Cricket 24x7 - All the cricket

Sachin Tendulkar skips West Indies tour

noreply@blogger.com (Jagadish) — Fri, 27 May 2011 17:04:00 +0000

Sachin Tendulkar's decision to skip the West Indies tour altogether (he had already opted out of the limited overs leg) to spend time with his family is bizarre, and unprecedented.

He has so far skipped 3 test tours completely because of injury - Sri Lanka 2001 (fractured toe), Zimbabwe 2005 (not yet fit after elbow surgery) and West Indies 2006 (not yet fit after shoulder tear).

So this would pretty much mean that his last act in a test match in the West Indies was being bowled by Pedro Collins for a brilliant 86, triggering a collapse that ended with West Indies winning the series 2-1.

52.6 Collins to Tendulkar, OUT: Sabina Park erupts! super delivery on the off and cutting in, the ball stayed a touch low, Tendulkar tries to defend it but can't get down in time, the ball crashes into the off and middle stump, the Indian ship is sinking!

His last act in all internationals in the West Indies was being bowled by Dilhara Fernando in the 2007 World Cup, for a blob.

11.3 Fernando to Tendulkar, OUT, and Tendulkar goes! Could this be his last World Cup innings? The ball pitched outside off stump, nipped back, Tendulkar lunged forward, the ball hit the inside edge of the bat and crashed into leg stump, huge huge wicket for Sri Lanka and India are fading away.

My worry isn't about him missing the series, but more about the why. If he wanted to spend time with the family, wouldn't it have made sense to skip the ODIs in West Indies and England, and make himself available for the tests? After all, everyone, including him, bleats on about how test cricket is the ultimate form of the game.

I don't buy the argument that he should have rested from a few IPL games. His side hadn't yet qualified, and by screwing up a few games in a row at the end, they risked not making it to the top 4. As a captain, it was his responsibility to ensure that Mumbai Indians qualified. Remember that they didn't automatically qualify until Deccan Chargers went down last Saturday.

World Cup review - Part 1 - Australia, Bangladesh, England, India & Ireland

noreply@blogger.com (Jagadish) — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 21:41:00 +0000

28 years ago, I was rudely woken up by relatives screaming "We have won the World Cup". It is quite likely that Saturday's final between India & Sri Lanka also ended around the same time as that game in 1983. I was well awake this time around!

I can't recall exactly when I started following cricket with a lot of interest, but I definitely recall watching games from the 1985 World Championship of Cricket in Australia keenly. I did watch at least 1 day's play of the India v Pakistan test at Chepauk in 1987 and definitely remember Azhar taking a blinder of a catch. I can't recollect if it was off a spinner (Maninder) or off a medium pacer (Raju Kulkarni), most likely the latter since I didn't bunk school, and the last day of the test was on a Sunday. The 1987 tied test at Chepauk enthralled me. A few months earlier, I had read an account of the final over of the Brisbane tied test. Around the same time that the India v Australia game was coming to an end, with India in a winning position (50-odd runs to get with 5 wickets in hand), I was at my music class, and wondered aloud if a tie was possible. Needless to say, I got thrashed when umpire Vikram Raju's finger went up.

Back to the present though. The final was an excellent exhibition of classy batting by Jayawardene, who I still believe to be over-rated in comparison to Sangakkara, nice partnerships (Sangakkara-Dilshan, Mahela-Samaraweera & Mahela-Kulasekara, Gambhir-Virat & Gambhir-Dhoni) and a fair amount of power-hitting at the end.

Now that the tournament has ended though, teams & individuals need to introspect into whether they have achieved what they set out to.

Australia needs to take a serious look at their approach to grooming spin bowlers. Under Ricky Ponting's captaincy (possibly because of his limitations when it came to playing spin bowling in tests), the only time he used "spin" with some degree of seriousness was when he was washing his clothes. They've never identified any sort of backup options for Shane Warne other than Stuart "watch-me-bowl-a-half-tracker" MacGill. They need to find at least 1 more young batsman to play alongside Watson, Clarke & Ponting. It is rare for Aussie ex-captains to play on for too long after they've quit as captain. While Ponting may play on until the 2013 & 2014 Ashes, it is quite likely that he'd have quit ODI cricket by then.

Bangladesh need to have a rethink about their domestic cricket structure, and ensure that the top 25-30 players get a lot more exposure to cricket against first-class teams from countries that are better than them. It's quite obviouso that the talent is there, but they're not progressing beyond an odd upset every World Cup and getting thrashed by the rest of the stronger sides. Given their proximity to India & the vote that they bring to India's table at the ICC, I can't understand why they don't engage in some quid pro quo for test & ODI tours to India, and for IPL sides to pick their players.

England performed extremely well against the stronger sides, but lost it against the weaker ones (and barely survived against West Indies). This seems to indicate that it isn't a skill problem, but an inability to understand how to play limited overs cricket. Constantly complaining about the schedule doesn't get them anywhere. The Ashes-World Cup schedule was known well in advance, and they had the better part of 3-4 years since the 2007 World Cup to have a squad of 20-odd quality players to pick from. They have the bowling. Anderson, Broad, Ajmal Shahzad, Tremlett & Swann are a pretty handy lineup. But the batting is far too unidimensional with Strauss, Trott, Bell and Collingwood providing at least 2 too many 'bat 30+ overs' batsmen & only Pietersen, Bopara and Morgan providing the flair.

India won despite a bowling attack that was under threat of being smacked around every game, and a fielding unit (barring 2 or 3 players) which was ever willing to help opponents convert 1s into 2s, 2s into 3s, routine saves into 4s, etc. There's absolutely no doubt that they were the best side of the tournament, and they defeated all the top sides barring South Africa (England, perhaps conveniently, don't count). Yet, players like Virat Kohli & Sreesanth need to think about their game, and what they want to achieve. It is bizarre that Kohli, at 22, is unable to adapt his game to a situation where he goes in at #6 with a couple of overs left to go. He has to realize that he may not go in at #4 with 30 overs to go every time! Similarly, Sreesanth needs to realize that this was his 'last chance saloon'. He only had 2 opportunities to prove that he can be an effective #2 or #3 bowler in ODIs, and he fluffed up both times. If his strength is around generating late outswing, why did he pitch it so short on a very flat batting track in the final? Ashwin has most likely become the 2nd choice spinner, and I'd expect that he gets a lot more games over the span of the next 6-10 months to show that he can do a good job.

Ireland had at least 2 opportunities other than the game against England (v Bangladesh & v West Indies) to show that they should be given many more opportunities to compete against good sides, and also that a World Cup was better off with them than without them.

World Cup semis: The stories you definitely won't see

noreply@blogger.com (Jagadish) — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:13:00 +0000

Mahinda Rajapaksa invites Queen Elizabeth II and John Key to chill out at the World Cup semi-final

Sri Lanka's President (& head of government), Mahinda Rajapaksa, has invited New Zealand's head of state Queen Elizabeth II and the head of government John Key to enjoy his hospitality during the World Cup semi-final at the Premadasa stadium as part of a diplomatic coup. The two island nations have been engaged in a 'cold war' since December 2006 after Murali was controversially run out even as he was walking to congratulate Sangakkara on his brilliant 100 at Christchurch.

Nathan Guy warns team against any attempts to smoke weed before semi-final

New Zealand's Minister of Internal Affairs, Nathan Guy, has issued a strict warning to the New Zealand team ahead of the World Cup semi-final against Sri Lanka. Acknowledging that New Zealand cricketers had a past history, he indicated that the team was under surveillance. Smirking & refusing to comment when this reporter asked him if he knew what South Africa's batsmen were smoking during the quarter-final, he said "I don't know about that, but what they were doing was a phonetically similar 7 letter word ending with 'oking'".

All set for mother of all semi-finals

Sri Lanka's media have lapped up the world's attention around the semi-final featuring Sri Lanka and New Zealand. Hordes of politicians, businessmen & celebrities have landed in Colombo. All hotels in and around Colombo have hung 'house-full' signboards and tickets are being traded in the black markets at premiums exceeding 500% of the list price.

Will New Zealand finally break the World Cup jinx against Sri Lanka?

New Zealand's rugby fanatic media woke up on Saturday to the breaking news that their cricket team had finally got rid of their bogey side, South Africa. Their elation was tempered after the realization that the semi-final was against Sri Lanka, who they have never beaten in any knock-out game at an ICC event!

No authoritative performances in the league stage

noreply@blogger.com (Jagadish) — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:23:00 +0000

A month after taking a shot at the semi-final line up for the 2011 World Cup, it is now obvious that that either India or Australia will make it to the semi-final. That quarter-final will be played 1 day after the 8th anniversary of an inconsequential World Cup game, the last time these 2 teams met at the World Cup.

The oddest part about the first round was that none of the major teams actually stamped their authority on the league stage. Australia was expected to blow away opponents with their bowling, but the only teams to suffer the wrath of Australia's 'quick gun Murugan' attack were Zimbabwe & New Zealand. Sri Lanka, Kenya, Canada & Pakistan were largely untroubled. Pakistan outwitted Sri Lanka and Australia, nearly slipped up against Canada and got thrashed by New Zealand. New Zealand got thrashed by Australia and Sri Lanka, but thrashed Pakistan in-turn.

India and England tried their best to give Group B a lot of close games, and looked thoroughly unconvincing. While England did win against #3 ranked South Africa, India's wins came against teams ranked #8 and #9. South Africa were commanding overall, but had a brain fade against England. They've been celebrating the last over win against India as evidence that they've finally got rid of the 'chokers' tag. Sadly though, that win came in an inconsequential game. They will need to do this in a knock-out game to prove that their debutant players don't get the choker tag along with the national cap! West Indies and Bangladesh were generally incompetent but did show some promise.

Sri Lanka and Pakistan did enough to suggest that the best way to catch Australia unawares was on a slow turning wicket. I don't particularly care if Ricky Ponting thinks such wickets are essentially 'rolled mud'. Since this is an ICC event, and the ICC has control over everything that happens at the ground, I assume that the pitches are prepared by the ICC's team. If that's the case, Ponting can't complain about anything.

If the pitches are prepared by the hosting country's curator(s), then you have to question if that's fair. For a World Cup event, home advantage should be limited to playing in familiar surroundings, getting a lot of crowd support, being able to include replacement players at really short notice, etc.

I don't know if Ponting will be playing during the 2015 World Cup, but I'd be interested to see how he reacts if the Sri Lankan captain says they were playing on a trampoline after seeing balls whiz past their heads at Perth. He wouldn't like it, would he?

As for the semi-final lineup, it does seem from the Australia-New Zealand and New Zealand-Zimbabwe matches at Ahmedabad (venue for Australia v India) that the side batting first can be blown away. Mirpur (Pakistan v West Indies & New Zealand v South Africa) definitely assists spinners. Colombo (Premadasa) also shows that spin will rule. So, I wouldn't be surprised if the semi-final lineup was Australia v Pakistan and South Africa v Sri Lanka.

In other news, Shoaib Akhtar said bye bye to international cricket after a mercurial career that included 100 mph deliveries, drugs, ball tampering, fighting with a teammate, faking injury, etc.

Those who get the short shrift at the World Cup

noreply@blogger.com (Jagadish) — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:05:00 +0000

Last week, Haroon Lorgat, the ICC Chief Executive, announced that the 2015 World Cup would feature 10 teams. This almost effectively means that Associates and Affiliate members have no chance of competing (or is it participating?) at the tournament, unless the ICC introduces a qualification tournament.

Around the time the 2007 tournament was still coming to terms with the early exit of India & Pakistan, I wrote that weaker teams should play in the tournament, but they should also get enough games against stronger opposition in the year leading up to the World Cup. I proposed a qualification round featuring the finalists from the ICC Trophy and the teams ranked #9-#11 in the ICC's ODI rankings. The top teams from a 10-game round-robin tournament make it to the main draw, which would now have a total of 10 teams.

There are lots of arguments for and against the inclusion of minnow sides. It is undeniable that these teams get thrashed pretty much all the time. Across all games played at the World Cup, ICC Champions Trophy (& its earlier avatars) and the T20 World Cup, 9 out of the top 10 thrashings (margin of defeat in terms of runs) have been handed out to minnow sides. Yet, #11 in the list is England's 200-run thrashing of India in the 1975 Cup opener.

The 10 lowest all-out totals have been made by minnow sides. Sri Lanka feature as the punching bag on quite a few occasions on both lists. They've not done badly over the past 25-30 years, have they? Admittedly, they do have a few more things going for them (compared to say Canada).

In my opinion, the minnow sides Cup can (and must?) actually be supported by one or more of the main teams. For e.g., Bermuda by West Indies; USA & Canada by Australia/New Zealand; Scotland, Ireland & Netherlands by England; Afghanistan (& Bangladesh to some extent) by India/Pakistan/Sri Lanka and Namibia, Kenya (& Zimbabwe) by South Africa. This should include the 'A' team playing home & away series against the minnow side's national and 2nd XIs as well as under-19 tours.

If the ICC can't get the individual boards to agree and implement a development programme for associate and affiliate members that makes sense, and helps them prepare to play at a good level, the ICC should just announce that this whole "Let's globalize cricket" idea was just a pile of nonsense. The minnow sides get the short shrift at pretty much every ICC event, and you feel genuinely sorry to see sides with talent who get blown away because of lack of opportunities.

I feel the same way when it comes to the Indian cricket fan who pays his way to watch cricket at stadiums. In general, cricket stadiums (or stadia?) in India tend to be massive 50,000+ capacity concrete structures with pathetic spectator facilities.

The bulk of the 50,000+ seats are allotted to corporates, sponsors, people in (or close to) power and affiliate clubs of the state association. This typically leaves around 10-20000 tickets for the general public, usually resulting in a mad rush and stampede when the ticket counter opens. On quite a few occasions, the purchasers of most of these tickets find that they've landed a lemon, because of a ticket scam.

All the stadiums that're hosting World Cup games have gone through significant renovations, primarily targeted at improving player facilities. From all reports, it seems like there have actually been on-ground improvements. Yet, the upgrades have come at a cost. To take just 3 examples, the Wankhede and Chepauk will seat 10% less while Eden Gardens will seat 25% less.

That decrease in capacity will quite likely not impact the hand-outs to sponsors, affiliate clubs and local bigwigs. The only ones who will get the short shrift are those who brave any sort of weather to queue up and buy tickets.

Predicting the 2011 World Cup semi-finalists

noreply@blogger.com (Jagadish) — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 18:22:00 +0000

If the last couple of weeks were primarily around World Cup selections and omissions, the focus this week is on players being ruled out through injury (Mike Hussey, Nathan Hauritz, Eoin Morgan and Praveen Kumar).

A few others like Jacques Kallis, Stuart Broad, Graeme Swann, Paul Collingwood, Sachin Tendulkar, Virender Sehwag, Gautam Gambhir, Ricky Ponting and Shaun Tait are still out of action, and we'll definitely hear about more withdrawals over the next few days.

Moving on from injuries, can we use the period from after the 2007 World Cup to identify trends related to how various teams would perform?

I'm restricting the analysis to games involving only the top 9 teams. (Australia, Bangladesh, England, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka & West Indies). Where required, I filter out matches not played on the sub-continent. Although Pakistan isn't a host, having played there gives teams a half-decent idea of the conditions they can expect at other venues. One problem though is that West Indies has only played 3 ODIs in the sub-continent in the period, and one was rained out!

The parameters I consider are overall win-loss record, team stability (measured as # of matches / # of players), overall batting average, batting average for top order (#1-#4), middle order (#5-#7) & lower order (#8-#11), overall bowling average, wickets per match and overall bowling economy rate.

Here's how the rankings look across those parameters.

W/L record in the sub-continent: India, South Africa, Australia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, England, New Zealand, Bangladesh & West Indies

Team stability (no sub-continent filter): India, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Africa, West Indies, Sri Lanka & England

Overall batting average: Australia, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, England, West Indies, Bangladesh & New Zealand

Top order batting average: South Africa, Australia, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, West Indies, England, Bangladesh & New Zealand

Middle order: Australia, India, Pakistan, England, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, West Indies & South Africa

Lower order: New Zealand, Sri Lanka, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, England, Australia & West Indies

Bowling average: Sri Lanka, South Africa, New Zealand, England, Pakistan, Australia, India, Bangladesh & West Indies

Wickets per match: South Africa, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, England, Bangladesh, Australia, India, New Zealand & West Indies

Economy rate: New Zealand, Sri Lanka, South Africa, West Indies, England, Australia, Pakistan, Bangladesh & India

Assign ranks to each of the teams in the categories (e.g. for the sub-continent w/l record data, the ranks would be 1: India, 2: South Africa, 3: Australia, etc.). Add up the total ranks across all categories. The teams with the lowest 4 totals are the most likely to get to the semis based on the past trends.

Team	Total
Australia	35
Bangladesh	61
England	52
India	38
New Zealand	48
Pakistan	39
South Africa	29
Sri Lanka	35
West Indies	68

This indicates that the 4 semi-finalists would be South Africa, Australia, Sri Lanka & India with Pakistan also being in the reckoning. Sri Lanka & Australia are in group A while the South Africa & India are in group B. So at least it won't be an impossible situation.

A few things are very obvious from the individual parameter rankings: South Africa have had a fragile middle order. Australia's lower order batting has been weak & their bowling in the sub-continent hasn't been too great. Sri Lanka's bowling has done a great job so far. India's bowling has been downright pathetic. Pakistan are sort of average across all parameters and so suffer in comparison to teams who have good stats across 3-4 parameters & bad ones in the remaining parameters. New Zealand's tail end batting and bowling (econ rate) have been really good. England have trouble with their batting. Bangladesh gets saved by their middle & lower order pretty much each time.

World Cup - Surprise picks and omissions

noreply@blogger.com (Jagadish) — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 20:24:00 +0000

Similar to India's 1 surprise pick & Sri Lanka's 2 surprise omissions in their 2011 World Cup squads, most other teams had at least one selection that was odd.

Australia picked Brett Lee and David Hussey, who hadn't played any internationals for nearly 1.5 years. With the tournament being played in the sub-continent, Australia picked 1.6 specialist spinners (Steve Smith bowls 6 overs per game on an average). Now that's a bizarre pick. Australia's part-time spin options are David Hussey (2 overs per game before he was picked in the squad) and Cameron White (2-3 overs per game when he had the skipper's trust and had not even bowled a single ball since August 2009). With 5 quicks & an all-rounder, clearly Australia are relying on pace to win. Seems like a gamble to me.

Despite investing nearly a year in Craig Kieswetter and Steve Davies, England went back to Matt Prior. Other than that, the squad seems reasonably balanced, with a couple of bits-and-pieces players in Luke Wright & James Tredwell.

Luke Woodcock is the unknown player in New Zealand's squad. He hadn't even played an ODI before he was picked. The squad seems weak on the batting though, and the opening slot hasn't yet been sorted out.

Pakistan didn't have any major surprises in the squad, but they did come up with one bolter. They didn't name a captain! That said, the batting definitely looks shaky with only Younis Khan & Misbah having the skills to do a good job with the middle overs. Only 2 specialist spinners were picked, which seems odd for a Pakistani side playing a World Cup in the sub-continent.

South Africa, by contrast, picked 3 specialist spinners, 2 of who are newbies. South Africa's problem is with #6, #7 and #8. Having dropped Boucher, who used to come in at #6 & #7 and salvage a crisis, they don't have too many experienced players to fill up those slots. The batting essentially ends after Duminy (typically at #5).

West Indies have picked just 5 bowlers (3 quicks & 2 spinners) and are obviously hoping that Dwayne Bravo will bowl his full spell and pick up wickets regularly.

The other omission was that of Eden Gardens. The ground won't host the India v England game & the match will now be played at Bangalore. But there seems to be some ambiguity around it. Kyazoonga, the official ticketing partner, doesn't list the India v England game. Does this mean backroom negotiations are still going on, and Eden Gardens will get the game?

Actually, the Cricket Association of Bengal, which is really the main agency to be blamed for the fiasco, should just relinquish its hosting rights for the other games at the ground, each of which is guaranteed to bring in crowds of at least 90000.

2011 World Cup squads - Sri Lanka & India

noreply@blogger.com (Jagadish) — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:08:00 +0000

Around 10 days ago, Sri Lanka announced the 15-member squad for the 2011 World Cup and it contained 2 bizarre omissions - Jayasuriya & Vaas. Now, why would you include these two in the preliminary 30-member squad two weeks earlier and leave them out without them having played any ODIs in-between to improve or worsen their chances of selection?

It's not like they have been active ODI players over the last 1-2 years. Jayasuriya last played an ODI in December 2009 while Vaas last turned out in August 2008! Why did they even get picked in the squad of 30 in the first place?

The BCCI did something similar earlier today. Piyush Chawla, who would most likely be the player Makarand Waingankar alluded to in the context of age manipulation, hasn't played an ODI since July 2008. Yet, he was picked in the 15-member Indian squad.

There are only 2 problem selections in the squad - Piyush Chawla and the absence of a reserve wicket-keeper. I am not sure if the playing conditions have been drawn up, but it is quite likely that if a player is coming into the World Cup with a known injury (i.e. didn't pick it up on/off the field during the tournament), a replacement player may not be allowed. Even when a replacement is allowed, the injured player cannot play any further part in the tournament.

The BCCI selectors are essentially punting on skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni not injuring himself through the tournament. That's a huge risk to take with someone who has played the 2nd most number of internationals since 2008, the triple role he plays and the multiple injuries he has been playing through.

Dinesh Karthik would have been a good 2nd choice wicket-keeper especially given his ability to keep reasonably well and play counter-attacking innings. But his last 5 ODI innings produced 30-odd runs.

With Virat Kohli (unlikely to regularly feature in the playing XI), Suresh Raina & Yusuf Pathan the only decent fielders, and the likes of Ashish Nehra, Munaf Patel, Yuvraj Singh (a pale shadow of his 2000-2006 days), Zaheer Khan, Harbhajan Singh & Praveen Kumar being first XI choices, India's opponents will have loads of opportunities to pick up at least 1-2 extra runs an over without even trying to hit a boundary or six.

Where is the IPL heading?

noreply@blogger.com (Jagadish) — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:27:00 +0000

While I had fervently hoped last year that the number of games would come down so that the tournament could be finished soon, that was a pipe dream considering there's so much money riding on TV rights, etc.

However, I reckoned then that the likes of Hayden, Gilchrist, Kumble, Ganguly, Warne and Murali would not play in IPL 2011. Of the 6, only Warne, Gilchrist and Murali will play. Hayden and Kumble have retired while Ganguly's failure to get anyone to sign him up means that his playing career has effectively ended. Unless, as he exhibited often over the last 20 years, he wriggles out of the situation and surprises everyone.

The main theme at the inaugural IPL auction in 2008 was to get big name players from the same city, state or region that the franchisee had bought the rights for. This was evident when Bangalore went for Anil Kumble & Rahul Dravid, Hyderabad went for VVS Laxman, and to a lesser extent, Kolkata secured Sourav Ganguly's services.

All these players were in their (or nearing) mid-30s and were already at (or close to) the end of their ODI careers.

This year's auction seemed to indicate that franchisees were less interested in creating a fan-base built on the basis of picking in-region players. That's probably why Delhi didn't go for Gambhir, Nehra & Ishant, Bangalore for Dravid & Uthappa and Hyderabad for Laxman.

Are the teams then focussing on building up a team (& fan base?) that will stick around for 3 years together through thick & thin, headed by a few wise heads and driven by impact players?

It's tough to say that, considering Dravid turns 38 tomorrow (happy birthday!), Laxman is 36, Warne is 41, Murali is nearly 39, Gilchrist is 39 and ~~the Duracell/Energizer bunny~~ Tendulkar is nearly 38. How many of these players would even play IPL 2012? Is a year sufficient to create a solid team structure? I'm not sure.

Kochi (Laxman & Murali) and Jaipur (Warne & Dravid) have taken a huge risk. They must hope that the professionalism of these greats rubs off on the younger bunch.

So, is the IPL then moving away from [what seemed to me] a key aspect of its creation, that of a sustainable long-term & loyal fan base for each team, to just creating groups that played together (& were followed) for at most 3 years, only to disband at the next option?

You could argue about it both ways - the number of teams will most likely keep increasing (e.g. Ahmedabad or Baroda, Kanpur, Gwalior or Indore, etc.). Hence, it is only fair that all players are put up for re-auction without any retentions. On the flip side, franchisees & advertisers have spent a fair amount of money in associating a star player to their brand name. It would seem ridiculous for the same player to turn up under a different banner a year later.

Then again, that's not too uncommon anyway, for brand association contracts seem to only be 1 year long ones.

The end of an enthralling period of test cricket

noreply@blogger.com (Jagadish) — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:39:00 +0000

From November, we've been witness to enthralling test cricket action, with the Ashes being followed by India's tour of South Africa.

I feel an enormous amount of schadenfreude for the position Australia, and especially Ricky Ponting, find themselves in. Australia have, over the last 3-4 years, failed to find replacements for Warne, McGrath, Hayden, Gilchrist, and to a lesser extent Martyn and Langer.

It was never ever going to be easy to replace players of that calibre, but it didn't even seem like those in charge were trying. That's why we now have Shane Watson opening with Simon Katich. The lack of planning is the reason why as many as 7 options have been tried out since Warne retired, and none of them have worked so far.

As for Ricky Ponting, I've believed for a very long time that he was a pathetic captain. Over the past 3-4 years, he's done his best to prove it. I've enjoyed watching him bat, but his captaincy is generally ridiculous. Add in the number of times he's had run-ins with umpires, and got away with it almost all the time, and I just get more ammunition to hate him in general.

England have thoroughly deserved to win. They seem to have planned better, and more importantly, executed so much better in all departments. Strangely, I don't feel any sort of disbelief or revulsion at England's win, in total contrast to 2005.

In 2006, I wrote that a series win for India in Australia would be be my #1 preference, followed by one in South Africa. India've done exceptionally well over the last few years. The scoreline in Australia read 2-1 to Australia, but it could (and should) have been 1-1. The last time India went to South Africa, the scoreline should have been 2-1!

The fact that the 1-1 draw in the just-concluded series can be considered a failure for India is an indication of how India fluffed their lines when it mattered most, on day 4 at Cape Town. 130/6! Heck, even 233/7 would have been ok, because it would have meant a chase of 250 in an entire day.

At the same time, South Africa seemed afraid of losing. Why would you not declare with 3-4 overs to go before stumps when India was quite vulnerable to a burst just before stumps with Sehwag & Dravid not in any sort of form and Gambhir injured?

Before the series, I'd predicted to a few folks that the scoreline would be 2-0 in favour of South Africa. I'll gladly take 1-1!

There are worries though - the batting form of Sehwag & Dravid, the over-reliance on Zaheer and the general inconsistency of the other bowlers. Dravid's knock yesterday was really pressure-soaking. But his inconsistency is worrying. The next test series is in the West Indies (June). I wouldn't be surprised if he quits soon.

As for the bowling, in Zaheer's absence, the bowling unit seems totally clueless. Harbhajan's inconsistency, and inability to spearhead the bowling attack, means that he is going to be effective only once in every 3-4 tests, with the ball. Sreesanth mixed brilliance with pathetic stuff. I don't care how often he gets fined or banned if he can keep producing the brilliance and become more consistent.

Cricket's governance crisis

noreply@blogger.com (Jagadish) — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:30:00 +0000

It's very tempting to categorize the News of the World "exposé" as a problem endemic to Pakistan cricket. After all, less than 6 months ago, the Pakistan Cricket Board announced what was essentially a purge of players who were alleged / proved to have not been on their best behaviour during the thrashing in Australia.

The recommendations were:

After careful and detailed analysis of the events, the personal accounts of the team management and players and examination of record, videos and statistics, the unanimous recommendations of the Committee were as follows:

1. Mohammad Yousuf and Younis Khan keeping in view their infighting which resulted in bringing down the whole team, their attitude has a trickledown effect which is a bad influence for the whole team should not be part of national team in any format.

2. For the shameful act of Shahid Khan Afridi, which has brought the game and country into disrepute, he be fined Rupees Three Million. A warning be issued to him by the Chairman PCB and he be put on probation for 06 months, during which his conduct be strictly monitored.

3. Kamran Akamal be fined Rupees Three Million. A warning be issued to him by the Chairman PCB and he be put on probation for 06 months, during which his conduct be strictly monitored.

4. Umar Akmal be fined Rupees Two Million. A warning be issued to him by the Chairman PCB and he be put on probation for 06 months, during which his conduct be strictly monitored.

5. Rana Naved-ul-Hasan and Shoaib Malik be fined Rupees Two Million. They should not be part of national team in any format for a period of one year.

Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee have been accepted by PCB in totality.

The recommendations of the Committee will go a long way to arrest the continuing decline Pakistan cricket and improve the state of cricket in Pakistan. It is a landmark exercise which is an outcome of labor and hard work of the members of the Committee.

The punishments lasted less than 3 months. Only Rana Naved-ul-Hasan has not been 'pardoned'. Younis' ban was lifted although he has not been picked yet. Mohd. Yousuf was recalled for the last 2 tests of the series against England. Shahid Afridi was even made captain after revoking his fine. Kamran and Umar Akmal were let off with lower monetary fines. Shoaib Malik's one year ban was over-turned and his fine was slashed by 50%.

The ICC definitely has little jurisdiction over the PCB's player-handling procedures. Maybe, that's why it did not raise a red flag. Neither did any of the other members of the ICC Executive Board. However, if it was so obvious that the PCB's administration was effectively cocking-a-snoop at all those who were for stronger punishments and a cleaner game, was it not even talked about at the board meeting in July?

Just as the IPL's governing council was culpable of sleeping when Lalit Modi & co. ran rings around it, the ICC's board is equally to blame for not asking the PCB tough questions.

Questions are being asked about why the Anti-Corruption and Security Unit (ACSU) of the ICC was blissfully unaware of what was going on. A couple of months ago, it confirmed that Mohammad Aamer was not using a mobile phone while waiting for his turn to bat. In hindsight, that clean chit seems so premature!

From a player management perspective, I have serious doubts over whether some of Pakistan's players even want to play international cricket. Pakistan didn't play a single test in 2008 and have not played at home since the terror attack on the Sri Lankan team bus in March 2009.

Under these circumstances, I'd assume that they'd be raring to go, make an impression and show the positive side of Pakistan cricket. The emergence of Umar Akmal, Mohd. Aamir, Wahab Riaz, Saeed Ajmal, etc. gave cricket fans some hope. No more.

Now, as was the case for around 5-6 years in the 1990s and 2000, every single collapse will be viewed with suspicion. Every single recovery by an opponent will generate debate. The worst part is that the suspicion will not be about Pakistan alone. All fans, across the world, will wonder about events in a game.

Did Pakistan 'throw' the Sydney test against Australia earlier this year? If so, how did Mohammad Sami, among Pakistan's crappiest and most inconsistent quicks in the last decade, just turn up 3 years after playing a test and rip through Australia's top order? Why has he not been picked again since that game?

Other countries are hardly above board.

It's hard to not laugh when Hayden says "I believe it is a shock to cricket and if I can talk on behalf of Australian cricket and the playing group, it's just not even in our DNA to accept any kind of skulduggery when it comes to the game of cricket". He's just suffering from a little amnesia. Heard of John, Mark and Shane, Matty?!

This year, Danish Kaneria and Mervyn Westfield, who play for Essex, were arrested on spot fixing charges.

There's hardly a major cricket playing country which hasn't been touched by match fixing or spot fixing allegations.

This is yet another opportunity to get things right. The last 10 years have certainly been better from a control over 'fixing in cricket' compared to the 1990s, but the events in the last 2 days have clearly shown that there's a long way to go!

There's a leadership crisis and the ICC must step in. So far, it hasn't said anything. The first thing it must do is to stop the ODI series between England and Pakistan. It is unfair & ridiculous to expect fans, and players, to turn up, knowing in advance that specific events in the game have already been agreed to in lieu of money, or even worse, that the result has been fixed.

Secondly, the ICC must demand that countries stop revoking bans or penalties without a proper appeals process being adhered to. The appeal should only be heard by a group of eminent leagles (legal eagles!) and well-respected cricketers. National jurisdiction makes no sense unless the ban / penalty was applied for events in domestic cricket.

Thirdly, the ICC and the ECB must demand that Pakistan not do something stupid every time they land up in the country to play a test series. In 2010, it is about no-balls. In 2006, it was over changing the condition of the ball. In 2001, it was again about no-balls. In 1996, it was a libel case. In 1992, it was about ball tampering and snatched sweaters.

Spirit of cricket spoils Sehwag century?

noreply@blogger.com (Jagadish) — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:44:00 +0000

Predictably enough, Suraj Randiv's no-ball to Virender Sehwag, preventing Sehwag from reaching his century with a six, is making the news on the extremely vitriolic TV channels. Did he bowl it deliberately, to ensure that Sehwag didn't reach a well-deserved 100? Who cares?

Sehwag changed his opinion from not taking it too seriously ("It happens in cricket. The other team doesn't want anybody to score a hundred against them. They tried their best. Doesn't matter to me, 99 or 100.") to claiming it was deliberate in the span of a few minutes.

Besides, Sehwag did play out a couple of dot balls. So there's no real basis for him to whine.

Is there anything in the rules that prevents a bowler from doing so? No! Even if it is there in the 'spirit of cricket', it means nothing. Captains and players have acted totally in violation of the spirit defined and no action has been taken.

Did anything prevent India from declaring & setting Sri Lanka around 70 to win immediately after VVS Laxman got out in India's 2nd innings at Galle? There was charity being doled out to Murali in the form of his 800th wicket. VVS perhaps was trying to get the message across by getting run out? Why didn't any of the other batsmen get dismissed timed out, handling the ball, obstructing the field or hitting the ball twice?

BCCI's planning for the 2011 World Cup

noreply@blogger.com (Jagadish) — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:37:00 +0000

The Indian squad selected for the totally meaningless tri-series in Sri Lanka gives us a good idea of what the BCCI's plan for the 2011 World Cup is.

There does not seem to be any semblance of planning. The only aspect of the selection which makes sense is that Sachin Tendulkar isn't playing.

Harsha Bhogle points out that India have 8 or 9 ODIs in home-like conditions before the World Cup - 3 (or 4 if qualifying for the final) in Sri Lanka, 3 ODIs v Australia and 2 v New Zealand.

There are multiple gaps to be filled, especially when it comes to backup resources. This tournament, and the next 3 ODI series (including a one-off ODI v/s South Africa) would have been great opportunities to give the likes of Cheteshwar Pujara, Wriddhiman Saha, Jaidev Unadkat, Dhawal Kulkarni and Abhinav Mukund a go. A total of 18 players played at most 10 matches since the 2007 World Cup.

There is no dearth of bench strength. Those players are performing at the under-19 and India 'A' levels. But how do you find out how good they are at the ODI level unless they're given an opportunity to succeed (or fail)?

Dhoni, Sehwag & Nehra didn't need to play this tournament. Yuvraj is at #6 on the wicket takers & overs bowled lists since the previous World Cup. That tells you how successful the hunt for bowlers has been.

44 players selected for 103 ODIs, in July tells a story.

If the law supposes that, then the law is a ass - a idiot

noreply@blogger.com (Jagadish) — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:33:00 +0000

I'm no fan of Formula-1 racing, but what happened at Hockenheim in the German Grand Prix on Sunday was odd. Felipe Massa seemed to be following instructions to slow down, so that his teammate Fernando Alonso could win and give his team a better chance of winning the drivers' championship.

Scuderia Ferrari's (and Massa's) actions were in violation of clause 39.1 of the the 2010 Formula-1 sporting regulations, which explicitly prohibits team orders interfering with the race and clause 151.c of the FIA International Sporting Code.

I've not been able to figure out what the penalty should be as per the rules, but a monetary fine of $100,000 seems ridiculously low.

Unless the FIA does something real quickly and changes the rules to prevent such gaming of the system, I'm fairly sure that teams will attempt to repeat what Ferrari did.

We saw a similar example at the football World Cup recently where Luis Suarez (Uruguay) (possibly) deliberately obstructed the path of the ball with his hand in the last few minutes of extra time in his team's quarter-final against Ghana.

The FIFA laws resulted in him being sent off immediately, with a red card against his name, and a penalty awarded to Ghana.

Ghana failed to convert the resulting penalty, and eventually also fluffed the penalty shoot-out.

Did Ferrari or Luis Suarez do anything wrong under the rules of the game as they existed then? Of course, not!

Were the penalties strict enough?

In Ferrari's case, a fine of $100,000 is a pittance, considering their market value was estimated at over $1.5 billion last year.

The rules should ideally deduct points for such an offence, and force the team (not just the individual drivers) to be the last team to start the race, right at the back, regardless of the position achieved in the qualifying race. Actually, it's probably better if fossil fuels are conserved by disallowing the team from the qualifying race.

In Uruguay's case, it was the difference between a quarter-final stage exit (Ghana would have gone 2-1 up with about a minute to go), at least $4 million richer and a shot at reaching the tournament final. In Luis Suarez's case, it was the difference between going home a losing quarter-finalist and a hero who gave his side every chance of winning the quarter-final.

The rules should ideally award a goal to the team when the referee or linesman deduce that the player's action was deliberate, preferably through TV reviews and replays. This would be in addition to sending off the player after flashing the red card.

In my opinion, unless there are significant disincentives (including monetary ones), sportspersons (as well as teams & administrators) will attempt to push the envelope.

What's the linkage to cricket?

Someone famous (not sure who) wrote about Australia's cricket team that they would do anything to win - play within the rules, push them to the limit, and if necessary, go beyond them.

Is it Australia's fault that umpires and match referees fail to spot the obvious?

Is it Ricky Ponting's fault that the match referee Chris Broad warned Mohammed Aamer although it is quite obvious from the video that Ponting elbowed him, rather than the other way around?

Is it Sachin Tendulkar's fault that he keeps getting away with running on the centre of the pitch while others get hauled up for much lesser offenses?

Can you blame a team if it goes really slow with the bowling over rate to prevent the opposition from winning a test?

Can you blame a team if it decides to take the 2nd best option, having ruled out a win, of being thrashed and conceding a bonus point so that a 3rd team was (virtually) ruled out of contention for a finals slot?

Can you blame a team if it decides to slow down the chase so that a 3rd team would have a tougher chance of qualifying, since the rules meant that it would be carrying over 2 lesser points if the 3rd team qualified for the next round?

The administrators are responsible for drafting up laws that make sense, coming up with penalties that are appropriate, and most importantly, implementing them consistently.

This topic has a lot more immediate relevance given what's transpiring in Sri Lanka.

Unless the laws of the game are changed such that touring captains are always deemed to have won the toss, we might as well fast forward to the end of the game with the scorecard predictably reading "Sri Lanka 630/7d, Tourists 276 and 309 ao. Sri Lanka won by an innings and 45 runs".

PS: The title of the post is from Oliver Twist.

Stop the gimmickry to save ODI cricket

noreply@blogger.com (Jagadish) — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 18:19:00 +0000

Yesterday, it was revealed that Cricket Australia had the latest and greatest plan to revive ODI cricket.

It includes "double gaaji" for a select player, bowlers allowed to bowl 2 bouncers per over, flexibility on leg-side wides, limiting the number of fielders outside the 30 yard circle, requiring a team to only field a minimum of 4 bowlers, etc.

Except for the 2 bouncer per over change, the rest of the rules are all biased in favour of batsmen. If a team is only expected to field a minimum of 4 bowlers, and the rules are increasingly in favour of batsmen, sides will pack their side with quasi all-rounders.

Instead, the actual changes that the administrators need to make to 'save' ODI cricket are:

Eliminate meaningless ODI series.
Revamp the playing conditions to deal with weather-induced delays better.
Remove limitations on the number of overs a bowler can bowl.
Remove all field restrictions.
Change the ICC playing conditions to enable boundaries to be 70-75 yards away from the centre of the pitch irrespective of square or straight boundaries. The current requirement is 65 yards (square) and 70 yards (straight).

Twenty20 beats Tests and ODIs hollow

noreply@blogger.com (Jagadish) — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 06:02:00 +0000

The first ever test match, in 1877 was not recognized as the inaugural test until a few years later.

The first ever one-day international, in 1971 was not recognized as the inaugural ODI until a few months later.

In contrast, when Australia played New Zealand in February 2005, everyone already knew it was the first Twenty20 international!

A moronic run-out decision

noreply@blogger.com (Jagadish) — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:46:00 +0000

Yesterday, in the Bangladesh v Pakistan game at the Asia Cup, Pakistan's Umar Amin was declared run out by the third umpire for no apparent reason.

He had driven the ball to long-on and taken a single. Since the bowler, Mahmudullah, was bowling from around the wicket, Umar walked across to the other side, oblivious to the fact that his bat was not grounded and no part of his person was grounded behind the 'popping crease' at the bowler's end.

Mahmudullah saw this and took off the bails. The on-field umpire got confused and handed over control to the third umpire. After multiple views, Umar Amin was ruled out.

This, despite law 23 (Dead ball) explicitly saying that a ball was dead when it was finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or the bowler. Yes, the bowler's end umpire has to be satisfied that the fielding side and both batsmen also considered the ball to not be in play.

But even the smallest bit of common sense would indicate that there was no way Umar was attempting a second run. He was switching ends.

The ball was most definitely not in play.

Where's common sense when you need it most?

At least in the Murali run-out by McCullum instance, Murali actually walked out of the crease. Whether it was to attempt a second run or to congratulate Kumar Sangakkara is a moot point.

In Umar Amin's case, there's no way he was out!

How the BCCI did nothing for three years about cricket at the Guangzhou Asian Games

noreply@blogger.com (Jagadish) — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 19:05:00 +0000

Last week, the BCCI declared that India would not be represented at the Guangzhou Asian Games later this year. It cited a series against New Zealand and the domestic cricket schedule as the reasons.

On the face of it, the reasons are fairly sound. You can't expect cricketers to play round the year. Previously drawn up fixtures should take precedence. There's nothing wrong in giving domestic cricket its due.

However, it doesn't take a lot to debunk the BCCI's arguments.

Anyone who has followed or managed Indian domestic cricket knows that the domestic season starts around August / September and goes on until February / March.

The BCCI would have become aware of cricket's inclusion in the schedule at least in 2007 when the Olympic Council of Asia and the Asian Cricket Council made announcements confirming that cricket would be a medal sport at Guangzhou 2010.

A year earlier, the ICC announced the Future Tours Programme schedule for the period 2006-2012.

In other words, one year before cricket was included in the Guangzhou Asiad, the BCCI knew that there was a scheduling conflict since the Future Tours Programme schedule specified that India would host New Zealand in November 2010.

The BCCI was obviously party to both decisions, since it is a full member of the ICC since 1926 and a founding member of the Asian Cricket Council, founded in 1983.

Yet, it chose to keep mum for three years, before announcing that it wouldn't be sending a team. You have to wonder why it chose to do so!

The skeletons tumble out of the BCCI closet

noreply@blogger.com (Jagadish) — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:41:00 +0000

Sharad Pawar's daughter claimed a couple of months ago that her family did not financially benefit from the IPL. The bit to note there is that she did not claim her family was not connected to the IPL at all. What she said was that they did not financially benefit. i.e. their investment was a flop.

That's akin to a burglar claiming that he should have been let off since he had been caught by the police before he stole anything.

When Chirayu Amin was made the interim IPL commissioner after Lalit Modi was sacked, I wondered about the linkages between Shashank Manohar, Sharad Pawar and Chirayu Amin.

The news that Chirayu Amin was part of a consortium led by a company partly owned by Sharad Pawar & family reinforces my belief that there's a serious clean-up act needed in the BCCI.

Now, the only bit of the puzzle that's not yet evident is the fact that Shashank Manohar and Chirayu Amin have a business / family relationship as well.

'Conflict of interest' seems such an archaic term. Maybe we should just call it a 'cabal of interests'.

Louis Brandeis, a member of the US Supreme Court, once wrote in a 1913 edition of "Harper's weekly":

Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.

It's high time the same principles were applied to the BCCI.

It announced earlier this week that there would be no Indian participation in the cricket event at the 2010 Guangzhou Asian Games.

I've got no problems with that. The BCCI is the governing body for cricket, and it is well within its right to identify which tournaments it's contracted players participate in.

However, the BCCI then went on to clarify that the decision was taken since the schedules were made well in advance and that the domestic season would be underway.

This is where I have a problem. Somehow, it seems inconceivable that the BCCI fixes up schedules in advance or adheres to schedules drawn up well in advance doesn't quite.

After all, among other recent achievements, they've tried to tweak around with a scheduled 7 ODI series against Australia, successfully tweaked a 2 test 5 ODI series against New Zealand, agreed to a tour of Zimbabwe at short notice & urgently scheduled multiple series involving Sri Lanka.

It so obviously has something to do with the fact that the BCCI would need to be WADA-compliant for the cricket team to be allowed to play at the Asian Games. After all, if the main side was too busy, it wouldn't have been tough to put together a 2nd XI.

ICC and PCB - The 'unfathomables'

noreply@blogger.com (Jagadish) — Wed, 26 May 2010 19:59:00 +0000

The ICC announced last week that the Cricket Committee recommended the DRS be used in all test series as well as the 2011 World Cup.

Yet again, the ICC will be conducting an experiment in their flagship event. Before the 2006 Champions Trophy in India, the ICC announced that reviews would be introduced at the tournament and, if successful, would be in force during the 2007 World Cup.

Thankfully, sanity prevailed a couple of months later, and the executive board threw that idea out of the window.

The DRS has so far, to the best of my knowledge, never been used in limited over internationals (50 overs or 20 overs). Without trialling it in bilateral series or other 3-4 nation tournaments, it would be downright stupid to use a World Cup to introduce the reviews system.

We still don't know how much time would be spent in a typical 50 over game on both teams appealing against the umpires' decisions. Wouldn't that result in the game being stretched beyond the normal 3 hr 30 mins / 3 hr 45 mins duration?

The ICC wants the broadcaster to shell out the money for the technology used. Maybe the right way to 'sell' the concept to the broadcaster is that they would have at least 10 minutes more per innings of telecast time, and thus something like 30-40 more advertisement slots.

The ICC's argument is that poorer (associate & affiliate) countries that don't benefit from the DRS shouldn't have to subsidize countries that will play games using the reviews system. The broadcaster's counter-argument should be that they don't want to pay up for a system that is unproven, and could potentially work against their favourite team.

Imagine if ESPN-Star, Sky Sports or the Nine Network paid up for the DRS, and the decisions kept going against India, England or Australia. For sure the broadcaster, and the audiences, would hate it!

From all evidence so far though, there is a lot more fine-tuning needed with the DRS, and I humbly submit that the World Cup is not the stage for a trial.

On 9 March, the PCB banned 4 players (2 indefinite, 2 for 1 year) and fined 3 others, who were placed under probation for 6 months.

Less than 3 months later, 2 of those banned and all the 3 who were fined are in a probables list for the Asia Cup and a tour of England. The 16 year-old ball-muncher is made captain.

I apologize. I totally give up trying to make sense out of the ICC's and the PCB's actions.

Wanted for Indian cricket: Consistency of selection and a ban on tournaments played in islands

noreply@blogger.com (Jagadish) — Mon, 17 May 2010 18:17:00 +0000

There are far too many reasons floating around for India's exit at the Super Eight stage of the T20 World Cup. No one even mentioned those (IPL, post-match parties, inability to play on bouncy tracks, poor squad selection, etc.) when India beat Afghanistan and South Africa.

By no stretch of imagination were the pitches at Barbados (where India lost to West Indies & Australia) bouncy pitches! They were good all-round wickets. India lost because its batsmen couldn't cope with anything above knee height, because its bowlers had zero ability to pick up wickets and because the fielding was a total joke.

It is a different matter though that the batsmen also struggle when the ball is 'slow and low'. So they can't play anything below ankle height and anything above knee height. Steve Waugh would call that a very huge comfort zone!

As in the 2009 edition, Mahendra Singh Dhoni, bizarrely chose to come in at #5 or #6 although he was in form and among the better batsmen around. Why he continued to persist with promoting an out-of-form and clearly unfit Yuvraj ahead of him was totally beyond comprehension.

The bigger issue though is the total lack of clarity and consistency around selection.

India's selectors keep picking squads for T20 that comprise of largely the same folks who play 50-over ODIs. Given the compressed nature of the T20 game, there is always a huge emphasis on cricketers with at least 2 skills - explosive batting, brilliant fielding and run-choking / wicket-taking bowling. Persisting with chaps like Nehra, Zaheer, Yuvraj (when he is unfit), Harbhajan and Praveen Kumar was really ridiculous.

India's successes in 1983, 1985 (ok, not exactly an ICC event!), 2002 and 2007, and the route to the finals in 2000 & 2003, had significant contributions from the fielding department.

The BCCI had over a year to identify specific players who needed help with playing "bouncy" stuff. When we say 'bouncy' stuff, do remember that it is not even getting close to "chin music"!

The BCCI had at least 4 years to figure out how the tracks in the Caribbean would have played. Was it not important enough? Did it assume that the tracks would be the same as those during the 2007 World Cup or the 4 ODIs in 2009?

Considering that India hadn't played a single game at Barbados over the last 4 years, was it really a surprise that the team was unprepared for the conditions?

Since Jan 2009, 29 players have been selected in India's ODI and T20 squads. That doesn't sound like a huge number, and it may seem like there actually is consistency of selection. But try explaining to the likes of Abhimanyu Mithun, Ashok Dinda, Amit Mishra, Badrinath, Abhishek Nayar, Pragyan Ojha, Ashwin, Virat Kohli, etc. that they have been treated fairly. Notice that with the exception of Kohli, Badri and Nayar, the rest are all bowlers.

This tells us that the 'senior' batsmen in the team are unlikely to get dislodged and any potential claimant to the spot must score a 250 in a 50-over innings or 150 in a 20-over innings to be considered.

Was there clarity around who plays what sort of role? Were Gambhir and Raina expected to bat through the innings? What was the expectation from Yuvraj and Rohit? What was Dhoni's role? If Vijay or Dinesh Karthik got picked, what were they supposed to do? Was Yusuf Pathan only supposed to try to hit every ball for 6 or 4?

Maybe its time for a thorough clean-up. Maybe the players who were picked for the T20 World Cup didn't have the hunger since they'd had it easy. Maybe its time to pick those who do have the hunger.

Forcing the games to be played during day-time hours in the West Indies just to cater to the Indian TV audience turned out to be so farcical after the team's pathetic showing.

The next time around, if the partners & sponsors tried to negotiate telecast timings, the ICC should ask them to take a look at India's recent record before assuming that India would even get to the semi-finals.

More importantly and more pertinently though, the BCCI must put its foot down and insist that ICC tournaments must no longer be held in islands, based on India's past record (Australia-New Zealand: 1992; England: 1975, 1979, 1983, 1998 & 2004; Sri Lanka: 2002 and West Indies: 2007). Of the 7 tournaments, India have been finalists on just 2 occasions and the rest were all major flop shows.

More India v Australia coming up?

noreply@blogger.com (Jagadish) — Tue, 04 May 2010 18:23:00 +0000

Malcolm Conn reports in 'The Australian' that the BCCI has approached Cricket Australia to convert the 7 ODI series (scheduled for October) into a 2 test 3 ODI series.

On the face of it, the story is incredulous and it seems unprecedented. But in reality it is not.

There have been at least two previous occasions where Malcolm Conn did not end his write-up with the phrase "India have been the worst behaved team in the last decade".

Back to the actual news item. This may seem like a brazenly opportunistic move by the BCCI to protect the #1 ranking that India first reached last December and held on to after drawing against South Africa.

The BCCI is often (and rightly so) accused of giving lip service to test cricket after jumping onto the ODI and T20 bandwagons. This move, and a similar move late last year to get South Africa to play 2 tests in February, shows that there is a section of the board that listens to what the bulk of the players seem to want. Of course, it is perhaps accurate to argue that had India not been #1, the BCCI would have not bothered to reach out to South Africa earlier and Australia now.

That said, it is quite likely that the overtures were not necessarily one-way traffic. Australia are not scheduled to play any tests between July and November. So they desperately need the tests as well, for different reasons. In addition, if they actually do win against India by say a 2-0 margin, they will definitely get to #2 and possibly reach #1 (if South Africa concede even a single test against West Indies).

Australia takes on Pakistan at (hold your collective breath!) Lord's and Leeds in July and then host the Ashes. Why are Australia playing Pakistan in England? Easy, because Pakistan were supposed to host Australia this year, and there was a small matter of a terror attack on the bus ferrying the Sri Lankan team.

As an aside, one of the consequences of the attack was the fact that while Pakistan lost the right to host World Cup matches, it did not lose its status as a host!

A test series between India and Australia is invariably eagerly anticipated and expected to be a great one to follow. For evidence, see 2003, 2004, 2008 part a and 2008 part b.

I really hope that the plan comes through. There's an overdose of T20 happening right now, and I really want to watch some test cricket. In fact, I'll probably settle for watching county championship games if they were telecast here!

Players v/s owners at the IPL

noreply@blogger.com (Jagadish) — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:32:00 +0000

One aspect of the IPL that I've been really curious about is the relationship between the players and the franchise owners.

The first time I thought about it was when Sachin Tendulkar showed interest in having a stake in the Mumbai franchise. At that time, the BCCI did not allow it because it decreed that a playing member couldn't be a shareholder of the team.

It is bizarre that a BCCI official can own stake in an IPL team since Sharad Pawar, as BCCI President, ruled in N Srinivasan's favour. According to Pawar, the franchise bid was by a company and Srinivasan was not a bidder in his individual capacity. Hence, there was no conflict of interest.

Now that argument against having players own equity in the franchise sounds so stupid and outdated. Many organizations, across sectors, provide some sort of equity (sweat or otherwise!), in order to retain and motivate their employees. It makes a lot of sense that players have equity in the franchise.

All that Sachin Tendulkar had to do was to setup a company in someone else's name, and convince Mukesh-bhai and Nina-ben to sell some of their stake to the new company. Alternately, he would need to have a relative own equity in say Teesta Retail Pvt. Ltd.. I'd hardly be surprised if he was not a shareholder, directly or indirectly, in Mumbai Indians.

It does seem to me, based on a couple of reports & interviews in the last 24 hours or so, that the team owners exercise a disproportionate influence on the team, especially on cricketing matters.

Were Chennai Super Kings' selection & on-field decisions influenced by an astrologer who Srinivasan and Srikkanth fervently believe in?

Dhoni does brush it under the carpet, saying that superstition is part of cricket. I think NDTV had an interview with Hayden yesterday, where he was non-committal about the practices bordering on occult.

Shilpa Shetty sounds as close to arrogant as possible when the CNBC-TV18 interviewer asks her "How does the team react to you". She raises her eyebrow and haughtily says "We are the owners, they're nice to us".

If there is a trend here of owners thinking they are superior to the players, or that they can control everything about the game, it's not really good news especially considering there will be a fresh auction next year.

Even if the IPL rules say that a franchise can retain a certain number of India internationals, foreign players, etc., there is nothing that stops a player from choosing to participate in the player auction in 2011.

Players who are frustrated with their team management or owners will leave. Their contract period is over. It is one of the fundamental principles of a free market.

What is the point of this exercise, BCCI?

noreply@blogger.com (Jagadish) — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:09:00 +0000

Earlier today, Lalit Modi was suspended from his post as IPL commissioner. He has 15 days to respond to respond to the charges. As of now, he remains the IPL chairman.

I'm hardly surprised that a a certain website whose domain he effectively owns continues to list him as chairman and commissioner.

Chirayu Amin, one of the BCCI Vice Presidents, has been appointed the interim IPL commissioner. He is a chairman of Alembic Ltd, a publicly listed company.

But the point of this entire exercise needs to be questioned. The governing council remains as it is (except for Chirayu in, Lalit out) despite them being party to every single decision that was taken. BCCI President Shashank Manohar claimed today that it was not the responsibility of the governing council but that of the CEO & IMG.

With one stroke, he exonerated himself, from the issue as well. Interestingly enough, even before any sort of findings are announced by the investigations by various authorities into various aspects around the IPL, he exonerates Sharad Pawar of any wrong-doing.

Should we be surprised? After all, he is closely linked to Sharad Pawar. Shashank Manohar's father was the advocate general of Maharashtra when Sharad Pawar was the Chief Minister.

I'm assuming that Mr. VR Manohar is one of India's top legal eagles. If not, maybe it is just a coincidence that VR Manohar represented Harbhajan Singh during Judge Hansen's hearing in January 2008.

While we're at it, Chirayu Amin should disclose any sort of relationship that his company has with Shashank Manohar, perhaps as one of their legal advisers. I'd really not be surprised if that was the case.

Johnson Cherian, Lalit Modi and a couple of domains

noreply@blogger.com (Jagadish) — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 19:20:00 +0000

Over 3 years ago, I'd written about one of the BCCI's domains - bcciratings.com. The domain was registered under a name 'Johnson Cherian'. I now notice that the domain has Lalit Modi as an administrative and technical contact.

Tinu Cherian reckons that the ownership details of iplt20.com changed on 19 April.

I don't think his reasoning is right. The 'Updated 1 hour ago' entry he points to merely indicates that the whois server fetched the data 1 hour ago. Just click on the "Refresh" link to see the last update details change.

But yes, the larger issue is that iplt20.com and clt20.com (the Champions Twenty20 League domain) are owned by someone from Modi Entertainment Network, even though the BCCI's address is provided.

So, is Johnson Cherian someone who works for Lalit Modi at the BCCI office? He does seem to work at Modi Entertainment Network, since he is listed as the administrative contact for modi.com as well.

In passing, you can actually go and buy the iplt20.com domain. The whois record indicates the domain expired over a month ago.

For the record, just in case the ownership data changes, here's what the whois information looks like:

iplt20.com

Registrant
Email:
Organization: BCCI/IPL
Address: CRICKET CENTER,WANKHEDE STADIUM,CHURCHGATE
City: Mumbai
State: Maharashtra
Country: IN
Postal Code: 400020
Phone: +91.2222800300
Fax:
Name: bcci ipl

Domain : iplt20.com

Administrative Contact :
Name: bcci
Organization: BCCI/IPL
Address: CRICKET CENTER,WANKHEDE STADIUM,CHURCHGATE
City: Mumbai
State: Maharashtra
Postal Code: 400020
Country: IN
Phone: +91.2222800300
Fax: 0
Email:

Technical Contact :
Name: bcci
Organization: BCCI/IPL
Address: CRICKET CENTER,WANKHEDE STADIUM,CHURCHGATE
City: Mumbai
State: Maharashtra
Postal Code: 400020
Country: IN
Phone: +91.2222800300
Fax: 0
Email:

Created on.......: 2008-03-14
Expired on.......: 2012-03-14
Last updated on..: 2009-01-14

clt20.com

Registrant :
Email:
Organization: NA
Address: BCCI,Cricket Center,Churchgate
City: Mumbai
State: Maharashtra
Country: IN
Postal Code: 400020
Phone: +91.1111111
Fax:
Name: Lalit Modi

Domain : clt20.com

Administrative Contact :
Name: Lalit
Organization: NA
Address: BCCI.Cricket Center,Churchgate
City: Mumbai
State: Maharashtra
Postal Code: 400020
Country: IN
Phone: +91.2266637373
Fax: 0
Email:

Technical Contact :
Name: Lalitk
Organization: NA
Address: BCCI.Cricket Center,Churchgate
City: Mumbai
State: Maharashtra
Postal Code: 400025
Country: IN
Phone: +91.2266637373
Fax: 0
Email:

Created on.......: 2009-02-05
Expired on.......: 2013-02-05
Last updated on..: 2010-01-12