Warne's gone!

I did not watch the last ever competitive game that Shane Keith Warne played (as it appears at this stage, at least) given that the Rajasthan Royals versus Mumbai Indians game was scheduled for a 10:30 p.m. HKT start. The news of Royals' having won the match was therefore sweet. After enduring a mixed season, punctuated by comprehensible ebbs and fighting flows, the boys in sky blue gave their champion captain a fitting farewell by thrashing Mumbai by ten wickets, also in the process keeping Mumbai on tenterhooks over a semi-final berth which appeared a certainty not very long ago. Although nobody is foolish enough to delude themselves by likening IPL games with international contests, the irony that Warne had his last hurrah against fierce rival and close friend - and allegedly a bringer of nightmares to the former a decade and half ago - Tendulkar's side is not lost at least not on me.

As Robin Steen aptly writes in cricinfo, it is difficult to appraise the legacy of men like Warne; perhaps it is even an enviable task. What is the first thing that comes to mind when you think of the leg-spinner from Victoria? Is it the blonde hair, the seductive - and in a sense preying (pun intended) - eyes an admixture of the sorcerer's mystery,  his art's beauty and a gambler's deception and the loopy leg-break that stays long enough above the batsman's eye level to make him think he can hit it only to dip suddenly and  have him miss it, by half an inch short of a half-volley, and get bowled (ask Gatting) or edge it to Marks Taylor or Waugh, Heals or Gilly (ask any number of Englishmen, South Africans or Pakistanis)? Or is it the, even by his 'paunchy' standards, over-fat head-shorn shadow of his who always got thrashed around by Laxman and Tendulkar and company as if the runs he gave to the Indian batsmen were reparations for his on-field philandering elsewhere? Would Warne be remembered, as Ian Chappell once said, as the best captain to have never captained Australia or would he be recalled as a dark genius, who was always game for a game and who could inspire but who, by his own admission, was rather cavalier for Australian cricket's top job which is pregnant with historical esteem? Should we even get into his personal life and talk about his indiscretions as a husband or affections as a father or should we just be content and say "SKW was born to bowl leg-breaks like SRT was born to bat"? 

At the end of the day, it is, perhaps, a matter of perspective. Peter Roebuck once wrote something along the following lines: we urge and castigate our sportspersons fiercely because those moments when we are in their (virtual) company are the only ones when we are free of our own bondages, weaknesses and limitations. The adulation surrounding and the accusations levelled against the great Australian leg-spinner, too, can be read in the spirit of Roebuck's argument. Underlying every moralising take on Warne's personal life is arguably a standpoint which represents an immanent aspiration of perfection that could be elusive. Likewise aggrandising the man (or his brandname) - such as labelling the 1994 ball to Gatting as the ball of the century when an off-spinner's equivalent of the delivery from Muralidharan to Sadagopan Ramesh hardly received a murmur in the press - is a product of a cricketing culture that thrives  not only on intense competitiveness but also on immense, and at times unabashed, conceit.

What must, however, be remembered is that Warne, like the other great stars of his time, has merely been a magnet, if willingly so, that has attracted songs and snipes alike. What he did for the game cannot be, should not be and will not be forgotten. Alongside Muralidharan and Anil Kumble, Warne has overseen a couple of, arguably, the most extraordinary decades of spin bowling, the likes of which I may not witness before my sunset. Like Tendulkar, albeit to a lesser extent, Warne has been an icon, a face not only to be recognised but also remembered and the man who made things happen on the field and sold things off it: Warne was one of the first sign-ins the moment IPL germinated in Lalit Modi's mind. Like his pace bowling compatriot, and very often partner in crime Glenn McGrath, Warne is a ruthless, or at best nonchalant, sadist when confronted by a(n even slightly nervous) batsman (ask Athers and Daryl Cullinan). Like Wasim Akram he is an original, each man a giant in getting the ball to talk, tease, taunt and thrill! And like Brian Charles Lara, in my opinion the greatest lone match-winner of his time, he is a flawed genius, which makes his tale all the more interesting to read. Enough said, he will be missed. Farewell Warney. We do not know if you will be the richer for poker, but it will be the richer for you, while cricket will be the poorer.     

When in doubt, go for spin!

As the Indian Premiere League edition three reaches the business end, the question has become significant again because of the answers given by the batters so far. And the answers have been far from convincing. While seasoned quicks like Malinga, Zaheer Khan and Chaminda Vaas are among the top bowlers of the tournament, the list also has the likes of Amit Mishra and Pragyan Ojha, two individuals who if groomed properly will represent India for many years to come. Add the spin triplet to the list – Kumble, the most miserly campaigner in the tournament, Murali who has been his native foxy self and Shane Warne who proved yet again against the Deccan Chargers why he is still special –and bring in Daniel Vettori who has now rejoined Delhi and Murali Kartik who has bowled beautifully for the KKR and Harbhajan Singh who is arguably the best T20 spinner going around the world, and you will know good spinners will thrive in all conditions and in all formats.

So what is it that makes dem breed of tossers, as it were, click even on flat-as-bare-plains pitches surrounded by greasy outfields and alluring short boundaries? Part of the answer lies perhaps in the question itself: in extremely batsman-friendly conditions the margin for error for a spinner in particular is minimal and therefore he is likely to bear more punishment from the dominating bats – mongoose or crocodile! The flipside though is it is precisely when a batsman looks to attack the spinner do the percentages of a spinner’s getting a wicket augments. Mishra, Vettori and (in particular) Ojha can owe much of their limited overs’ success to their ability – and perhaps audacity – to toss the ball up and invite the false stroke from batsmen. It only goes to show that the time for age-old virtues is not up yet though they may seem so.

However, to owe all of spinners’ success to batsmen’s error of judgment – although that in itself is a ‘tweaker’s’ greatest success the way I see it – is to underestimate their skill and overestimate the percentage of looseness to be found in modern stroke play. Mind you, while there are sloggers dime a dozen going around, there are still people possessed with fine technique, a great cricketing brain and/or who hit the ball cleanly: David Warner, Murali Vijay (of late), Rohit Sharma, Yousuf Pathan to name a few candidates from the IPL. One needs more than just the fortune of a false stroke from the likes of such batsmen to get their wickets; one needs skill accompanied by subtle changes – in spin, pace and bounce – if not to get them out at least to wear them down which might produce a wicket at the other end. Anil Kumble this season has been a case in point for the Royal Challengers from Bangalore.

So sceptics and batsmen who think themselves as being born to destroy spinners’ careers might have to wait quite a long while before spin comes to, if at all, die a natural death. As of now world spin is in good hands in both the hemispheres. There are good off-spinners and left-arm spinners; a good leg spinner somewhere will bring the balance back to world spin bowling if ever it was lost. In the meanwhile, let us delight in watching more batsmen done in by the dip, flight, pace of the pitch or a couple of inches of awkward bounce. When in doubt then, as they say down under, go for spin. And something will give…