Kambli, who walked off the field on the night of March 13, 1996 in tears after the match was awarded to Sri Lanka by default, on Thursday said he found "something amiss" in the game.
Kambli claims that his suspicion arose due to Mohammad Azharuddin's decision to field first even though it was unanimously decided, according to him, that the team would bat after winning the toss. However, the manager of the team, Ajit Wadekar, has doused those by stating that it had been decided the night before that India would field if they won he toss. He also pointed out the thinking that since Sri Lanka at the time were very good at chasing – three of their four on-field wins in the tournament had come thus – so they would not let them chase. The rationale makes sense, and if the management had indeed decided that they would field, why did Kambli wait so long to express his suspicion?
Let's look back at the match in question. Having opted to field, India had Sri Lanka on the mat at 2 for 1 and then 3 for 35. Both of Sri Lanka's openers, an in-form Sanath Jayasuriya and Romesh Kaluwitharana, fell in the first four balls of the match, slashing to third man where Venkatesh Prasad and Sanjay Manjrekar held onto their catches. When Asanka Gurusinha departed trying to play a forceful shot, Azharuddin's decision seemed to have been vindicated.
But such was Aravinda de Silva's form that day that the loss of three wickets was hardly felt, as he batted in a different zone, undaunted by the team situation or the roars of a 100,000-strong partisan crowd. He raced to his half-century off just 32 balls, studded with 11 fours, and by the time he was dislodged by Anil Kumble, de Silva had wrested control for Sri Lanka. From 85 for 4, Roshan Mahanama, Arjuna Ranatunga and Hashan Tillakaratne batted sensibly to take Sri Lanka to 251, a total that would prove beyond India on a fast-deteriorating pitch.
Aravinda, Man of the Match in that win over India, had last year recalled the match in an interview to a website and said not many Sri Lankans had imagined the pitch would break so much. "We saw the wicket and we discussed it with Dav (Whatmore, the coach) and after the toss I was happy to bat first because I felt we were all fresh and I felt the wicket would deteriorate after time went on. Dav also felt the same, but I think some of the others preferred to chase.
Fortunately, we lost the toss and batted first," he said.
"The others" that de Silva alludes to could include former Sri Lanka captain Arjuna Ranatunga, who at the toss had said he too would have preferred chasing. That would lend credibility to Wadekar and Azharuddin's view of the surface, which they believed would hold out during a chase.
Their thinking ultimately was disproved. India's reply too began with an early jolt when Navjot Sidhu – Man of the Match in India's nail-biting quarter-final win over Pakistan in Bangalore – was out to Chaminda Vaas. Sachin Tendulkar (65) and Manjrekar (25) batted watchfully to add 90 for the second wicket, but their dismissals to Jayasuriya, with Azharuddin's in between, turned the tables. In a dramatic collapse, India lost seven wickets for 22 runs after being 98 for 1.
Only if Azharuddin and Wadekar knew of how tough the wicket would get as the day progressed can one surmise that the decision to field was odd. The Sri Lankans bowled and fielder tigerishly, and the spin they extracted from the mud-cake surface made batting difficult. India simply failed to cope with the conditions.
Kambli, who walked in at No. 5, had watched partners come and go, unable to cope with the nasty turn that the Sri Lankan spinners were extracting from a cracking pitch. Usually a fluent stroke-maker and one of India's leading run-scorers in the tournament, Kambli batted 49 minutes for just 10 runs without a boundary.
"I will never forget the 1996 match because my career ended after this and I was dropped from the team,” said a weeping Kambli on TV on Thursday. "Ajit Wadekar was aware of everything. He had even written an article afterwards that Vinod Kambli had been made a scapegoat.”
It has been asked, most prominently by Sourav Ganguly, as to why Kambli waited 15 years to air these suspicions. He was never the same batsman after that match. His next 35 ODIs were forgettable - he averaged 19.31 with three half-centuries - and he never attained the heights that made him an instant hero back in 1993.
So, was this a case of sour grapes or is there more to this incident?
Posted in: Sports
1 comments:
Too much money is flowing into the game of cricket, and all these are happening, no doubt, people should stop giving so much importance to cricket, what was supposed to be an entertaining game has landed being a multi billion dollar scoundrels industry, the problem is politicians are making a garbage of everything
Post a Comment