Mitchell Marsh to miss remainder of IPL 2024 with hamstring injury

Allrounder will remain in Australia as he recovers from a hamstring niggle

Shashank Kishore22-Apr-2024Delhi Capitals allrounder Mitchell Marsh will not return to India for the remainder of IPL 2024 as he continues to recover from a right hamstring niggle, head coach Ricky Ponting said in New Delhi on Monday.Marsh flew back to Perth on April 12 to consult CA’s medical staff and a decision on his return to the IPL was delayed at the time to give him adequate time to recover before being reassessed.”I don’t think he’ll be coming back,” Ponting said. “There’s a certain cut off point with replacement players. Cricket Australia were keen to have him at home to start his recovery process and we sent him back as soon as we could.”They’ve been managing his rehab for a couple of weeks now. I spoke to him the other day and it seems it’s taken a little longer than he first thought to get over it. I don’t think the T20 World Cup would be an issue.”Marsh is expected to captain Australia at the 2024 T20 World Cup, which begins on June 1 in the USA and the West Indies.Related

Marsh cleared to play in the IPL as batter-only for LSG despite back issue

Marsh's hamstring on track for T20 World Cup but admits he can't afford a setback

Delhi Capitals sign Gulbadin Naib for injured Marsh

Aussies at the IPL: Marsh's hamstring concern, Maxwell and Green struggle

Marsh returns to Australia after tearing right hamstring

The allrounder played only four games for Delhi this season, scoring 61 in three innings with a high score of 23. He bowled eight overs, picked up one wicket, and went at an economy rate of 12.87.This is the second successive season where Capitals have lost Marsh’s services midway. A big-ticket signing at INR 6.5 crore, he played only nine games for them in 2023.Capitals are currently eighth on the points table with three wins and five losses. They’re still in contention for the playoffs with six games remaining.

Alvaro Morata finally set to make Como transfer as Galatasaray and AC Milan eye compensation fee agreement

Alvaro Morata is edging closer to Como switch with Galatasaray demanding a payout before they will release him from his loan deal.

Como agree terms with Morata and MilanGalatasaray demand €6m to terminate loanFabregas pushing hard to land ex-teammateFollow GOAL on WhatsApp! 🟢📱WHAT HAPPENED?

According to Fabrizio Romano, Morata is on the verge of joining Como after a complicated saga involving three clubs. Como have already reached an agreement with Morata and parent club AC Milan, but Gala, where the striker is on loan until January 2026, are holding out for compensation to release the player early. After weeks of negotiations, Como are hopeful the deal will be finalised this week.

AdvertisementAFPTHE BIGGER PICTURE

Como have shown their ambition in the transfer market, bringing in several new names after they finished 10th in Serie A last season. Morata, a seasoned international with spells at Real Madrid, Chelsea, Atletico Madrid and Juventus, would be a marquee signing. But Gala’s demand for a €6 million fee – plus €3m in salary costs, has delayed the transfer despite Morata's clear desire to leave.

TELL ME MORE

Morata, who did not report back to Gala after the summer break, is pushing for a fresh start. Como have made him a priority target, and the Rossoneri, who loaned him to the Turkish side in January, have accepted the offer. However, the Turkish club, yet to exercise their option to buy, insist on financial compensation before terminating the deal. According to several reports Gala and Milan are nearing a resolution, which would unlock the move. Morata previously played alongside Fabregas at Chelsea and Spain, adding weight to the Como manager’s pursuit.

ENJOYED THIS STORY?

Add GOAL.com as a preferred source on Google to see more of our reporting

Getty ImagesWHAT NEXT FOR COMO??

If the deal is finalised, Morata would become one of Como’s most high-profile signings ever. The move represents a chance to reboot his career after a difficult loan spell in Turkey, and once again thrive in a league he knows well.

An old favourite and Harmison's charge

Cricinfo and Wisden writers select their best and worst moments from 2005

03-Jan-2006

Paul Coupar

Kevin Pietersen and some Bundaberg makes for an intoxicating mix © Getty Images
Best
I’m sure everyone else has bagged the Ashes moments, so it has to be … the restoration of that leafy delight, Queen’s Park ground in Chesterfield, to its rightful place on the English first-class circuit. As pretty as a summer morning and as comfy as an old jumper, it has wowed men form Barnsley (Dicky Bird) and Bombay (Sachin), which takes some doing. Closely followed by sitting in the dead of an Australian night, watching the first England v Australia one-dayer on telly and becoming slowly intoxicated by Kevin Pietersen’s strokeplay (also Bundaberg rum). Pietersen pulled England back from the brink and a weary ‘here we go again’ became an excited ‘here we go!’Worst
Seems the wrong year to moan.

Will Luke

Steve Harmison made his mark on the first morning of the Ashes © Getty Images
Best
The first day of the Lord’s Test against Australia was my coup-de-grace. Memories of Michael Slater biffing his way like a bulldog released from his kennel haunt England fans, especially this one. But all that changed. A single-minded desire to inflict early punishment on Australia’s top-order left them bleeding, literally, on 87 for 5, with Steve Harmison in a deliciously venomous mood. Macabre it might be, but when Harmison struck Ricky Ponting on the cheek, it signalled to Australia that at last England had a plan to counter the steamrolling juggernaut.Worst
How difficult is it to bowl with a straight arm? The ongoing saga of bowler’s illegal actions blighted an otherwise unforgettable year. The introduction of a 15-degree permissible bending of the elbow was an admirable idea, but the recent banning of Shabbir Ahmed (for one year) suggests perhaps the ICC will, at last, take a tougher stance in 2006. Either that, or issue umpires with protractors to measure the 15 degrees and red-card the lot of them.

Australian pies and kids in the candy shop

The Paper Round from the first day at Edgbaston

Andrew Miller05-Aug-2005

Freddie Flintoff lets fly with another massive six © Getty Images
How quickly the clouds of gloom can blow away in British sport. Barely a week has passed since the first-Test debacle at Lord’s, after which the prospects of England’s cricketers were being written off for another two years. But all of a sudden, the phoenix has risen from the ashes – the ashes of a thousand reams of newspaper print, that is.England’s “six maniacs” clobbered 407 runs, 55 fours and ten sixes, and shed ten wickets in the process, to give Britain’s tabloid-writers full licence for a pun-tastic smorgasbord of extended metaphors. “Test cricket just went bonkers,” declared John Etheridge in The Sun, before borrowing a few lines from another kid in a candy shop.”They gave it some Oompah Loompah!” enthused Etheridge, adding that “some of the blows almost reached the Bourneville chocolate factory down the road! It was the Aussie bowlers who crumbled like a Flake in the face of England’s withering assault with the willow.”Martin Johnson, writing in the distinctly untabloidy Daily Telegraph, chose an alternative culinary reference to colour his description of the day’s proceedings. “While England’s batsmen were smashing the ball all over Edgbaston yesterday it was especially satisfying to walk past a fast-food stall advertising `Authentic Australian Pies’,” he wrote, adding that any more of this, and it would be time for one of those style spoof apologies:”In common with other newspapers, we may have given the impression after the Lord’s Test match that the England cricket team are a bunch of spineless poodles who roll over at the first sight of a Baggy Green cap. We now accept that they are in fact a bunch of ruthless killers, and that our earlier suggestion that Michael Vaughan be sent to the Tower of London be changed to the award of an immediate knighthood.”Mind you, this liberated approach might not have been possible had it not been for an outrageous stroke of good fortune just before the start of play, when England’s tormentor-in-chief at Lord’s, Glenn McGrath, tore ankle ligaments during a casual game of touch rugby.Unsurprisingly, there was little sympathy on offer. “It only proves that the Aussies should have given [rugby] up after Jonny Wilkinson’s drop-goal,” gloated Mike Walters in The Mirror. In McGrath’s absence, Australia’s remaining seamers “served up even more filth than the Big Brother household”, despite the pitch being “greener than a seasick cruise passenger. Take that, you cobbers.”England’s reckless approach did not win universal admiration, however. “To an extent it was magnificent,” intoned Christopher Martin-Jenkins in The Times, “but, to paraphrase the famous French observation on the Charge of the Light Brigade, il n’etait pas la guerre.” England will need to bowl, added CMJ, “with a little more thought and a little less animal instinct than they batted.”Mike Selvey in The Guardian agreed. “Perhaps it was just too frenetic. Maybe the Australians settled back in their dressing-room last night and reflected that, under the circumstances, they might just have got out of jail.” Nevertheless, after years of oppression at the hands of McGrath, Selvey understood England’s sense of liberation. “It must have felt like a weight lifted and they played accordingly. A fortnight too late, said some. Eight years too late, mused Michael Atherton.”No two players captured the new mood quite like Andrew Flintoff and Kevin Pietersen, whose rollicking 103-run partnership met with the wholehearted approval of Selvey’s colleague, Richard Williams: “This was just what England needed,” he wrote. “Instead of the haunted, fretful shuffling that characterised the middle order at Lord’s … Flintoff threw his heart and soul into the task, rewarding a raucous Edgbaston with the dominant contribution to a partnership that may have changed the mood of this Ashes series.”The mood of the series, however, had already been changed by Australia’s captain, Ricky Ponting, whose decision to bowl was lambasted by Peter Roebuck in The Sydney Morning Herald. “From the first ball it was clear that Ponting had committed a howler,” he wrote. “Hoping to see the ball biting into a supposedly damp surface and thumping into the keeper’s gloves, Ponting must have been aghast to find it proceeding like an old-timer down a country lane.”By playing five bowlers and deciding to play their shots, the hosts had already seized the initiative,” Roebuck concluded. Whoever doubted the wisdom of Ashley Giles’s retention?

Pipped at the post

From a batting point of view, West Indies and India were uncannily similar. Both teams lost early wickets; both had fifth wicket partnerships of over fifty; both teams had top-scorers in the nineties

George Binoy21-May-2006For a team that have won its last 17 chases, 199 should never have been a challenging target. This week’s Numbers Game said that, in their last 15 chases excluding the first match at Kingston, India have averaged 144, 110 and 298 runs per dismissal for the third, fourth and fifth wicket. Today the lack of a top-order partnership fatally dented India’s victory hopes and West Indies made sure they levelled the series 1-1.From a batting point of view, West Indies and India were uncannily similar. Both teams lost early wickets; both had fifth wicket partnerships of over fifty; both teams had top-scorers in the nineties – the only scores above 30. The following graphic depicts the over-by-over graphs for West Indies and India from the 26th over onwards.At the end of 10 overs, West Indies were 22 for 2 and India 39 for 2. At the end of the 20th, West Indies 54 for 4 and India 70 for 4. Ramnaresh Sarwan’s and Carlton Baugh’s biffing enabled West Indies to score 71 runs off their last ten overs, an invaluable boost, considering that at the start of the 40th over their run-rate was 3.17. India too needed such an effort to win but they had lost seven wickets, one more than West Indies at this stage, and the pressure of the chase was telling.Wickets falling at one end also prevented Yuvraj Singh from attacking like he usually does. India scored only 47 runs between overs 40 and 49 and needed 10 runs off the last five balls with one wicket in hand. Yuvraj Singh smashed two boundaries to reduce the equation to 2 off three balls. However, he was bowled off the next ball and Sabina Park exploded in celebration. The one-run victory proved that in terms of batting performances, there was virtually nothing in it as both teams performed way below par.

Kumble the captain let down Kumble the bowler

Anil Kumble should have perhaps backed himself, and the rest of the bowlers, and declared half-an-hour earlier

George Binoy at the Chinnaswamy Stadium12-Dec-2007

After tea, Anil Kumble discarded his legbreaks and resorted to bowling seam-up © AFP
A Test that seemed destined to a draw at tea ended with Anil Kumble bowling seam-up with nine men close in as India strove to beat fading light and pick up the three Pakistan wickets that would have given them a 2-0 series win. They failed to pick up those wickets when Pakistan were offered the light with 11 overs left in the day. The immediate, and thoroughly appropriate, reaction would be to commend India and Kumble on a spectacular sprint for victory in the final session. A more considered opinion would be that Kumble the captain let down Kumble the bowler by leaving the declaration too late.The timing of the declaration will have its share of supporters and detractors. Those in favour will echo Kumble, who said India “had to get to a situation where we could absolutely ensure a series victory.” India were, after all, defending a 1-0 lead and were justified in wanting to shut the door completely. Another argument is that the poor light was unforeseen and, but for it, they would probably have comfortably picked up those last three wickets given the speed with which the first seven fell.Convincing, but not as emphatic as the counter to those arguments. India’s lead was 310 by lunch and the probability of Pakistan chasing a target of such magnitude, on a pitch where the bounce was getting lower by the over, was almost zero. Importantly, had the declaration come ten overs earlier, at the cost of 35-40 runs to the target, India would have had a buffer against the weather. The timing of the eventual declaration, little more than an hour after lunch, leaving Pakistan 374 to chase and 48 overs to save the Test, betrayed a defensive mindset.It was the second time this year that India settled for 1-0 when a little more aggression and confidence would have secured a 2-0 scoreline. At The Oval in August, India left the declaration until an hour after tea on the fourth day, when they had accumulated a lead of 500, after having earlier decided not to enforce the follow-on. England finished the fifth day 131 short of their target with four wickets in hand.”In hindsight I probably should have bowled medium-pace in the first innings,” Kumble said after the draw. In hindsight, he should have perhaps backed himself, and the rest of the bowlers, and declared half-an-hour earlierThis aversion to risk becomes more significant in the context of India’s next opponents. What if India are faced with a similar situation on the final day of the first Test in Melbourne in December? Will they sit back and ensure the match is completely safe first and give themselves a smaller chance of bowling out Australia? Or will they be brave and back themselves to overcome the challenge? Australia cannot be beaten by playing conservative cricket and the clever gamble could be the difference between a draw and a win.Kumble the bowler was outstanding in the final session. Pakistan went in to tea at 23 for no loss. After tea, he discarded his legbreaks and resorted to bowling seam-up, a masterstroke on such a wicket. “Yes, it was planned before I went out,” Kumble revealed. “There was no spin or bounce on the wicket and the only way to get people out was through balls that kept low and you had to bowl a bit quicker so that the batsmen didn’t have enough time to adjust.”When Kumble brought Yuvraj Singh into the attack, replacing Harbhajan, with seven wickets to get it appeared that India were running out of options. However, Yuvraj’s left-arm spin and his arm-ball made for a deadly combination on the track. The fields employed created immense pressure on the batsmen for it told them that the runs they scored and the boundaries they hit mattered not a jot.”In hindsight I probably should have bowled medium-pace in the first innings,” Kumble said. In hindsight too, he should have perhaps backed himself, and the rest of the bowlers, and declared earlier.

Practical magic

Forty-some years before Mendis made heads turn, an Australian country boy was being hailed as Jack Iverson’s successor in the ranks of the freak spinners

Nagraj Gollapudi23-Jul-2008It was John Gleeson’s first net for the New South Wales state side. He had been added to the 1966-67 training squad after some good performances in grade cricket. NSW had special nets for its old cricketers, and Richie Benaud happened to be present. He asked Gleeson to bowl to him.The very first ball was the back-to-front orthodox offspinner. “As luck happened, it turned a little bit,” Gleeson remembered. “He was actually watching my hand rather than the ball, and it knocked out his off stump.” Benaud’s eyes lit up, his bottom lip came out a bit, and as he picked the ball up and threw it back to Gleeson, he said: “I was still at Gunnedah.”Gleeson’s eyes were alive behind his thick-framed glasses when we met behind the Clarrie Grimmett Stand at the Adelaide Oval, where Australia and India were involved in another intense clash in this summer’s Test series. He had run into two of his former Test captains, Benaud and Ian Chappell, the previous afternoon. It was lunchtime, and despite the din in the marquee tent where we sat, Gleeson spoke animatedly.Eighteen months before Gleeson flummoxed Benaud in the NSW nets, Jack Chegwyn, a former cricketer, and a selector at the time, had taken an NSW team to play in Gunnedah, a town in the north-west of the state. The Gunnedah association had picked two locals from Tamworth, including Gleeson, to play against Chegwyn’s XI, which was just about the Australian side, featuring as it did nine internationals.”In the lead-up all I was thinking was, ‘How am I going to impress Benaud with my bowling?'” Gleeson said. “My plan was to bowl two orthodox offspinners and then the one that looks like an offspinner but is a leggie, and frighten the daylights out of him.” Benaud had heard about Gleeson’s unusual bowling style and was gearing up for the battle, but after having watched Gleeson for a few overs – with a pair of binoculars – he felt anything but threatened. “The ball had been turning quite a bit, but that didn’t matter too much because I had deduced that he was simply a legbreak bowler who looked like an offspinner,” Benaud was quoted as saying by Gideon Haigh in .Gleeson had Ray Flockton caught and bowled on the seventh ball of an over, which shot his plan to bits. So he decided to bowl his trick ball first up. It pitched on off and Benaud tried to turn it down leg, but it spun the other way. “That was the only ball I bowled to him but I deceived him, put the seed of doubt in his mind,” Gleeson said. It was the first turning point in his career – no pun intended.Immediately afterwards, Benaud asked Gleeson if he had ever thought of playing in Sydney. Gleeson was 27 at the time. “I would love to play first-class cricket if I was younger,” he said. Benaud was insistent and told Gleeson he didn’t want him wondering in ten years’ time what would have happened had he played in Sydney. The next day he rang Gleeson at work. “You’re playing for Balmain against North Sydney on Saturday at the Drummoyne Oval.”It signalled a change of direction for Gleeson. “I ended up with nearly 50 wickets in the grade competition. The following year I got picked in the state squad, played five games, took enough wickets to get picked for the Australian second XI that was going to New Zealand.” The following summer he made his Test debut.The flick trick
It was Benaud’s NSW team-mate Barry Rothwell, who himself groped and fumbled against Gleeson, who told Benaud: “This bloke’s bowling Iversons.” Indeed, Gleeson’s grip was similar to that of the legendary Jack Iverson, who too flicked the ball with a bent middle finger. The difference between the two was that Iverson bowled over-the-wrist spin while Gleeson’s was from back of the wrist.Gleeson himself saw the Iverson grip only once as a kid, however. “The first time I saw it was a photograph in a 1951 magazine. I would bowl with the same grip with a tennis ball in backyard cricket, with a jacaranda tree as the wicket. It was quite natural for me to bowl a legspinner even if it looked like an offspinner – it was basically a reverse wrong’un: looks like an offspinner but is a legspinner,” Gleeson said. He always bowled legspin to right-handers and offspin to left-handers “because the best way to get someone out is to take the ball away from the bat”. The only clue for the batsmen was the seam; Gleeson’s wrist position would remain the same either way.What was astonishing about Iverson, Gleeson, and now about Ajantha Mendis, is how they propel the ball across the pitch with just the middle finger acting as the lever. Ask Gleeson about it and he says it was never an issue. “I could always project the ball the distance of a cricket wicket,” he said, while going on to acknowledge that it was an uncommon ability. “There’s a few people who can do that. Peter Philpott [the Australian legspinner of the 1960s] could only project it 15 yards.” The papers started the mystery business. I was told I had six different balls. That was bullshit. You’ve only got three as far as I’m concerned Haigh in his book has described the efforts Iverson expended on pitching one delivery. “The physical strain of flicking a 5.25 ounce sphere of leather, cork and twine down a twenty-two-yard pitch, both fast enough to obtain traction and precisely enough to regularly hit a perfect length, is almost unimaginable.” Describing it as a miracle, Haigh noted that where conventional spinners imparted the force with a mixture of shoulder, arm, wrist, fingers, and elbow, Iverson relied predominantly on his middle finger.Unlike Iverson, who was a tall, upright, powerful man, Gleeson was short and his force came from his eight-pace run-up. If he had an advantage, it was that his fingers were slightly longer and stronger. Also, Gleeson possibly understood the mechanics of his bowling more than Iverson.Gleeson’s mystery ball was perfected on the 1967 tour of New Zealand with the Australian second XI. On that tour he came up against slow wickets that threatened to neutralise him. “I tried to devise something to get the ball off the wicket quicker. So I held the ball with the wrist straight on, seam upright, thumb underneath the ball and the finger across the top, and I delivered straight and it came out as a topspinner. If I wanted to bowl an offspinner, I still held the thumb and the middle finger in the same position, but I changed the seam of the ball to second slip and mid-on. For a legspinner the seam pointed towards fine leg and mid-off,” Gleeson described, demonstrating with a ball.In his first year with the NSW second team, playing in Victoria, Gleeson had taken five wickets in a game when a team-mate told him Iverson was at the ground and wanted to meet him. “Oh, yeah, I would love to,” Gleeson said. Unfortunately, nothing much came of the meeting.”The first thing he said to me when I came in was, ‘How do you bowl your leggie?’ I explained it to him, but he couldn’t comprehend it because he was an over-the-wrist spinner,” Gleeson said. The reason Iverson asked was because he very rarely bowled the leggie himself, unless it was a real turning wicket. For his part Gleeson tried to pick Iverson’s brains on the “basic fundamentals of bowling – what he did, what he thought he was doing”. But nothing came flying out and hit him in the forehead. “It was a bit disappointing because I had looked forward to having a yarn with him.”From the outback to the big time… and back
Not being able to get a lot out of Iverson wasn’t much of a disappointment for Gleeson. Like many players from the bush, he was his own man, with a callow attitude towards life and cricket. As his first meeting with Benaud showed, he didn’t really harbour dreams of playing at a higher level.Gleeson started his cricket career with the Western Suburbs 3rd XI in Sydney as a wicketkeeper-batsman while he was studying at an engineering college. He was then picked as part of the Emus team, a bunch of cricket-loving players from all over the state, sponsored by a JS White, who used to organise an annual competition. Gleeson travelled with the Emus on a world tour in 1961 – as the second keeper. That was soon to change.”In a match in Vancouver, Canada, I bowled to the captain in the nets. He was impressed and threw the ball to me an over before lunch. I picked up a wicket and came back after lunch and finished with 4 for 26 and never put on the pads again in my life.”Then came the grade-cricket days, during which Gleeson had to travel about 1000km to and from Sydney to play for Balmain, but he did so without complaint. Except, he would leave the moment the practice or game got over to catch his return flight, which earned him the nickname “CHO” (Cricket Hours Only).Having impressed for the NSW second team, his first opportunity to play for the state side arrived on the southern tour, a three-leg trip spanning Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Gleeson’s moment of reckoning came in Adelaide. Don Bradman came to him and asked, “Would you like to bowl to me?” Gleeson, obviously, was more than delighted to. “He stood there, in his suit, at the batting crease, without a bat. I ran up and bowled. To get the ball to turn a fair bit I had to bowl a lot slower than I normally did,” Gleeson said. He decided to play the same card that had tricked Benaud. “I bowled him that ball and he tried to let it hit the net, but it went the other way, flew up, and hit him on the hip. His eyes lit up and he just picked the ball up and threw it back to me. Next ball, I bowled him the wrong’un and then he wasn’t quite sure which way to go as he wasn’t reading from the hand.”Bradman was the chairman of selectors, and Gleeson had created a strong and favourable impression. Bradman later asked Brian Booth, the NSW captain, “Who’s the 12th man?” Booth replied, “Gleeson.” Bradman said, “That’s the first mistake you’ve made.”Gleeson lets his fingers do the talking in the nets•Getty ImagesGleeson’s influential role in the next five games earned him a ticket for the New Zealand trip. “But I really thought I got picked in the practice nets in Adelaide.” he said. A year later Gleeson celebrated Christmas by wearing the baggy green for the first time, in the Adelaide Test against India.He took a modest four wickets for 74 in that game. “He was an unusual type of legbreak bowler, the sort we had not seen in the past,” Chandu Borde, who was Gleeson’s second wicket in Tests, said. The Indians didn’t have too much trouble with him. “After some time our batsmen picked him easily because we are used to watching hands, unlike those who pick it off the pitch,” Borde said. Sure enough, Gleeson went wicketless in the next Test, in Melbourne, and took just five in the next two matches.He did better on the 1968 trip to England, where he made use of the quick pitches to take 58 wickets on the tour at 20.65 apiece. On the 1970 tour of South Africa, he took 19 wickets in the four Tests. It could have been more: he reckoned 12 catches were dropped off his bowling.Indeed, a weak Australian fielding unit – especially close to the bat – cost Gleeson dear. The other detriment was having to bowl after the pitches had gotten slow. “I liked to bowl the first morning. The newer the ball, the greener the wicket, the better, because I could really get the ball off the track quicker,” Gleeson said.Soon the shroud over his mystery started to wear thin. As batsmen started to read him better, Gleeson began to rely more on bounce by “bowling at the wicket all the time”. But he didn’t have Iverson’s strength. Taller and stronger, Iverson bowled at near medium pace and could get vast amounts of purchase and bounce from the pitch.After the third Test of the 1972 Ashes, at Trent Bridge, the selectors dropped Gleeson. He played his last first-class game as 12th man for NSW in 1973. By then he had lost interest anyway. No regrets, he said.These days Gleeson lives with his wife in Tamworth, midway between Brisbane and Sydney. He used to coach but not anymore. When asked why, he said: “I live in the wrong place – I live in the bush.” When asked what it takes to be a good spinner, he lit a cigarette before saying: “To stay ahead of the batsman you have to make him think, convince him that you are doing something.”Like Iverson, and Gleeson after him, Mendis is being tagged a “mystery spinner” for his unorthodox methods. Gleeson said he had heard about the Sri Lankan but hadn’t watched him bowl.What was Gleeson’s take on the “mystery” tag? “I was not a mystery spinner. I did things a bit different to someone else,” he said. And he had maintained as much even back when the media was hyping him. “The papers started the mystery business. I was told I had six different balls. That was bullshit,” Gleeson said. “You’ve only got three as far as I’m concerned: one goes straight, one spins from the leg and the other one spins from the off. You can’t do anything else.”

Dravid's form beyond a slump

Rahul Dravid is a modern great but his goodwill account is depleting fast

Sambit Bal12-Dec-2008
Rahul Dravid’s run of poor scores has gone far beyond a slump and has now reached a dangerous flashpoint © Getty Images
Margins always discriminate against batsmen struggling for form. Paul Collingwood, who didn’t look like being able to buy a run yesterday, got a shocker from Billy Bowden, who must now rank as Collingwood’s least favourite umpire. Rahul Dravid’s case today was fuzzier. Daryl Harper wouldn’t have been blamed had he adjudged him not-out leg before: Dravid was well forward, the ball was turning and it hit him around the knee roll. As David Lloyd, who has been a first-class umpire, said, quite likely it was out but could Harper be sure?Dravid can look back to Sri Lanka, where he was twice given out to marginal lbw decisions by the review umpire and was once caught off the helmet of the fielder. But nothing, absolutely nothing, can hide the big picture: Dravid’s run of poor scores has gone far beyond a slump and has now reached a dangerous flashpoint.Dravid batted for 44 minutes and faced 24 balls today and, for academic interests, scored only three runs. Not once did he look secure and sure. Steve Harmison, all energy and vim, sped past his dangling bat; Andrew Flintoff hit the perfect length with his first ball and caught Dravid groping, then got him to poke at another short one a while later. The last one Dravid would have let go comfortably ten times out of ten. In between, he managed to tuck one behind square and tapped two more in front to squeeze out three furtive singles. There was neither a moment of authority nor a hint of promise.Graeme Swann bowled him a good ball but who knows how Dravid would have played it had his feet been moving better and his mind been free of doubts. Another debutant offspinner had got him in the previous Test in Nagpur. Admittedly, it was the first ball Dravid was facing off Jason Krejza, but it was hardly a ripper and the edge was the consequence of a tentative prod.When batsmen of great calibre hit a fallow spell, a turning point seems imminent. After all, skills don’t run dry. In Dravid’s case, there has been a sense of that for a while. Everyone has felt it – Dravid himself, his team-mates, his opponents, the selectors, and the fans – that it is merely a matter of one big innings. But what was once inevitable is now turning into desperate hope.Dravid started the series against Australia with a half-century, a battling, Dravid-like effort on a slow pitch in Bangalore that kept alarmingly low on the third morning. But there followed a series of dismissals that were a combination of casualness and misfortune. In the second innings in Bangalore, he hit a full ball from Brett Lee to midwicket; in Mohali, where he looked confident and attractive, moments after chasing a wide ball, he aimed for another ambitious drive and ended up dragging the ball onto his stumps; in Delhi he chased a wide ball from Mitchell Johnson to slip and inside-edged a drive to the stumps. Only in the final innings in Nagpur did a deserving ball from Shane Watson – it swung in and deviated away off the pitch – get his edge.Two inferences could be drawn from his performance against Australia, when he got in plenty of times and then got out. One, that he was batting well without the runs on the board (it happened to Sachin Tendulkar in Sri Lanka earlier this year). The other thought is more worrisome. The foundation of Dravid’s batsmanship has been his immovability. Once he got in, it needed a great ball to get him out. Many of his recent dismissals have suggested a looseness, a certain wandering of the mind, traits not associated with Dravid. Stroke-players can sometimes fall prey to overconfidence but Dravid’s career has been built on diligent adherence to the basics and an almost superhuman application of the mind. A deviation from these fundamentals can be inferred as a sign of decline.Few other batsmen would have survived two successive poor years but it is right for Dravid to have been granted the allowance and the space. No one wants to see off a batsman of his pedigree and accomplishment in a hurryAnd the decline can be traced to the tour of South Africa towards the end of 2006. Till then Dravid had scored more than 9000 runs at just under 59, an average that put him ahead of all his contemporaries. He then had 23 hundreds and 46 fifties, a ratio of 1:2. The 26 Tests since then have fetched him only 1320 runs at 30. Both his hundreds in this period have been nondescript, one against Bangladesh and other a 291-ball 111 against South Africa on a pitch where Virender Sehwag hit 319 off 304 balls.In South Africa, Dravid batted hard and long – an 83-ball 32, a 58-ball 29 and a 134-ball 47 during which he was associated in a scoring freeze with Sachin Tendulkar that ultimately cost India the final Test and the series – without being able to make an impact, his first such failure in an away series in years. After this, the Dravid story has not been the same. Only one innings – a typically gritty 93 in Perth – could be said to have contributed substantially to a victory; there have been other odd contributions to partnerships but the security that India had been granted by him at No. 3 has not been available.Few other batsmen would have survived two successive poor years but it is right for Dravid to have been granted the allowance and the space. No one wants to see off a batsman of his pedigree and accomplishment in a hurry.Dravid has been a modern great: a colossal fighter, the hero of epic revivals and the architect of many famous triumphs. In the Indian batting pantheon, he stands firmly behind Sunil Gavaskar and Sachin Tendulkar. And more than that, he has been a man of commitment, a wonderful teamman, and a sporting hero of impeccable bearing and manners. Such men sport needs to hold on to for every extra second possible.However, sportsmen must ultimately stand and fall on their performances. The second innings will present Dravid with an opportunity to help save or win a Test. There would be no better time for the innings that he has been waiting for. It would be familiar territory. And it could be his moment of truth.

Wish you were here

It was an exhilarating day’s play. Six wickets in the first session, followed by two superb centuries, a good comeback by the bowling side and a blazing start by the visitors

Sidharth Monga at Seddon Park18-Mar-2009Those who didn’t turn up at Seddon Park today – and only a few hundred did – missed out on an exhilarating day’s play. Though numbers won’t do justice, they are a handy guide to the action: Six wickets in the first session, followed by two superb centuries, a good comeback by the bowling side and a blazing start by the visitors.It was a beautiful day with the sun out for long enough to take out all the dew from the grass banks. Fans could sit next to the sight screen at the City End without worrying about wetting their clothes. If it got too warm, the clouds made periodic appearances to cool things down. But they couldn’t cool down the frenetic on-field action.From behind the bowler’s arm one could see the series get off to a stirring start with New Zealand’s batsmen floundering against India’s fast bowlers. That followed a brave decision by Mahendra Singh Dhoni to bowl first when the conventional wisdom would have suggested ‘batting first, surviving the first session, and making merry.’The pitch had some spice, but not enough to make it unplayable. Zaheer Khan and Ishant Sharma showed just why they are considered the best new-ball pair in the world with Zaheer using the away-going delivery to take wickets even though he couldn’t get the lethal inswinger going. There was a destructive second spell by Ishant, with the wind behind him and the ball moving in dangerously. This was followed by an inswinger to Ross Taylor and two deliveries that went straight before a big in-dipper claimed his off stump.There was Munaf Patel bowling into the wind, giving nothing away, playing the third pace bowler’s role to perfection. He took the last wicket of the first session with one that moved away and took the shoulder of Brendon McCullum’s bat.Fans could walk right up to the pitch during lunch to see for themselves if it was as bad as a scoreline of 61 for 6 would suggest. They would have thought much the same as Daniel Vettori yesterday. There wasn’t much wrong.There was some grass, allowing some movement, but it was a true pitch. Vettori didn’t sound too pleased with it yesterday. He felt it wouldn’t provide enough pace and bounce. But instead, his side seemed down and out at lunch, suggesting that the New Zealand batting was not quite Test-match level.Ryder’s (very) nervous 90sIain O’Brien had helped Jesse Ryder move up from 77 to 98 when madness struck. O’Brien had survived a hat-trick first up but this time around he stepped out to Harbhajan Singh’s first ball to defend and got stumped.That brought on Chris Martin, the most hapless of No. 11s, and gave him five Harbhajan deliveries to face to give Ryder a shot at his century. With each ball that he kept out the cheers at the ground kept getting louder. The first Harbhajan delivery was a yorker that was played easily. The second was a doosra that went far away from his bat. The next was closer to the stumps and he defended with bat and pad close together. The fourth was another doosra that missed the bat easily.The last ball of the over went off Martin’s pad, straight to forward short leg. A relieved Ryder, whose smile kept getting wider with each ball, went up to Martin and said, “Well done mate.” First ball of the next over from Ishant Sharma, Ryder launched into his trademark short-arm pull to reach his hundred. Equally dramatically, he holed out next ball attempting a repeat.But post-lunch, Vettori and Jesse Ryder set about proving that batting was not so difficult after all. Both batsman played with great determination and cut out on flashy strokes as they tried to spread the field.Ryder did not reach out for anything away from his body and was content to leave good balls alone. Vettori took charge, mixing and matching imperious drives with irritating dabs and soon overtook Ryder to reach his third Test century, his second at the Seddon Park.India supporters might have begun wondering if the side had lapsed to its old habit of not being able to finish off sides after running through the top order. Memories of previous late-order partnerships that had turned series around may have begun to flash. After all, the 186 runs that Ryder and Vettori put together is the highest partnership for the seventh wicket when the first six wickets have fallen for 60 or less.But Munaf roared back, striking twice in two balls to even things up again. Attention began to focus on whether Ryder would get to his maiden Test century, having fallen short twice in six earlier Tests.He got good support from Iain O’Brien and took his score to 98. But O’Brien lost it , jumping out to Harbhajan Singh and getting stumped. It all came down to Chris Martin – that most hapless of No. 11s – to survive the next five balls of the Harbhajan over.Ryder’s smile became bigger with each delivery that was played out and he thanked Martin at the end of the over. And then came the short-arm pull to bring up the century followed by his dismissal next ball.And if enthusiasts thought this was enough, out came Virender Sehwag and crashed five boundaries in 18 deliveries to set up another potentially exciting day.After the recent dull, bat-fests in West Indies and Pakistan, this was just the kind of rivetting day that Test cricket needed. Pity only a few hundred turned up.

The boy who couldn't bowl

A ghosted autobiography with an inconsistency that’s at odds with the Australian bowler’s extraordinary career

Paul Coupar25-Jul-2009<!–

–>Random HouseGlenn McGrath’s book is everything his bowling was not: rather over-excitable, prone to veer between the eye-catchingly good and the eye-wateringly bad, and in the end not as effective as it should be.It is disappointing because the McGrath story is a rich one. As a boy in outback New South Wales he was so shy he left school at the first opportunity to avoid having to speak in class, despite being in the A-stream.At 16 he was in charge of a vast and struggling farm during the day and bowling against a 40-gallon water drum at night. Despite relentless practice he failed to shine even in a bush side called Backwater.Undeterred, at 19 he drove an old caravan the 284 miles south-east to Sydney to try his luck in grade cricket. He knew no one in the city and lived on chocolate bars. But the higher the level he played, the better he did. “I just loved competition,” he says.Via a stint at the Academy (Brad Hodge, an ex-academician, calls McGrath’s obsession with pig-skinning videos “confronting”), the boy who couldn’t bowl ended with 563 Test wickets, more than any fast bowler.However, he finally met an opponent that will power could not defeat. In 1997 his girlfriend Jane was diagnosed with cancer, two years after they had met in a Hong Kong nightclub. Eleven years later her funeral was held in the same Sydney church in which they had been married. It is a moving, bittersweet, human story but McGrath’s amanuensis, Daniel Lane, sports editor of the Sydney tabloid the , cannot help over-egging it.His is the familiar sportswriters’ world, where sore muscles and headlines “scream”, “scalps” are “snared” and batsmen fall “like flies”. When a wound is mentioned, you know it will be only a second before “salt” enters the picture.The overwrought tone means that, when it comes to Jane’s cancer, there is nowhere for Lane to go, because the emotional pitch has already been set in the red zone when describing, for example, McGrath’s latest sore ankle.This is a pity because, when we get off planet tabloid and back to earth, the book has outstanding moments. Diligence is one strength Lane shares with his subject, and many of his interviewees shine.Here is McGrath’s father, Kevin: “I’m a failure. I tried to make a farmer of my son and he became a great cricketer.” After trying to improve McGrath’s gawky batting technique Steve Waugh advises him to squeeze money out of bat makers by threatening to use their products. Late on, as McGrath gets used to retirement and tries to impose his rules on the household, his children poignantly tell him: “But we do it this way, dad.” One phrase sums up many years of separations.

When we get off planet tabloid and back to earth, the book has outstanding moments. Diligence is one strength Lane shares with his subject, and many of his interviewees shine

The interviewees are also excellent on the central paradox of McGrath: that a bowler who looked so ordinary had such extraordinary results.Shane Warne points to his accuracy: “It was the torture technique, the drip on the forehead.” Ricky Ponting mentions McGrath’s 6ft 5in: “It’s bounce that gets good batsmen out, not pace. Pace rarely gets good batsmen out; pace and swing might but bounce will [undo] more batsmen, anytime.” Geoff Lawson examines body language: “McGrath looked the same no matter if he bowled a bouncer or a yorker. The really good batsmen pick up on the cues… ” And Steve Waugh tells how he would have countered McGrath: “I would have told the players to walk at Glenn… I was grateful and amazed more batsmen didn’t… “McGrath himself can also be incisive about the mental foundations of success. Most strikingly of all he says: “I can’t ever remember having a bad dream about bowling. When I dreamt about cricket, I just bowled the ball I wanted to.” This is a true revelation for those of us plagued by work- or cricket-related anxiety nightmares: the laptop that will not work at deadline or the pads that refuse to buckle after a wicket falls.McGrath (via Lane) puts his self-confidence down to hard-won successes. “[He] had too solid a foundation of self-belief to be rattled. That faith in himself had been formed when he was a teenager who had to defy the popular opinion that he couldn’t bowl.” But pages later, just as this seems to be turning into something truly revealing, we are back to “crossing swords” with “old foes”. Unlike the man himself this book could have made more of what was at its disposal.Glenn McGrath: Line and Strength
by Glenn McGrath and Daniel Lane
Yellow Jersey Press, pb, 432pp, £14.99

Game
Register
Service
Bonus