From Alan and Philip Sutherland, Australia

Glenn McGrath: Not quite a transformation but there was some consistency in scoring © Getty Images

Often it is said that necessity is the progenitor of invention. Equally, it could be said to be the mother of re-invention. When medium-fast bowler James Franklin debuted for New Zealand in January, 2001, few would have predicted that he would rise to occupy No.5 or 6 in New Zealand’s batting line-up. Indeed, the idea that some New Zealanders would be calling for his retention in the national contract system ten years later due to his batting capabilities would have been beyond belief. However, it merely proves another old adage: with consistent and creative practice, one’s skill level can markedly improve, even if it appears that one has no skill what-so-ever.

This was surely the case with the batting of the metronomic maestro, Glenn McGrath. When McGrath donned a baggygreen cap for the first of his 124 Test matches, his batting style was best described as that of a total ferret. However, with time, application and more than a bit of help and encouragement, he re-invented himself as merely a genuine bunny. Or maybe even a No.10, a position McGrath briefly occupied above legspinning team-mate Stuart MacGill. The difference between McGrath’s willow-wielding capabilities at the end of his long career is in stark contrast to its beginning. The span of his first 18 completed Test innings - 1993-1996 - yielded just 38 runs for an average of 2.11, including ten ducks. The span of his final 18 completed Test innings brought, however, a massive 191 runs at an average of 10.61 from mid-2004 to 2007. This included a run of four unbeaten innings, yielding a combined 36 runs, and his only international half-century (61 against New Zealand in Brisbane in 2004). McGrath was still making ducks, almost as many as he did at the beginning, but in between these he was doing something extraordinary; he was actually scoring in some sort of consistent fashion.

The rise of McGrath’s batting, however, was nothing compared to that of slow-left armer, Wilfred Rhodes. Rhodes began his long county career with Yorkshire in 1898, holding up the order at No.11. One year later, he was batting at 10 or 11 for England. By 1909, Rhodes however, was opening the batting with Sir Jack Hobbs. Admittedly, he had shown some aptitude down the order. Assisted by a number of not outs, his first eleven innings (batting at 10 and 11) saw him with a slightly higher average than when he completed his Test career. However, it must be said that a different price may be placed on openers’ runs as opposed to cameos by tail-end-Charlies, no matter how valuable they may be in the short-term scheme of things. Rhodes opened the batting with patience and tenacity. Although only scoring two Test centuries, he made a further 56 hundreds in other first-class matches, proving to be a genuine allrounder and easily one of the best that England has seen.

While Rhodes started as a spinner and developed his batting, Michael Bevan’s Test career for Australia went the other way. Long touted as a long-form batting prospect, Bevan had built a one-day international career on his sublime finishing skills. He failed, however, to fully transfer this to the Test arena. He did, however, take ten wickets in a match, bowling left-arm chinamen against the West Indies in Adelaide in 1997. Unlike Rhodes’, though, Bevan’s re-invention was not entirely to his satisfaction and his Test career unfortunately fizzled out.

The career of Imran Khan, by contrast, kept burning brightly. He started as a genuine fast bowler who could certainly bat. Yet, his batting average from his first 22 Tests was just 23.75 (760 runs in all), hardly a recipe for greatness. The haul from his last 22 tests was a far healthier 1218 runs at an average of 58. An ageing body was partly responsible for this change of emphasis, as was the emergence of Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis as an opening bowling pair. In Abdul Qadir and Mushtaq Ahmed, Pakistan possessed a couple of fine spinners as well, so Imran’s bowling was no longer indispensible.

This, perhaps, illustrates one rule of cricketing re-invention that circumstances make possible and, therefore it follows, at times, they might also render it impossible. To believe success is impossible, however, is to never truly attempt it. Even a prime candidate for the greatest ferret of all time, New Zealand’s one-and-only Chris Martin, is apparently improving what appeared to be a non-existent batting ability. Martin began his Test batting career with 7, an unbeaten 5 and seven ducks in a row split by a nought not out. An average of 2.2 after an initial 10 completed innings, however, is comparatively dwarfed by Martin’s return of 33 runs (at an average of 3.3) from his last few short sojourns to the crease.

Perhaps even more unlikely is Malaysian-born Somerset player Arul Suppiah’s newly-achieved world record for T20 bowling. Previously a right-hand batsman who tweaked the occasional left-arm orthodox deliveries, Suppiah can now boast a best bowling of six wickets for five runs against Glamorgan. His victims included former Test representatives in Robert Croft and Simon Jones. Admittedly, neither of these two can be regarded as front-line batsmen, but such trifling matters are rarely included in the record books. Long may cricketing re-invention continue!

From Balachandhran S, India

The use of two new balls will make things even more tough for spinners © AFP

A few weeks ago, the ICC framed new rules for the game. Some of the new rules were long pending. Some were even understood and applied without the legitimacy of the ICC ink. But some were, lets just say, strange.

I know that a lot of focus has gone towards the use of runners by batsmen. Perhaps rightly so. Just because it is difficult to independently and impartially assess the fitness of a batsman, you cannot arbitrarily ban runners. If a facility is being misused then the easiest solution is to withdraw the facility. The tougher option is to tighten things up and have a fool proof solution. The ICC appears to have gone for the easier option. Why, pray, can we not have an independent physio sitting on-call to determine the extent of the injury of the batsmen? If it is a cramp, then no runners need be allowed. If it is a serious injury that hampers his running, then by all means allow that!

However the more interesting rule change from a pure cricketing point of view - and hence pretty uninteresting for the media hounds - is the introduction of two new balls from each end in the ODI game. Now, I don’t know which expert(s) the ICC is relying on to determine that the ODI game needs a special dose of adrenaline and other such invigorating items to extend its shelf life. Fact is - the recent World Cup was extremely well watched and well covered. No panic buttons need be pushed.

The only people who would welcome this rule would be the batsmen! Is that not ironic? The ball will keep coming onto the bat and the pace of run scoring is probably going to be dramatic. 400-run innings are probably not going to be exotic anymore!

And what about the long suffering tribe of spin bowlers? They practically have no say now! We will now get to see more of the Ashwin-type of bowlers who specialise in bowling with the new ball. Not that there is anything wrong with Ashwin. But the traditional virtues of spin bowling - the wiles and guiles are probably going to be conspicuous by their absence. And all this because the technology is not currently there to make a white ball last for greater than 30-odd overs! The mind boggles.

Now onto the subject which has had cricket lovers in thrall in recent times - the DRS! For a long time, this writer has maintained that the DRS is welcome. The game of cricket definitely needs it. But there is definitely large scale misunderstanding of what construes the DRS. Because ball tracking systems such as Hawk-Eye bring about a huge load of spectator involvement, many people tend to equate such technology with the entire spectrum and scope of DRS. The ICC has quite rightly ruled that the ball tracking systems are not there where they need to be and hence made the implementation of such systems optional. It would have been even better had the ruling said that ball-tracking systems will be put to rigorous and publicised testing in domestic events and a path be drawn to chart out the possible implementation of such systems at the senior level when all the kinks have been worked out.

Nevertheless there is still reason to cheer for the ICC - at least on this count. It is going to be interesting to see how many countries claim that they can afford systems such as Hot Spot. But this is most definitely a step in the right direction.

From Sourabh Bhargava, India

Humility personified? © Getty Images

When I saw Federer and Tendulkar together at Wimbledon this year, what struck me was their mutual admiration. It has to be acknowledged that greatness transcends every sport and that both Federer and Tendulkar have played the game in a way which arguably nobody has ever played before. But their achievements on field often tend to divert our attention from the virtue that helped them to stay at the pinnacle of their respective crafts for so long – humility.

The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said that modesty was “a hypocrisy” when it was displayed by men of great talent. Luckily, in our times we have plenty of champions in sports who have time and again proved him wrong. Have a look at Tendulkar, Dravid, Federer, Nadal , Michael Jordan, Messi and we can easily conclude, “ Nice guys do finish first too”. Having started following sports in 80’s, I can easily see the shift in persona of sports champions; on tennis courts, tantrums of the likes of McEnroes and Connors has given way to serenity and humbleness of Federers and Nadals; Messi is carrying on the legacy of Maradona sans his volatile temperament and top cricketers like Sachin, Steyn and Kallis carry out their job day in and day out with the same precision as Miandad and Lillee and Botham but without getting embroiled in any controversy.

I was wondering why this shift has happened. Is it mere chance or is it a function of the times we live in. It may be a combination of both but it’s more the latter. Sportsmen today mature at a much earlier age than their predecessors, the media is at you all the time: success and failures are both magnified and any slip may derail your career forever. The slide is not confined to performance on the field; ask Tiger Woods. The earnings from endorsements easily surpass what one makes by simply playing and as a brand ambassador you are expected to do most things right, both on and off the field. So in a way, economics influences the behaviour of sportsmen. However, it can hardly explain the humbling nature of today’s champions.

Today’s sportsman is also a product of a society that has undergone rapid change; flow of information is seamless and endless, education and sports are no longer considered to be at loggerheads and there is much more exposure at the sub-junior and junior levels and the age at which kids have to sacrifice family life in favour of pursuing sports is coming down drastically; all this leads to a much broader vision among sportsmen. Take the case of Suresh Raina; he spent nearly a decade in a hostel in Uttar Pradesh to pursue cricket, was a star player in India Under-19 side, broke into the Indian team, was dropped, made a successful comeback and captained India in the recent ODI series in West Indies. And he’s just 24!

Any youngster who goes through such ebbs and flows in a sporting career in a short span of time does develop the ability to put things in perspective. Lastly, unjustifiable expectations from the fans have, ironically, worked in a positive way. Players today realise that nothing is permanent, more so in sporting arena where you are as good (or as bad) as your last performance. When likes of Lampard and Terry were part of despairing scenes after England’s World Cup exit within a month of euphoric celebrations marking Chelsea’s victory in English Premier League after a gap of three years, the fickle nature of their profession must have dawned on them. When people thronged Dhoni’s house in Ranchi to celebrate India’s World Cup win, it didn’t take long to remember the same house was vandalised when India were knocked out of the tournament in 2007. Ricky Ponting has captained a team that bullied all the opposition but one that has also been bullied back.

This dichotomy did exist in the past, but the scale of celebrations and anguish from fans have made sportsmen more humble. They realise that for every celebration lurks a backlash. Whatever be the reason, we are blessed to have many great role-models on and off the field. As Niccolo Machiavelli said, “It is not the titles that honour men but men that honour titles”. We are lucky to have so many champions today who fit in the bill perfectly.

From M Swaroop, India

© Associated Press

There is a theory doing the rounds that with Darren Sammy in the XI, West Indies will always be either one batsman or one bowler short. It is an easy argument to make. Sammy, the batsman, struggles to make an impact because he does not have the defensive technique to play a long innings. Sammy, the bowler, is a holder, and he cannot be more than that at his pace. The only successful attacking Test bowler at Sammy's pace in recent memory is Shaun Pollock, and Sammy doesn't have the skill or the control to be him.

On the morning of the first day of the third Test, I prayed West Indies would have the courage to play one batsman less, and pick Kemar Roach to bowl with Fidel Edwards, Ravi Rampaul, Sammy and Devendra Bishoo. In this series, every time West Indies had the Indian batting on the mat, the batsmen found a passage of uninspiring bowling to capitalise on - Harbhajan and Raina did it in the first Test, Laxman and Raina in the second. A fifth bowler might have helped, I thought; a fresh pair of legs, some variety.

Moreover, the extra batsman hasn't done much. On Friday, with Rampaul missing - an unfortunate, unforeseeable problem - West Indies still had India in trouble, at 18 for 2 and at 172 for 5, and both times, the bowlers who were doing the damage were too tired to continue. A fifth bowler might really have helped. But with Sammy in the fold, a fifth bowler means a batsman less. It means Carlton Baugh bats at six, and Sammy at seven - not confidence-inspiring at all. Which brings us to that easy argument again - that Sammy is a fielder, not good enough as a bowler or batsman.

Let's look at the tougher argument. That West Indies have been struggling to compete in Test matches is obvious. They won a Test after two years against Pakistan earlier this year. They ignominiously lost to Bangladesh at home some time ago when their top players walked out of the series. The board and the players’ association are locked in a battle that resembles a socialist trade union clamour for better pay and working conditions. There are player strikes, suspensions, mysterious selection decisions, controversial interviews, talks of corruption, mishandling, unnecessary interference.

For ten years now, since Walsh retired, West Indies have been fissured and fractured by politics. Sammy's appointment as captain - he's known as a board man, rather than the players' association man his predecessor Gayle was - happened in this context. He was never a regular in the Test side, and in the shorter versions, his report card read, "Can do better". His appointment came as a bolt in the blue. And it was well understood that his role as a captain is similar to his role as a bowler - hold until the next guy is fit and ready. Sammy has done a lot more.

Before Sammy, there were flashes of team-play, in that unexpected Champions Trophy win, for instance. Fans of the team, like myself, have consoled ourselves in individual brilliance - Lara's exploits against Murali, Chanderpaul's invincible runs of attrition, Gayle's random, merciless attacks, and Jerome Taylor's freak spell.

For the first time in ten years, under Sammy, West Indies are playing like a team, pooling in collective resources to punch above their weight - in a manner that reminds one of the way New Zealand play their cricket.

In this home season, they drew with Pakistan, and have troubled India more than most imagined. On Friday, with Rampaul out of the XI, it would have been easy for West Indies to bend over and submit. But two bowlers and Sammy - who, by the way, always bowls better than he looks like he's bowling - all carrying niggles, made India fight for their runs. Except in that last hour, when the bowlers were too tired to make an impact, they traded on equal terms with the Indian batting line-up. Sammy has brought this will to toil to the team, along with heart and commitment

When he's badgered in the press conferences, his responses are never tired, they are honest. When he is asked about his own merit, he responds with belief. When asked about selection, Gayle's for instance, he responds with a shrug, it's not his job to comment. And that is exactly how he plays his cricket, and how he captains the side - with enthusiasm and devotion that belies his natural talent. Maintaining his morale, his conviction amid this pressure from the media and the players is admirable enough; that he infects his team-mates with this courage is the sign of a true leader.

Today's West Indian cricketers are still only discovering how to win, and Sammy is pushing them to discover it together, as a team. Sammy is still doing a holding job, he knows that. When Bravo, Bishoo or Barath are ready, he will, most probably, make way. But he is doing a lot more than he was expected to - it is just a question of time, and a little luck, before results follow.