, the important question was - Can he bring the team together and inspire them to punch above their weight, a la Shane Warne? Sadly, the answer was a big no. In the first and the third edition of the tournament, where he captained KKR, in spite of having a decent team he was not able to take KKR to the semi-finals.

Reputation - Saurav Ganguly has always had a reputation of someone who is a difficult person to handle. Right from the time when as a 19 year old he refused to carry drinks (something which he denies doing) to his altercation with Greg Chappell, he has been controversy's child. In a tournament like IPL, where players from across the world come together for a very short duration of time, the ability to get along with the players and coaches count for a lot.

Base price - The combination of the aforementioned three points makes it very difficult for any of the franchisees to bid for him. Add to it the base price of $400,000, it becomes impossible. Perhaps, Ganguly would have found few takers at $200,000, which was his initial base price.

It will be interesting to see how the Kolkata crowd reacts to Ganguly's omission from the IPL. Having seen the fanatic support Ganguly commands in whole of Bengal, I would be surprised if KKR gets any support from the crowd. But that is still some time away. The IPL auction has shown one thing for sure - stature counts for little in this big bad world of cricketainment.

Is Dravid the new Laxman?

Over the last 5 years or so, ever since he moved out of selector’s radar for ODIs, VVS Laxman has had the Damocles’ sword hanging over his head. Every failure made his critics ask “Is it not the right time for Laxman to retire gracefully and give the opportunity to a match-winner like Yuvraj?” But the year 2010 has changed that. By playing some crucial knocks in the second innings to win/save important test matches, he has shut his critics’ mouth. But the critics have found a new victim – Rahul Dravid.

It was hardly two tests ago that he played a masterful innings of 191 against the New Zelanders, but failures in the first two tests against South Africa has prompted the critics to yet again question his style of batting; arguing that he slows down the scoring rate for India and hands over the initiative to the opposition. The only reason the critics are not asking for his head yet is that there is no obvious replacement. Raina inability against short ball has been exposed (yet again!) and even if you include Pujara in the playing eleven, it still leaves one slot open.

If Dravid fails again in the third test he may still keep his place in the side but one thing is sure – the sword hanging over his head is unlikely to go away. A good knock may push it away for a while, but like a swinging pendulum it will come back to its ‘rest’ position. In that sense, Dravid has become the new Laxman.