Showing posts with label Jasprit Bumrah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jasprit Bumrah. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 15, 2025

A Symphony at Lord’s: Where Grit, Grudge, and Glory Danced in the Heat

The Summer of Slow: When England Swallowed Their Own Medicine

Shubman Gill’s sly invitation—“Welcome back to boring Test cricket”—felt at first like a juvenile taunt. But he wasn’t wrong. For a full sun-cooked day at Lord’s, England’s Bazball bravado was shelved. Joe Root and Ollie Pope went 28 balls without scoring; the crowd went from roaring to wilting in their seats, sunburned and half-dreaming of shade.

This was not the revolution England had promised the world. It was a retreat into the cautious pages of an older manual. The pitch was partly to blame: slow, inert, offering bowlers a chance to be patient artists. But deeper down, this was about memory—of Edgbaston’s 587-run hammering, of an India that didn’t just punish you but humiliated your brand.

Ben Stokes chose to bat, and the hosts crawled to their slowest scoring day under the Bazball sun. The irony? They needed it. Boring cricket saved them. And as they discovered, boring cricket, when seasoned with stubbornness and a splash of Joe Root’s class, still has its place in the modern hymn book.

Joe Root’s Canvas: Painting Mastery on a Worn Backdrop

While the heat melted the spectators and stilled the bats, Root turned the day into his private gallery. At Lord’s he is less batsman, more curator of moments—each deft leave, each gentle guide to third man, another stroke of quiet genius. By the time he reached his 37th Test century (surviving the overnight sleep on 99), he had swept past Dravid and Smith on the all-time charts.

Root knew precisely how to negotiate Bumrah’s menace: largely by not facing him. Watching him maneuver singles to keep himself at the non-striker’s end was a masterclass in humility. It wasn’t audacious cricket; it was grown-up cricket. The innings felt almost hushed in its brilliance, a whisper amid the echoing hype of Bazball, reminding everyone that elegance doesn’t always need an exclamation point.

Bumrah: Legacy in Swing and Seam

Jasprit Bumrah arrived at Lord’s with personal ghosts to slay and an honours board to chase. Rested at Edgbaston precisely for this, he etched his name where Indian legends like Kapil Dev once stood—and then, by surpassing Kapil’s overseas five-fors, gently pushed the great man aside.

This was less a burst of brilliance and more a long orchestration. Early on, Bumrah called for slips to stand closer, knowing this deck was slower. Later, when England threatened to creep away, he sliced through their illusions: a ball nipping back to splatter Brook’s stumps, another that ghosted under Root’s sweep.

In a match that demanded artistry more than raw pace, Bumrah was Rembrandt with the seam—light here, dark there, everything alive on the canvas.

Stokes: The Mad, Magnificent Martyr

If Root was the quiet artist, Stokes was the tragic hero—flinging himself body and soul at the match, daring injury to catch up. He bowled 44 overs across the Test, pushing his reconstructed hamstring past sensible thresholds, exorcising two years of reduced threat with the ball.

There were moments that bordered on absurd. A nine-over spell on the final morning. Then, after lunch, another ten, driving himself into exhaustion while orchestrating every field tweak, every psychological skirmish. He forgot to collect his cap from the umpire, such was the haze of his zeal.

Yet it was this very madness that turned the match. Stokes was the heat and noise Lord’s had longed for. When he ran out Pant with that spinning direct hit—a man nursing multiple wounds attacking an injured keeper—it was both cruel and magnificent.

Asked later why he tortured himself so, he shrugged: “Bowling to win a Test match—if that doesn’t get you excited, I don’t know what does.” It was the mission statement of a man who long ago decided immortality was worth the risk of breaking.

Jofra Archer: Rage, Relief, Resurrection

Then there was Jofra. Three balls into his first over back, three years of rehabilitation finally gave way to sunlight. His deliveries climbed past 90mph, some touched 93, and batsmen didn’t just play—they flinched.

The dismissal of Pant on day five was poetry with bite. After being contemptuously driven straight, Archer dug deeper, found a fuller length with spite, and let the slope do the rest. Off stump cartwheeled; so did Archer, racing up to offer Pant a few pointed words—uncharacteristically raw from cricket’s usually unflappable poet.

His was not just a return to Test cricket. It was a reclaiming of the stage. And watching him revel in it—emotions bursting after the abuse of three lost years—was worth every second of the wait.

India: Their Old Fire, Their New Fretfulness

This Test didn’t just slip from India; it was wrested away. Yet for long periods, they held the upper hand. Rahul was a monument to composure, Jadeja a foxhole genius who nearly pulled off a legendary heist. Gill? He talked plenty, wagging tongues about boring cricket, clapping sarcastically at England’s delays—but offered little when Carse trapped him LBW.

Their own moments of petulance hurt them. Gill’s obsessions with over rates, the running squabbles with Crawley, the impatient hook from Bumrah at the death—these were distractions that the finest sides sidestep. India looked, at times, like a team searching for old arrogance instead of conjuring new ruthlessness.

The Coda: A Match That Went to the Edge of Madness

When it ended, it was not with an eruption but a kind of weary embrace. Shoaib Bashir spun one into Siraj’s pads, stumps shattered, bodies sank. Stokes didn’t even run. His team ran to him instead, offering their energy to a captain who had given them everything.

This Lord’s Test didn’t elevate tactics or trends. It elevated hearts and flaws and sheer bloody-mindedness. It was about Stokes bowling until he forgot his own rituals. About Archer chasing demons. About Bumrah signing the honours board and then looking for another blank space.

Shubman Gill once asked for “boring Test cricket.” Careful what you wish for, young man. This was that—and it turned out anything but dull.

Thank You 

Faisal Caesar 


Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Clamp Down on Bowlers by The ICC: Why Not Question The Bowling Action of Jasprit Bumrah?


A bowler's action comes under scrutiny when it violates ICC regulations, which are precise and technical in nature. Specifically, suspicion arises if: (1) during delivery, the bowling arm bends at the elbow after aligning with the shoulder (though not crossing it), and (2) at the point of release, the elbow straightens. These subtle deviations are often imperceptible to the naked eye but are detectable to trained coaches and umpires who possess a deep understanding of bowling mechanics.

Recently, our coaching staff admitted to having identified certain irregularities in Taskin Ahmed’s bowling action much earlier. However, this raises a pertinent question: why did they fail to alert the national coaching team or the bowling coach at the time? If national-level coaches are subjected to criticism for lapses, shouldn’t these individuals also be held accountable for their oversight?

Accepting that Taskin’s bowling action might indeed be flawed is challenging, especially given the precision required to identify such issues. Even during the Asia Cup match against Pakistan, it took hours of meticulous analysis and slow-motion reviews for me to notice the subtle irregularity. Taskin’s delivery is exceptionally fast, and the flaw, if present, is so nuanced that it’s nearly invisible in real-time. My unwavering confidence in Taskin made it hard to believe he could err, but logic and evidence must prevail over emotion.

The larger issue lies in the timing. Why did neither the ICC match referees nor our own specialists initiate a review of Taskin’s action earlier? Could they not have proactively guided him to address these flaws? The suspension of a bowler during a high-stakes, multinational tournament is not just disheartening—it reflects a systemic failure that should compel us to question and improve our processes.

 

According to ICC’s regulations on illegal bowling actions, Jasprit Bumrah’s action does not appear entirely beyond scrutiny. In a frame I analyzed, his bowling arm remains straight along the shoulder line without significant elbow flexion. However, at the delivery point, the elbow appears straightened—a technical aspect that could potentially place his action under suspicion.

This raises an important question: why is Bumrah not subjected to laboratory testing to verify compliance? Even if the issue seems borderline or "fifty-fifty," wouldn’t a lab test help eliminate any ambiguity? Ensuring fairness and consistency in enforcement is crucial, particularly when such regulations are so intricately tied to biomechanics. While Bumrah's action may ultimately pass scrutiny, wouldn’t it be prudent to subject it to the same level of evaluation as others? After all, transparency and adherence to the process strengthen the credibility of the game.




This is precisely why I advocate for random testing. Implementing such a system would not pose a significant challenge for the ICC, given its substantial financial resources. Expanding the number of testing centres beyond just a few locations to include several regions worldwide would further enhance the effectiveness of this initiative. Randomized testing would not only ensure greater accountability but also eliminate the prevalence of conspiracy theories surrounding the enforcement of bowling action regulations. Such a proactive measure would reinforce fairness and transparency, strengthening the integrity of the sport.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar