History does repeat itself. When in my book 'Inside The Boundary Line' I mentioned how a great batsman was scripted to be run-out since it was to be his successive duck, little did I know that same scripting will be repeated with another great in next season of IPL. Tendulkar was out for duck in the previous match aagainst CSK and got run-out for duck in this match of MI vs DD held on 9/4/13. This also answers those who have often been asking me with a sense of awe and/or disbelief whether Tendulkar was also involved in fixing. A chapter is also already there in the book that deals with this. Even otherwise, it should be really basic for one to understand that there can't be any fixing without involvement of all the key players.
In commentary on Cricinfo, someone categorically says that Tendulkar and Ponting can't fail consecutively for the third time. And exactly opposite happens. May not be much in that.
Now something from this match also for those who ask for evidence of match-fixing. Before start of the match, the odds were 1.8 in f/o MI that came down to 1.7 after the toss. Fine. Now their top two batsmen were out with score of 1 on the board. The way odds behave normally, these should have been 1.5 or 1.6, at best, in f/o DD, under the impact of quick fall of top two batsmen with almost nothing on the board. But at 6/2 in 2 overs, odds in f/o DD were as high as 1.8 (I would love if any betting expert could justify these odds to me). Very tempting for the punters expecting DD even otherwise to do well after two consecutive losses. When one comes across such tempting odds, one must understand/remember that fixers/bookies are no fools. 8 to 9 out of 10 times, it will be for making fools of punters. Also remember nothing is 100%.
So what followed. Pathan taken off after having bowled a wicket maiden, and by far the highest partnership of IPL6 (132 in 13 overs) so far, the odds being 1.18 in f/o MI before it ended. Either bookies are prophets or a necessary part of the fixing syndicate. One doesn't require any grey cells to understand what is what.
Those looking for/asking for evidence must understand that they must understand the betting industry and look for evidence through this industry, if they can't grill the concerned players and officials. And that is for those who can't see the obvious evidence readily available all the time in the shots played and the balls bowled.
In the 10th over, the last of the 0-10 overs session, only 5 runs were scored against the run of play, something to do with session manipulation. And in 10-20 overs session, the ultimate score was more than the maximum session score on offer at any point of time. When Pollard was on the crease, Shastri was emphasizing again and again that 200 were on the cards. He proved right this time as score ultimately well crossed 200, being 209. But not before Pollard was out rather cheaply and punters must have become apprehensive to have made mistakes.
Morne Morkel, the comeback acclaimed bowler of DD failed miserably with 4-0-43-1.
When chase by DD began, two quick wickets fell to ensure that trapped punters, enthused by cheap and quick fall of 2 top MI wickets or otherwise having backed DD, never got any opportunity to escape. Interestingly, though, the odds even with fall of these wickets didn't go down much, as a worthwhile though inconsequential 3rd wicket partnership was to ensue.