Cricket 24x7 - All the cricket

Athers and Kapil are only partly right

2009-11-20T13:21:00.000+05:30

On the occasion of Sachin Tendulkar completing 20 years in international cricket, Kapil Dev opined in 'The Asian Age' that Tendulkar had under-achieved.

It depends on how you look at it. For someone who started off playing so aggressively and making bowlers scared of bowling to him, Tendulkar most definitely doesn't strike fear in bowlers any more. But that's true for pretty much every player who has been around for any length of time. I'm sure that towards the late 80s and early 90s, bowlers were queueing up to bowl to Viv. Murali hasn't been too good over the past year or so and there are enough questions asked about his place in the side. Kapil himself was about as quick as Mohinder Amarnath (with Jimmy at his fastest) in the last 2-3 years of his career. Lara's magic only happened in spurts towards the end. Steve Waugh fared little better.

Besides, all players change their styles to suit the team's needs, their own physical & mental state of being, etc. Until around the mid-90s, Tendulkar played in a very aggressive manner a lot of the time. But he could do that because the likes of Azhar, Sidhu and Manjrekar were around. From after the mid-90s, Tendulkar became the mainstay, and the batting revolved around him. From around the start of this decade to around 2004/2005, Dravid took over the mantle as the 'go-to' guy. Over the last 3 years, it has been Sehwag. Even though these changes happened, Tendulkar's wicket would undoubtedly have been the #1 wicket as far as the opposition was concerned.

So he could never ever have gone back to thrashing the bowling around every game, like he used to. In just the same manner as Kapil himself transformed from being a quick (let's say 140 kph types) bowler to being a fast-medium (130-135 kph) swing bowler because he realized that he would never have a long career if he'd continued as a quick bowler. Did that mean batsmen feared him less? Perhaps yes. But given he had now added a dimension of swing to his ability, it made him even better and batsmen obviously respected his ability to "make the ball talk".

Mike Atherton, writing in 'The Times', felt that calling Tendulkar the best ever was not right, because he had the benefit of so much body armour (helmets, better pads, chest guards, etc.)

That's fair enough. Anyone who tries to compare across generations is obviously being stupid. At most, you can compare folks with peers and players who played within a 10 year time period, with sufficient overlap in careers. Only Dennis Lilee would be able to get away with claiming that Mitchell Johnson was a oiag player. Either Lillee's memory is poor, or Aussie define a generation as 5 years.

But the point Athers misses is that those who played in a different era did so when there were no (or very few) ODIs or T20 games, no IPL or Champions League, no talk of burnout, test series had at least 3 warm-up games, etc.

It's interesting to think of how Hobbs, Bradman, Hammond, Sobers, Hutton, Bill O'Reilly, Harvey, Hanif, Bedi, Miller, Sutcliffe, etc. would have coped with all the travel, playing with 'niggling' injuries, spending so much time away from home, playing back-to-back tests/ODIs, playing back-to-back series in the span of a couple of months, etc.

Twenty years of Tendulkar

2009-11-19T01:34:00.002+05:30

When I think of Sachin Tendulkar having played international cricket for 2 decades, I feel really old. It's been that long? Why, just the other day he was caning that Pakistani leggie wizard all over the park! A few days ago, he almost scored a test hundred, aged 16. After that, he was outscoring the rest of the batsmen on his first tour of Australia, aged 18.

In fact, very early on, I used to feel a bit stupid. Here was a chap just about 2 years older than me, playing test cricket when I didn't even get a chance to bowl in an intra-school cricket tournament although I'd been picked as a bowler!

It is pertinent to point out though that when I knew he'd flunked his class 10 exams and the rumour doing the rounds was that it was because of Shilpa Shirodkar, I was quite pleased with the way my life was progressing.

I had first come across Brian Lara in a newspaper match report where he thrashed the Indian bowling attack (if a "pace" lineup of Sanjeev Sharma & Robin Singh can constitute an 'attack') in a tour game. In hindsight, it would have been so eerie had Tendulkar made it to that tour. We'd now be talking about two greats making their debut at the same time!

When he went past Lara and became the top run-getter in tests, I wrote about how I was in awe of his skills.

Take a look at the list of youngest test players, specifically the ones aged 17 or below. Aside from Sachin Tendulkar, Garry Sobers and Hanif Mohammed, no-one else really qualifies as an all-time great. Even tech start-ups probably have a higher success rate!

The main aspect of his career that has really stunned me is how he has managed to stay so level-headed over such a long period of time, without doing anything stupid (let's ignore the Ferrari fiasco for e.g.) or controversial. Contrast this to how rarely a day goes by without the likes of Yuvraj, Harbhajan or Sreesanth being in the news.

If I had to pick one knock from all his knocks that I've seen, I'd pick the century he made at Melbourne in 2000. It seemed as though he was batting on a totally different pitch and against a bowling attack that was markedly inferior to the one that had blown away the rest of the batsmen. The only other times I've seen an Indian batsman do that were Rahul Dravid at Jamaica in 2006 and Virender Sehwag at Galle in 2008.

So, is it time for Tendulkar to become a little more selective about the tests he plays in? At this point in time, assuming that Yuvraj is now almost a test certainty, Badrinath, Suresh Raina and Rohit Sharma are in the queue for a test middle-order batting slot, with someone like Cheteshwar Pujara being a 'dark horse'. How do the selectors find out if any of them (or even Yuvraj beginning to bat at #4) are good enough to even have a 5 year career, especially when the volume of tests that India plays is likely to reduce.

Does Tendulkar have anything left to prove now? In fact, has he actually had anything left to prove now for at least the last couple of years? Would we grudge him if he throttled back on his commitments, so that he's fit & firing to help achieve what he seems to indicate would be a great way to sign off - India winning the 2011 World Cup?

Could we make the same argument to have Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman also skip a few tests every now and then? Perhaps yes, but they don't play ODIs. So playing test cricket won't really stretch them physically or mentally. But that's not the case with Tendulkar, who plays tests and ODIs.

Harbhajan is shaping up as an extra batsman

2009-10-26T13:54:00.000+05:30

I felt like laughing when the news channels were going ga-ga on the Indian lower order (actually, make that just Harbhajan & Praveen) nearly dragging India to an improbable win yesterday. The reality was that India were pathetic in batting, bowling, running and fielding for almost 90% of the game. Hauritz had 1/15 from 7 overs at one stage!

While Praveen Kumar has, in the last dozen times he has batted, given absolutely no reason to believe that he is ever capable of anything more than a fluke edge down to third-man while aiming to smack the ball over mid-wicket, Harbhajan has been reasonably consistent with bat against Australia, in tests and ODIs. So it wasn't too much of a surprise yesterday that he did well with bat. I still remember that stunning six he hit over point off Brett Lee during the 2003 World Cup league game against Australia, coming in at 6 down for less than 100.

Then again, his bowling analysis of 1/57 wasn't too surprising either, considering that before this game, he had conceded over 100 runs per wicket since Jan 2006 against Australia, at home.

So the solution must be to include Harbhajan as the extra batsman, who bowls some part-time off-spin, against Australia. That would lend a lot more balance, and India could then pick Amit Mishra as the spinner. So the batting line-up should be: Tendulkar, Sehwag, Gambhir, Kohli, Dhoni, Raina, Harbhajan, Praveen, Mishra, Nehra & Ishant.

I was hoping that Australia's quicks, and spinners, would bounce out India's middle-order, which would trigger frantic phone calls to Rahul Dravid's mobile phone. In any case, when he would have been recalled, sources in the BCCI would have told the media that they'd only rested him so he could spend an extra week with his family.

The scary bit about yesterday's batting order was that Ashish Nehra was actually at #10, which is frankly out of sync with his ability (batting & mental), and at least 2 places above what his normal batting position should be. Given Nehra averaged nearly 4 times more at #11 compared with #10 (7.6 v 2) before yesterday's game, you have to question the team management's faith in Ashish ahead of Ishant.

Then again, Ishant Sharma averaged 2 at #10 and 6.2 at #11 before the game. So really it was a no-brainer. 'Devil and deep sea' comes to mind!

PS: News for Indian TV channels who're marketing this as the revenge or honour series. India and Australia aren't even on the same field when it comes to 'clashes' in the last 3 years or so - Australia leads 9-5 overall from 18 games, and in the 4 games that were washed out, the match status was:

Ind 35/5 in 8 ov (D/L target 170 from 29 ov revised from a target of 245)
Ind 9/1 in 2.4 ov chasing 308
Aus 51/3 in 7.2 ov chasing a D/L target of 141 in 26 ov (revised from 195 in a 45 over game)
Aus 234/4 in 42.3 ov

So the actual scoreline could well have ready 12-6 from 18 games, confirming that it really isn't much of a rivalry!

Packed calendar, or taking audiences and spectators for granted?

2009-10-22T00:16:00.000+05:30

Are cricket administrators taking TV audiences and ground spectators for granted?

The Champions League Twenty20 final is on a Friday.

The ~~2008~~ 2009 Champions Trophy final was on a Monday.

The Ind-SL-NZ tri-series final was on a Monday.

How do you explain 'grand' finals being held on week-days? It perhaps makes sense to have the final on a Saturday, with the Sunday being the spare day in case it rains on the parade.

But Mondays? Is it because TV channels don't want to have too many sporting events over the weekend, thereby risking advertisement revenue? But this is cricket, and when India is involved, the advertisers flock! No?

Is this because the schedule has become so jam-packed that there's absolutely no other option?

Hauritz, Lee and Bollinger could play the first of the 7 ODIs against India 2 days after playing the final of the CL T20. There were a lot more players who had perhaps a break of 3-4 days between the Champions Trophy final and their first CL T20 games.

BCCI demands that ICC stop multi-team events

2009-10-12T23:46:00.000+05:30

In a dramatic development following India being knocked out from the ~~2008~~ 2009 Champions Trophy last month, it is learnt that the BCCI has served an ultimatum to the ICC to stop conducting multi-team ODI events, especially those involving 4 or more sides. It is believed that the ultimatum also includes a clause whereby ICC members would also not be allowed to conduct such tournaments. The BCCI has also imposed a gag order on media outlets that use the words 'chokers' and 'Indian team' in the same sentence / paragraph / story / site.

The BCCI has evidence that India's "performance" at such events (won 0 out of the 3 events that had 4 or more teams - 2006 ICCCT, 2007 WC and 2008 Asia Cup) was significantly correlated with the number of teams participating. Additional evidence, in the form of having won 14 out of 20 bilateral series India played in during the same period, provides the BCCI enough statistical data to back its argument.

After all, if the ICC really wants cricket's ~~Harlem Globetrotters~~ superstars to turn up, they must be guaranteed at least a second round spot. Or else, the BCCI will obviously pick up the stumps, bat & ball and walk away home.

Sources within the BCCI are extremely pissed off that this attitude hides India's actual on-field performances, including some bizarre captaincy against Pakistan where the skipper MS Dhoni hid himself at #5 during a chase of 300+. In Yuvraj's absence, Dhoni was clearly the side's best batsman. So why he sent Kohli ahead of himself and Raina was difficult to understand.

This wasn't the first time he showed a lack of leadership though. During the T20 World Cup, he batted at 4 against Bangladesh & Ireland, and went in at #6 against England.

The Champions Trophy showed us that this 2009 Australian side, which would have been thrashed by the 2007 version, was still so much better than the rest of the field? Surely it's not as though the Australians have improved. Far from it, the rest of the teams have regressed - mainly Sri Lanka, India & South Africa. That can't be good news.

As for the on-going Champions League T20, I'm finding it hard to cope with the multiple acronyms floating around (CC v RCB, SCCC v T&T, NSWB v SS, etc.). Also somehow, the quality of cricket seen at the IPL seems better. Perhaps some of the CL T20 teams are getting in on a country-based quota. For e.g., would the other losing semi-finalist (Chennai Super Kings) from the 2009 IPL or the domestic T20 tournaments in Pakistan / Australia or South Africa have been better than Wayamba or Otago?

In a move that wasn't too much of a surprise, Cricket Australia picked a rookie spinner for the 7-ODI series in India.

Australia have been quite clueless about their spin bowling options for nearly 2 years now. Now they've picked 22 year old Jon Holland, who has a total of 21 domestic wickets from 23 innings, at an average in excess of 45.

Of course, it is entirely likely that he will succeed in India, and justify the selectors' wisdom!

Are 50-over ODIs in danger actually?

2009-09-09T00:00:00.055+05:30

Asking if the 50-over game is in danger sounds timely considering the following:

I, and I suspect several others, yawned after realizing that two 50-over ODI tournaments will be in progress simultaneously (the 7 ODIs between Australia & England and the 4-match tri-series involving New Zealand, India & Sri Lanka.
Sachin Tendulkar has a proposal to save the format from becoming irrelevant.
The ECB announced that domestic games would be 40-overs a side from the 2010 season.

The ICC keeps bleating about how it is proud that there are 3 viable formats of the game, and that all three can co-exist. That's actually rubbish. If the scheduling of tours & tournaments doesn't change significantly, one form of the game (and I'm willing to bet that it won't be T20) will gradually disappear until there's nothing left of it, except for silly-looking administrators (to paraphrase Lewis Carroll).

Let's assume that there will be 3 formats of the game, and that a typical series would have 2 tests (sadly), 5 ODIs and 2 T20 games. Factor in ICC rules (can't locate it) that mandate at least 3 days gap between tests, 2 warm-up games (1 before the tests and 1 before the ODIs), at most 1 back-to-back ODI, 2 days gap between the other ODIs, 1 day gap between the T20 games and at least 1-2 days gap between each leg (Test, ODI & T20) legs of the tour. We're talking of something like a 40-day tour, with 21 playing days. Nearly half the tour's duration would be devoted to the 5-day game (either the actual playing days or the warm-ups or the time between first-class games). It definitely does seem like the softest target. Remove the tests from the tour, and you can easily squeeze in at least 5 more ODIs.

Now, on an average, each team plays around 3 test series during a year. Let's assume that all these series are 2-test, 5-ODI & 2-T20 affairs (which is a very simplistic & minimal assumption). So we're talking of a total touring time of 120 days, out of which just over half are playing days. If only it was so simple.

There are ICC tournaments to contend with, each lasting 30-40 days at least, on an annual basis. Then there are some series that don't fit in to the minimalistic 2-5-2 model. They may have 3 tests, 5 ODIs and 2 T20 games. Others like Australia's tour of England have 5 tests, 7 ODIs and 2 T20 games. That tour started on June 24 (excluding the T20 World Cup) and will end on Sep 20 - nearly 3 months, with nearly 50 playing days! Then there are some other meaningless tri-nation tournaments. Then there're the new leagues - IPL and Champions League.

So, players could be "on-the-road" for something like 220-250 days a year, playing on around 120-140 of those days.

Isn't it still obvious that if the ICC continues to harp on retaining 3 formats, something is going to give?

Yet, will it necessarily result in T20 driving the 50-over game out of existence? I suspect not, primarily for commercial reasons.

Assuming that other factors are identical across both the formats (i.e. teams play out the entire allotment of overs, and lose the same number of wickets), TV viewers watching a 50-over game would see 60% more ads than when they were watching a T20 game (figure it out - 49 over-breaks v/s 19 over-breaks per innings).

Even though you can squeeze in 2 T20 games within the duration of 1 50-over ODI, the number of ad-breaks between overs is reduced by 22% (49 v/s 2x19). We haven't even got to the possibility that more wickets are likely to fall across 50 overs compared to 20 overs, thereby increasing the number of ad breaks!

Even the ECB's (and Cricket South Africa's) moves to 40-over cricket will fail for the same reason - 20% less ad-breaks. The BCCI is unlikely to support the ECB & CSA on this. Cricket Australia moved away from the tri-series format only this year. So they're unlikely to take a plunge without having evaluated the benefits of staging 2 bilateral ODI series compared to the ODI triangular format. There's probably not too much of a point in discussing what other countries will do.

In any case, the ICC had already announced the venues for the next 3 World Cups over three years ago. This doesn't imply that a change in realities won't make them change the format of those tournaments. After all, the 2010 edition of the ICC Champions Trophy (hosted by West Indies) was converted into the T20 World Cup. Such a move would need the BCCI's backing (and by implication a few other boards that kow-tow to them), and that seems very unlikely at this point in time.

Rahul Dravid's selection just doesn't make sense

2009-08-19T23:57:00.003+05:30

I'm a huge fan of Rahul Dravid. Anyone who has talked cricket with me, and anyone who has followed this blog over the past 5.5 years, would have realized it.

Yet, I really believe it was totally stupid to get Dravid to dust off his blue gear. The very fact that he was named in the list of 30 probables for the ICC Champions Trophy obviously meant that he was always going to be in the final 15. On Sunday, he was picked for the tri-series in Sri Lanka and the Champions Trophy.

There are various reasons bandied around for his selection, including the inability of India's young batsmen to cope with short-pitched bowling at the T20 World Cup, Sehwag's absence, the need to get Dhoni to play his natural swashbuckling style, Dravid's ability to play the short ball, the fact that the Champions Trophy will be in South Africa (where bowlers get significantly more help), and that Dravid proved he still had his limited-over skills & exhibited them in the 2009 edition of the Indian Premier League.

There are many reasons why Dravid's selection makes no sense.

If Dravid has been selected because the likes of Suresh Raina, Rohit Sharma, Gautam Gambhir, etc. got found out against the short ball, what happens if he succeeds in Sri Lanka and flops in South Africa? Do the selectors recall Rohit Sharma? Even if Rohit hasn't shown any improvement in skills against short-pitched bowling?
What happens if Rohit Sharma, Suresh Raina, Gautam Gambhir, etc. show a marked improvement in handling quick bowling? Do the selectors give Rahul a vote of thanks for his guest appearance?
What happens if Dravid fails in Sri Lanka and South Africa?
What happens if Dravid succeeds in Sri Lanka and South Africa? Do the selectors keep picking him until he announces his retirement?
What happens if Dravid fails in Sri Lanka but succeeds in South Africa? Given that the next World Cup is in the sub-continent, how would that do the Indian team any good?
For all the talk about his performance in the 2009 IPL, he averaged 22.6 with a quite pathetic strike rate of 116.
He hasn't played a single domestic one-day game since March 2008.
He doesn't seem to have played in the Buchi Babu or the KSCA tournaments. So he's basically going into the two series without any sort of match practice.
Even England, and let me re-emphasize that, ENGLAND, after so much talk around recalling Ramprakash, Trescothick, etc., didn't do something stupid!

Interestingly though, in 2006, Ganguly was picked in the squad of 30 probables but left out of the final 15.

An related rant, written nearly a decade ago - "Azhar's recall a retrograde step".

Aussies, be happy it was Justin and not John

2009-08-10T13:30:00.004+05:30

The hottest Ashes news yesterday was not Australia levelling the series 1-1, but Justin Langer's leaked memo/dossier on specific England players & England cricket in general.

If the newspaper ('The Daily Telegraph') really paid to get access to that document, they really have a lot of spare money on their hands. There's nothing in that document that Australia's cricketers or team management would not have already been aware of. Indeed, replace references to England (cricketers or the domestic cricket system) with any other country, and the dossier would still be valid.

John Buchanan made a career out of such well-timed and well-placed leaks.

Australia must actually feel glad that it was Langer's dossier and not one from John Buchanan. At least they could understand what Justin was saying.

Where have we seen this one before?

2009-08-07T00:42:00.005+05:30

Australia embark on high profile tour, with a squad light on bowling. Injuries impact the selection of the XI. Amidst much speculation about his inclusion, a former captain of the host country announces his retirement. While the series is on, one of the host country's main bowlers also announces his retirement.

Australia pretty much dominate the first test, but can't quite close things out. The cricket early on is gripping, but largely attritional with neither side apparently willing to risk defeat while pursuing victory. There are claims related to 'moral victory', 'momentum', etc. after the first test.

The Aussies are thrashed in the 2nd test, at a venue where until then, they'd lost only once in the ground's history.

Somewhere along the way, individual batting records were broken.

Australia's much-hyped & aggressive opener fails miserably.

This is so much 'deja-vu all over again'! Now all we need is an elbowing incident, a ban, some very ~~defensive~~ strategic bowling by the host team and bizarre captaincy by Australia's skipper.

Say no to drugs testing!

2009-08-04T15:41:00.007+05:30

There's a huge tug o' war involving the BCCI, ICC and WADA with other bit-players like the Indian sports minister, FICA & the Olympic Council of Asia offering their opinions on the issue.

Cricinfo does a good job with summarizing the issue, including concerns on all sides.

To me, the BCCI citing security reasons & concern for players as an excuse to not comply with the norms is so funny, sad and ironic. Recent evidence suggests that when it comes to taking care of players, the BCCI is on very thin ground.

In 2006, the BCCI 'volunteered' its cricketers to play a ODI series in Sri Lanka when South Africa pulled out of tri-series after a bomb blast. Thankfully, that ODI series was rained out almost totally.
Earlier this year, the BCCI agreed to a tri-series in Zimbabwe (South Africa being the 3rd team) despite the dysfunctional nature of the country and a cholera outbreak.
The BCCI has always (and will continue to) got its cricketers play meaningless ODIs as a result of board-level give-and-take policies. Players or support staff who warn of burnout and fatigue are gagged.

The ICC became a signatory to the WADA code in July 2006. Last year, the ICC's board approved the code's adoption for tournaments that it conducts (ODI World Cup, T20 World Cup, ICC Champions Trophy, Under-19 World Cup, ICC Trophy, etc.).

The BCCI needs to provide answers to these questions.

Exactly what were Sharad Pawar (ICC VP) and Shashank Manohar, who are both on the ICC Executive Board, doing when the board made its decision? झक मार रहे थे?
If they were present, were they aware of the implications when the decision was made (even if it wasn't unanimous)?
If they were absent, did they know about the agenda and could they have done something about it?
Why did the BCCI do nothing until the deadline (Jul 31) to convene an emergency meeting regarding compliance with WADA's "whereabouts" clause?
Did the BCCI ever inform its players about the implications of the 'whereabouts' clause?
Why should the rules for India's cricketers be different from cricketers from other countries?
Indeed, why should the rules for India's cricketers be different from superstar sportspersons from other countries?

Could retainerships in Twenty20 leagues prevent premature retirements?

2009-07-28T23:35:00.008+05:30

A couple of weeks ago, Andrew Flintoff announced his retirement from test cricket. He was followed by Chaminda Vaas. These retirements come as no surprise considering the physical strain associated with being quick/fast-medium bowlers. If Flintoff plays the remaining 3 Ashes tests, he would end up with 80 tests. The sad part is that he missed a whopping 63 tests. At 143 tests, he'd have been in the top 5 most-capped test cricketers of all time (behind Steve Waugh, Tendulkar, Border & Warne).

Last year, Scott Styris retired from tests. Earlier this year, Jacob Oram threatened to follow his teammate.

The irony is that the same cricketers who extoll the virtues of test cricket, call it the ultimate form of the game, rate their test cricket achievements as being the pinnacle compared to those in other forms of the game, etc. invariably end up retiring from test cricket. Can you point out anyone who has quit ODIs to continue playing tests? So do we all get this lip-service?

Cricket boards really run the risk of many more quality players quitting test cricket. Is it possible for everyone to have the cake and eat it to? Can T20 leagues & international cricket co-exist without antagonizing everyone involved? Is it necessarily a zero-sum game?

Let's make a few assumptions here - some could be wrong of course!

Cricket administrators (cricket boards & organizers of T20 leagues) are telling the truth when they say test cricket needs to thrive.
Cricket boards want to exercise maximum control over their players.
Players believe that test cricket is the supreme form of the game.
Players want to maximize their earning potential while they're still able to exhibit their skills well.
Sponsors want the best players to be part of the event (not necessarily play) so that they can be used as great marketing vehicles.
Cricket boards don't get anything from the IPL (or indeed any of the other proposed T20 leagues) when their contracted players participate in the tournament. So, a cricket board's first reaction to such a tournament is either that they won't allow their contracted players, or the players can participate for a ridiculously short period of time.
The player's concerns are to not get injured, to play quality cricket, to earn as much as they can and to be able to fulfill their national commitments & contractual obligations with their cricket board.
The T20 tournament organizer's primary concern is that the best players should be available for the maximum possible period of time, and play well enough in order to make the tournament a great success.
Players are paid only on the basis of the number of games they play in T20 leagues.
The money that cricketers earn from the IPL (or other leagues) is far in excess of what they have been earning so far.

Given all these assumptions, how do we best balance the self-interests of the players and the administrators?

The combination of the last two factors hugely influences a player's decision to quit playing test cricket and free up that time to play more and more Twenty20, including at events like the IPL, Champions League, etc.

Adam Gilchrist was largely spot-on in the talk he gave as part of the 2009 Cowdrey Spirit of Cricket Lecture (transcript & video) when he said:

An acceptance that professional players will increasingly make pragmatic decisions about their careers, which may involve playing less Test cricket or even perhaps, none at all. That the arrival of rich, franchised based competitions like the IPL will hasten this trend and reduce the primacy of playing for your country or provincial team. That a young first class cricketer in Bangladesh or the West Indies may have an entirely different set of playing priorities and goals to those youngsters playing in England or Australia. goals to those youngsters playing in England or Australia. That Cricket Administrators must adapt to these realities with clever programming of international fixtures to dove-tail off these competitions and if necessary radically change, even jettison the Future Tours Program in order to achieve this.

Let's leave aside for a moment the reality that Gilchrist contradicted himself in that statement. If the FTP was jettisoned, this would directly result in the likes of Bangladesh, West Indies & Zimbabwe playing less cricket against the 'stronger' (cricketing & economic factors) teams like Australia, South Africa, India & England. That would imply a reduction in the quality of cricket they're exposed to as well as revenue for boards.

Do you seriously expect a cricketer from West Indies to say "No thanks, I'd rather play a test against Bangladesh because I'm so much in love with my administration"? Of course not! He's going to take the first opportunity available to throw away the WICB contract and play in one of the T20 leagues. So actually, by jettisoning the FTP, you could be increasing the risk that "a young first class cricketer in Bangladesh or the West Indies may have an entirely different set of playing priorities and goals to those youngsters playing in England or Australia".

Having digressed, we now go back to the question - how to best balance the self-interests of the players and the administrators?

Would a retainership-based payment structure work?

What if the IPL (or other T20 leagues) split up the player's payment on a 60-40 basis, whereby 60% of the money they get is based on the number of games they play? But the remaining 40% is actually given to their cricket board. The cricket board could reduce the payment made to the player if he skips commitments (training, other contractual obligations, international games, etc.) because he gave a higher preference to playing in the T20 tournament. That 60-40 split is just a number. It could have been 50-50 or even 70-30, but the split-up needs to provide sufficient incentives & disincentives.

Players who are not contracted to their boards would receive a pro-rata amount based on the number of games they played along with other contractual obligations fulfilled.

This gives cricket boards enough incentive to release players for the tournament, knowing fully well that they will get something out of it if the players don't honour their side of the bargain. Players have an incentive to balance playing T20 leagues and international cricket. They don't fall under the 'daily wage worker' category, because really speaking when you're paid on a pro-rata basis, that is what you are! The tournament organizers & sponsors benefit since they know that cricket boards and players are both committed to the event because they both stand to gain.

What are the potential problems associated with such a model? Manipulative boards (and there're plenty in that category) could reduce the payments on the basis of flimsy arguments. Players could opt out of board contracts, thereby removing the boards from the equation altogether and destabilizing international cricket. Tournament organizers & sponsors could offer incentives for players to give up their existing board contracts.

It may still be an option worth considering. If the model can prevent even one star player from quitting test cricket, I'd reckon it has done its job.

WICB and WIPA combine to help West Indies set unwanted record

2009-07-15T23:34:00.005+05:30

Directly as a result of the farcical WIPA v WICB impasse, West Indies provided Bangladesh its 2nd ever test win a couple of days ago.

Players are totally entitled to receive contracts, but in the absence of these contracts, is industrial action in a sporting scenario the right option? It is not as though the West Indies players were blameless. They didn't have contracts because they refused to sign the contracts that the WICB offered. Did the WICB offer favourable terms? Perhaps not. As it is, West Indies cricket has suffered majorly in the past couple of years with sponsors pulling out.

Would Digicel, the current sponsor, have had the right to demand that the WICB field a XI that would enhance the Digicel brand? Wouldn't Digicel's contract with the WICB have referred to WICB attempting to/ensure that the best players turned out for the West Indies? It's quite obvious that Digicel wouldn't like to have been associated with a side led by Floyd Reifer, who got a birthday present in the form of the captaincy a couple of weeks before his 37th birthday. It's like England naming Ian Ward or Aftab Habib captain and India naming Vijay Bharadwaj skipper. Of course, one thing is for sure - captaincy has a positive impact on Reifer's batting. His batting average went up by a whopping 36% (7.87 to 10.7).

The reality is that regardless of the result of the game, no side would have "won" or proved anything. Had West Indies' B side beaten Bangladesh, it would have told us that Bangladesh aren't even good enough to beat a second string WI XI. Now that Bangladesh have won, as a corollary, it implies that West Indies cricket is so much lacking in depth that a 2nd XI loses to Bangladesh. I suspect with the exception of perhaps New Zealand, every other country's 2nd XI should be able to beat Bangladesh.

As a result of the feud between the cricket board and the players, the test had 9 debutants (7 for West Indies, 2 for Bangladesh) and this is the first time since 1961 that 9 or more players have debuted in a test that wasn't the first test played by a country (or the first one played after a prolonged break).

Bangladesh v India in 2000 had 14 debuts, Zimbabwe v India in 1992 had 10 debuts (all the Zimbabwe players except Traicos), West Indies v South Africa in 1992 had 13 debuts (South Africa's first test after re-admission) and Sri Lanka v England in 1982 had 12 debuts. Most of the other games that had a lot of debuts were those played shortly after World War II.

Close, but no cigar

2009-07-14T01:28:00.000+05:30

While it is tempting to think that England's last wicket pair's efforts to draw the Cardiff Ashes test represent a rare feat, the reality is that it has happened three times already in 2009! As this post is being written, it seems like the West Indies "B" v Bangladesh test at St. Vincent is also heading to a closely fought draw. West Indies "B" need to get 122 runs more to win, but have only 3 wickets in hand!

In fact, there were two instances in the same series (England's tour of West Indies). At Antigua and Trinidad, West Indies managed to squeeze out a draw. The third instance was New Zealand against India.

Some other recent tests where a side had already lost 7 wickets and still managed to salvage a draw (criteria being an end-of-game lead <= 50) include Pakistan escaping at Bangalore in 2007, India escaping at Lord's in 2007, West Indies escaping (against India, twice in the same 2006 series - what's it with close draws and West Indies?!) at St. Lucia and Antigua and Australia drawing at Old Trafford the 2005 Ashes.

After the Antigua test of 2006, I wrote about other similar close tests.

However, the interesting part is that out of the 84 "they gutsed it out for a draw" results in test cricket so far, over 30 have been in the last 20 years.

Is it an indicator that it is increasingly becoming easier for tailenders to bat out time? Is it because pitches don't quite start rapidly helping bowlers later on in the game? Is it because umpires nowadays tend to be more cautious when it comes to lightmeter readings? Do umpires not clamp down on ruthlessly enough on obvious time-wasting tactics? Is it about bowlers taking their batting lessons seriously?

I suspect the answer is 'All of the above'.

Then again, if you just looked at the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s, there were 16, 12 & 13 tests across those decades. So maybe there is no pattern there. The number of instances prior to the 1960s is low because the number of countries that played tests then is so low.

Pakistan started out in test cricket in the 1950s while India & New Zealand started playing more regularly from that decade and they got reasonably competitive from the 1960s. I think that explains the spurt in close draws from the 1960s. In addition, the other sides like Australia, West Indies, South Africa and England were also fairly well balanced and that would also have increased the number of close games.

Should test matches be reduced to four days?

2009-07-09T23:47:00.005+05:30

A couple of weeks ago, in an interview to India Today, ICC President David Morgan indicated that reducing test matches to being 4-day affairs was on the agenda.

Q: Other than merely re-emphasising its importance, what is being done on the ground to restrengthen Test cricket?
Another thought that many people have, that we are examining is whether Test match cricket can be played over four days rather than five.
Q: How quickly will we see a four-day Test? Has the mental shift been made?
The mental shift has been made in that it has been talked about and examined, I think that has already occoured. I would be very surprised if within a year you haven't seen some significant changes in Test match cricket. Over rates, pitches, daynight Test cricket … I think in a year's time you will see for yourself changes that have occoured in Test match cricket.

Let's examine if there is any evidence to support the ICC's stand. I took all tests that had been played after 1 Jan 2006 and excluded games involving Zimbabwe & Bangladesh. That's a total of 123 games. Surely that's a decent sample set. Then I excluded the Antigua farce and the terror-impacted Lahore test.

So now I had 121 tests and here're the results expressed in average duration of the test.

The average duration of a game with a result (draws are 5-day affairs since the Antigua & Lahore tests have been excluded) has ranged between 4.2 and 4.4 days. It was 4.3 in 2006, 4.4 in 2007 & 2008 and 4.2 in 2009 [so far].
West Indies and Pakistan win in the shortest period (average of 4 days), but that data is skewed because they've only won 2 & 5 tests respectively in the time period chosen. Among teams with at least 10 test wins, South Africa get things done in the shortest time - 4.1 days.
The shortest tests also happen in South Africa, lasting 4.2 days on an average. Both these stats indicate that South Africa have been quite ruthless over the past 3.5 years.
Australia have ~~surprisingly~~ taken the most time to win overall (4.6 days) and the number is identical for home games.

You can view the spreadsheet online, copy the data over to your local machine and play around with it to get more pivot reports.

The evidence does seem to suggest that more and more tests are getting over in around 4-4.5 days. So while David Morgan may not be quite right about getting to 4 day tests within the next year, I see it happening after the next 2-3 years for sure. Hopefully the changes include imposing overs restrictions on test innings, including giving toss-winning teams the option to pick the overs limit for their 1st and 2nd innings.

Of course, less than 4 years ago, this same ICC, in their infinite wisdom, staged a six day test! After the dreary draws at Lahore and ~~Faisalabad~~ Faisala-kabhi-nahin during India's tour of Pakistan in 2006, Pakistan's cricket establishment (captain, former players, administrators, etc.) began talking about the need for 6-day tests, especially in winter, since the weather conditions invariably interfered with play. Of course, they conveniently forgot that the Lahore and Faisalabad tests could have really gone on for perhaps another 2-3 days with no chance of a result because the fault was in the pitches used.

In other news, John Buchanan's comments in his soon-to-be-released book which focusses on the Twenty20 game, have ~~surprisingly~~ generated outrage in the Indian media & Indian cricket establishment. It's his book, he has a right to have an opinion. It could be right or wrong. When excerpts from Adam Gilchrist's autobiography caused a furore in India, I wrote:

Adam Gilchrist's autobiography, "True Colours: My Life", is to be released next week. As is to be expected, and as we've seen with cricketer autobiographies (Trescothick, Pietersen, Wright, Fletcher, Flintoff, Hussain or Lehmann), there is a tendency to selectively leak 'scandalous' portions of the book. The aim is to create a buzz around it, with the hope that it translates into more sales when the book is released.

Adam Gilchrist's revelations about Tendulkar are nothing but just that. He has his point of view, and others have theirs. Its his autobiography, and he has a right to choose what to say, and what not to say. If he reckons that the best way to sell his book, when there's an Australia v India series on, is to say things about India's cricketers that rile their fans, then that's his judgement.

Personally, I've never had a great opinion of Buchanan. He's said enough stupid things (blaming losing opponents for his bowlers not executing their skills & predicting that Australia's 2007 World Cup side would have ambidextrous cricketers, just to take a couple of examples). If he really does point out in the book that Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly & Laxman aren't suited to Twenty20 cricket, then is that necessarily a wrong thing to say? In any case, none of them play Twenty20 internationals anymore (Tendulkar is the only one to have played a T20 international) and Laxman probably sat out all of the 2009 IPL edition.

I wrote before the BCCI announced the 2007 Twenty20 World Cup squad that Dravid & Ganguly shouldn't be in the squad while I was ambivalent about Tendulkar. If I had to arrange the 4 batsmen in decreasing order of ability in Twenty20, the order would be Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly and Laxman. So exactly what's new about what Buchanan says? Is the outrage based on "How dare this foreigner tell us our greats aren't good enough at T20!"?

I'm guessing everyone who is outraged actually thinks the same way about Laxman and a lot of people would feel so about Ganguly & Dravid. The only questionable comment is about Tendulkar, and given he averaged 31 (strike rate 106) and 33 (strike rate 120) in the 2008 & 2009 editions of the Indian Premier League, there's enough evidence to suggest Buchanan is right! In any case, I haven't read the book, so I really can't comment on other issues.

Today at Cardiff, the venue for the first Ashes test, Ricky Ponting became the 2nd fastest to reach 11000 test runs, taking 9 innings more than Lara and one less than Tendulkar. Next in his sights - going past Border's Australian record of 11174. After that, he'll go on and get the test runs and centuries records for sure, unless injury strikes him down or he gets totally demotivated after being dismissed 8 times by Graeme Swann in this series.

Last week, India won the ODIs in West Indies to notch up 5 consecutive series wins. I was curious to find out other similar streaks and here's what I found.

But the runaway victor in this category is Australia with a whopping 10 consecutive series wins between Dec 2002 and Sep 2004, including an unbeaten 2003 World Cup campaign.

I could have probably excluded series where there were lesser than 3 ODIs. But I couldn't have excluded series involving the minnow teams because they turn up at the various World Cup-like events. Even then, I don't think the results will differ too much from the ones above.

BCCI & TEN Sports, ICC "Hall of fame" and Michael Vaughan retires

2009-07-01T23:23:00.008+05:30

Sometime last week, the BCCI announced that India would play a tri-series in Sri Lanka, with New Zealand being the third team. The announcement came a few days after India were thrashed at the Super Eight stage of the Twenty20 World Cup leading a lot of folks, including the coach Gary Kirsten, to proclaim that fatigue was one of the main reasons for the pathetic showing.

Maybe the BCCI was making a point - "You chaps can keep bleating about burnout. Until you actually collectively start pulling out of series, we'll keep milking you for what it's worth". So doesn't this previously unscheduled 4-match ODI series present a wonderful opportunity for players like the skipper Dhoni, Ishant, Gambhir and Yuvraj to excuse themselves from this tour?

Maybe there's a commercial angle that doesn't seem so obvious here. This would be the 3rd consecutive unscheduled series (or hastily arranged series) that is being played in a country where TEN Sports has the telecast rights for the Indian TV audience. The first was the ODI series in Sri Lanka and the second is the on-going 4-match ODI series in West Indies.

It does seem too much of a coincidence. But perhaps not when you realize that TEN Sports was in fact launched in India by none other than Lalit Modi and his MEN distributed the channel for a few years.

TEN Sports is partly owned by Zee, and the BCCI has basically not been on talking terms with Zee (Subhash Chandra) ever since he took the BCCI to court over the BCCI's allotment of TV rights 4-5 years ago when Zee Sports first won the rights only for the BCCI to move the goalposts when ESPN-Star bleated.

Now, after the BCCI announced an amnesty scheme for those affiliated with the ICL, maybe the BCCI and Zee Sports are becoming friends again. Maybe, like I predicted a year ago, the ICL would be wound-up and the quid pro-quo would involve TV rights, IPL team ownership, etc.

So maybe the new-found bonhomie explains why the BCCI is scheduling matches in these countries/regions. After all, surely the BCCI would have earned more revenue (gate proceeds, in-stadia advertising, etc.) if the games had been played in India.

Now, moving on to the ICC. At the start of the year, the ICC announced that it was creating a "Hall of fame" and the first list would have 55 players.

That '55' number sounds so arbitrary. Why wasn't it 50, surely a more 'round' number? Or did the ICC think they'd create 5 teams of 11 players each from the first batch of inductees? Given that the only wicket-keepers they've picked are Knott, Marsh and Walcott (who only kept wickets in 15 out of the 44 tests he played in), there's no way they could have got 5 playing XIs.

Ok, so that 55 is just a number picked out of the someone's nose. What was the criteria for picking these players? Test records? ODI records? Contribution to the advancement of cricket [especially applicable for those who played in the first 2-3 decades of test cricket perhaps]? Domestic cricket records? Gut-feel? Only those who'd retired before a specific date? There're a few players who really make me wonder about the criteria.

Barry Richards is universally considered to be among the best batsmen who never got to showcase his wares long enough in test cricket (4 tests at a batting average of 72 against a bowling 'attack' of Garth McKenzie, Ashley Mallett and John Gleeson). Watching this video of him batting convinces me that the perception about him isn't wrong. Yet, the hard facts are that he only played 7 innings.

Was David Gower such a good player? Obviously he was a very attractive batsman to watch, and was good enough to make bowlers look ridiculous. But he didn't do it often enough, and most certainly not when the bowling was of decent quality (averaging 33 against West Indies, for example).

Javed Miandad retired from international cricket multiple times, the last occasion being after Pakistan were knocked out of the 1996 World Cup. Martin Crowe played his last international cricket game 3-4 months before Miandad retired. So clearly 1995 doesn't seem to be the cut-off year. Perhaps it is 1996. Why 1996?

Surely, if David Gower finds a place on the basis of him being lovely to watch, Crowe must be a shoo-in, especially considering he averaged 45 against West Indies, 50 against Pakistan and 48 against Australia!

As noted in multiple tweets, Michael Vaughan retired from all forms of professional cricket yesterday, 11 months after he quit as captain. Exactly 3 years ago, I wrote about how he was only 32 and nearly retired because of his wonky knee.

Vaughan was a very pleasing batsman to watch, especially in 2002 and early 2003 when he was consistently dismantling India's and Australia's bowlers. However, the runs pretty much dried up after that series, and the most he averaged in a year after 2002 was 47.6 in 2007. It certainly wasn't for lack of opportunity, since between 2003 and 2008, he played at least 9 tests every year, including against West Indies, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

The reality is that Vaughan under-achieved as a batsman. On that front, I'd rank him alongside Stephen Fleming, VVS Laxman, Sourav Ganguly and Damien Martyn (until 2-3 years ago, Mahela Jayawardene would have also been included in this list). TV commentary, newspaper columns, reality TV adjudication, etc. beckon and I hope he does well in his new roles.

The 2009 T20 World Cup - quite eventful

2009-06-22T13:17:00.003+05:30

Yesterday, England and Pakistan won the women's and men's T20 World Cup titles.

Both teams played excellently throughout the tournament, and really peaked when it mattered - in the semi and the final. The England women's team was unbeaten in the tournament (and in fact set a record for the highest successful chase in Women's T20 internationals) while Pakistan's men lost 2 games (against England [men] & Sri Lanka). While Sri Lanka seemed to have run short of motivation yesterday, Pakistan's short-pitched bowling ploy early on was wonderfully executed.

It is so ironic that players from the current World T20 championship winning team will not be part of the Champions Twenty20 League. Oh, have you ever seen a more 'broken' official site?

Aside from Australia's early journey to Leicester, the other stories that captured everyone's attention were (in no specific order):

India's exit at the Super Eight stage following losses to England (!!!) and West Indies. As is usual, multiple theories started doing the rounds, such as player fatigue, infighting, lack of skills and overly focussed on ad-shoots, to name a few. The truth, as usual, probably lies in-between everything else.

Fatigue is an ever-present reality in modern sport, especially when new forms of the game keep getting invented and commercialized. Players are supposed to know when their minds and bodies can't take it any longer. If India's players want a break, they always have the option of opting out, preferably an entire series/tournament so that there's some stability in the squad. If they believed that the IPL was far too lucrative to miss out on, then they could have opted out from the ODIs in Sri Lanka or the games in New Zealand. They could have also opted out of the upcoming [pointless] ODIs in West Indies.

The fact that they chose to not do any of the above indicates one of three things:
1. They are not fatigued
2. They are fatigued but fear that they'll lose their place to someone who steps in while they're away
3. They are fatigued but are in a 'will play for money' mode
Last May, when Pieter$en revealed that he was almost certainly signing up for an IPL team a few months after complaining about burnout, I wrote
My take on there being too much cricket is that players always have the option of opting out of series. Typically the only players you'll see complaining about too much cricket are those that play the most often, and hence are the 'star' players. Surely they've performed well enough to risk skipping a game or a series and not face a piquant situation where they won't be included next time around. Also, if a sufficiently large number of players keep opting out of tournaments, cricket administrators will realize that they may be doing a lot of damage to the golden geese.
Gary Kirsten, India's coach, had already voiced his ~~excuse~~ warning prior to the tournament that fatigue would be India's biggest challenge.

He was only partly right. I don't think India failed to make it to the semi-finals because of fatigue. They failed to make it to the semis because they couldn't cope with West Indies and England using the short ball to great effect. They had no plan-B. They failed to make it to the semis because the batting order bizarrely got revamped. In 'easy' games against Bangladesh and Ireland, Dhoni came in at #3. But when it was time to face the music, Raina was sent in. Where's the leadership?
If its Pakistan in England, there must be some dark arts involved. Vettori's "informal approach" to the match officials (the umpires and the match referee, presumably) and his post-match interview comments after New Zealand got their arse whipped by Pakistan were totally unwarranted. Umpires, especially those standing in Pakistan games, will undoubtedly be examining the ball far more closely after the events at The Oval in August 2006.
Messrs. Duckworth & Lewis made an entry during this tournament after West Indies were set a ridiculously easy target of 80 from 9 overs, with the luxury of all 11 batsmen available to have a hit, against England. Frank Duckworth, who along with Tony Lewis, devised the system, has revealed plans to rework the numbers by incorporating Twenty20's duration and far more frenetic pace.

I'd really love the rules to be changed to allow only 6 players to bat and allow a maximum of 6 overs per bowler. I really don't see the possibility of this happening (because of the stupid sanctity around 11 players making up a cricket team). So I'll probably settle for the D/L method tweak restricting the [additional] number of wickets that can be lost by the chasing team. Just compare a team knowing at the start of the innings that it has 10 wickets in hand to chase down 80 in 9 overs with the team knowing it only has [say] 6 wickets to play with.

Australia strategically lost, now they're laughing at England for progressing

2009-06-11T09:00:00.004+05:30

It's funny how Shane Warne's brain works. I daresay quite a few other Aussie cricketers (current and former), cricket administrators and cricket commentators/writers would have also thought along similar lines after Australia were bundled out of the T20 World Cup.

Shane Warne in his column

Although Australia will still be hurting, this could be a blessing in disguise for the Ashes. They will be able to have a short break to get this out of their systems and then tick along with their practice out of the spotlight before the warm-ups. They have one focus now, no distractions before July 8 in Cardiff.

So let's see how the column would have read in a few other situations.

Australia progress to stage 2, England don't: England will be hurting, this could have been a great opportunity to get in some more confidence and match-practice ahead of the Ashes. Their confidence would have taken a battering. England is where T20 began and they play so much of it. They have got two T20 tournaments a year lined up from 2010. They're the hosts and they just didn't up. It's no good playing only warm-ups before such an important series.

Both teams progress to stage 2: Australia will take a lot of confidence going in to the Super Eight stage. They were among the pre-tournament favourites, but they went into this tournament pretty cold. England, on the other hand, had enough match-practice with the games against West Indies. As for the impact on the Ashes, will it impact the way England bat in the tests? It's no good scoring 180 in 20 overs in a test match if you're all out by then. Australia, on the other hand, have players who can adapt to all forms of the game.

Both teams are knocked-out in the first round: England's confidence would have taken a battering. They're the hosts and they just didn't up. This will seriously impact their Ashes prospects. Australia never really take T20 seriously, but England is where T20 began and they play so much of it. They have got two T20 tournaments a year lined up from 2010.

Priceless!

2009-06-09T12:09:00.005+05:30

Even if VISA is one of the 'commercial partners' of the T20 World Cup, to heck with ambush marketing.

Tickets to the game: Not applicable
Food & drink: Not applicable
Watching (on TV) Ricky Ponting play a dumb shot off Mendis: Worth being awake at past 1 am
The look on Ricky Ponting's face as his dream fades: Priceless!

It is my firm belief that England should just withdraw from the competition so that the Ashes series can begin a week or so ahead of schedule.

This is only the ~~2nd~~ 3rd time (thanks for pointing it out, Sanath!) that Australia have not won a single game at a "major ICC event"!

Rashid Latif's T20 World Cup semi-final lineup prediction

2009-06-02T23:10:00.005+05:30

Rashid Latif, one of Pakistan's enfant-terribles and a much sought-after cricketer for the rent-a-quote agency he runs, last week expressed concern that India's cricketers would be jaded after having played the IPL and would hence not do well at the T20 World Cup which starts in England in a couple of days.

I don't think it was a brilliant idea to have the Indian Premier League before the Twenty20 World Cup. It was poor thinking on part of the Indian cricket officials.

Maybe he knows something about the international cricket calendar and global weather patterns that no-one else does.

The period from April to June is typically the leanest for international cricket because to a large extent, West Indies and England are the only places where cricket can be played. It is far too hot in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka & Bangladesh and cold in Australia, South Africa, Zimbabwe and New Zealand. Even in England, April and May are the rainy months.

Given contractual commitments, the IPL had to happen. There was a lot that the IPL organizers did wrong when it came to engaging the Indian government. There was no way that the tournament would be postponed (because there simply was no other free slot available) or cancelled (telecast rights, team owners having spent millions of $ in securing the services of players). So, the tournament went to South Africa, and was a rip-roaring success primarily because of the quality of cricket.

There's also no doubt that the Indian players have been on the road for the last 3-4 months after the tour of Pakistan was cancelled, playing ODIs in Sri Lanka, touring New Zealand and then the IPL. Yet, I don't quite think they're at a stage where they're jaded.

Given a choice between turning up for a T20 World Cup after playing 15 T20 games involving most of the best cricketers and ODIs & a single T20 game against Australia's third choice XI, I know which one I'd prefer if I was an international cricketer.

Going by Latif's logic, countries that didn't contribute significantly to the IPL player base should do very well at the T20 World Cup. So which country has the most number of players in their T20 World Cup squads who didn't show up at the IPL? Let's exclude the Associates teams for obvious reasons.

Country	# of players
Australia	11
Bangladesh	13
England	9
India	0
New Zealand	8
Pakistan	15
South Africa	3
Sri Lanka	5
West Indies	11

The semi-final lineup suddenly looks so bloody obvious: Pakistan, Bangladesh, West Indies and Australia.

What motivates them to play in the IPL?

2009-05-27T23:23:00.009+05:30

Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist, Ganguly, Kumble and Hayden have all retired, from all international and domestic cricket, in the last 2.5 years.

Yet, they all played in the IPL, both this season and the last.

What motivates them to play in the tournament? Is it the competitive urge? Is it the curiosity to find out if they're still good enough to compete with other current players? Is it the money? Did they retire because they were tired of living out of suitcases for nearly 9 months a year? Is it the will to try and master a relatively unfamiliar form of the game? Is it to pass on their decades of cricketing wisdom on to youngsters who'd be in awe of sharing the same dressing room with them?

If it is the competitive urge, why did they retire in the first place? Were they "pushed"? So maybe its a way of cocking a snoop at the selectors or team management.

Again, if it is about wanting to find out if they're still good enough, what's the big deal? They've excelled in their field over the past 10-15 years. So it is plain and obvious that even 1-2 years after retiring, they'd be much better than the average player at the IPL, perhaps even in the 80th percentile (i.e. in the top 20% of the players at the IPL). So why even try checking?

Is it about mastering T20 and learning "new tricks"? Quite possibly so, given that between all of them, they've played 24 T20 internationals and coincidentally, only the Aussies in that list (Hayden - 13, Gilchrist - 9 and McGrath - 2) have played T20 internationals.

Of the lot, it is fair to say that Gilchrist, Hayden, Warne and Kumble (perhaps in that order) have achieved the most in this format with McGrath having a great run last year but strangely not featuring in the playing XI at all this year while Ganguly has had two horrible tournaments barring 2-3 good knocks. Hayden and Gilchrist were the top run-scorers this season while Gilchrist was at #6 last time. Warne was the 2nd highest wicket-taker last time and slipped to #10 this time. Kumble had 2 of the 4 best bowling performances this time even as he got within 2 wickets of the purple cap. McGrath was in the top 10 wicket-takers last time. Ganguly had 2 entries in the top 11 innings scores last time around.

Is it about passing on their gyaan? Again, quite possibly so. I'm sure these chaps are nice enough to try and motivate their teammates through their attitude to preparation, their winning spirit, their focus, etc. Then again, barriers are bound to crop up in a team which has players from multiple countries/cultures. So not all the youngsters would be able to/keen to absorb the gyaan.

Were they sick and tired of being part of the tours & tournaments circus for the best part of 10+ years? Quite possible, because they would have felt the need to give more time to their families and the IPL is just a month-long tournament.

Is it about the money? Most certainly so. The money is huge, and even though McGrath would have been disappointed at not featuring in the playing XI, he earned quite a lot (he was "bought" last year for USD 350,000). None of these players would actually be in a situation where they desperately need money, but hey, who's going to be stupid enough to say no?!

As a parting note, Ganesh pointed me to 53-year old Shirley-Ann Bonaparte. What prompts her to play on, 30 years after she last turned out for West Indies' women's team, now representing the USA women's team?

ICC chickens out on reviews system for Ashes

2009-05-13T12:39:00.003+05:30

The ICC Cricket Committee, in its wisdom, yesterday decided that the reviews system would have a phased roll-out from October.

Now, you could debate about whether the reviews system is needed and if just empowering the third umpire more would solve most problems. You could also debate on whether 2 reviews per innings are sufficient.

If the ICC believes that the system is here to stay, surely it makes sense to start early rather than later. Given the high profile nature of the Ashes series, and the obvious importance associated with ensuring that wrong on-field umpiring bloopers don't have a significant impact on the result of a game, it is baffling that the reviews system won't be in place for the Ashes.

Could it be related to England having a torrid time with the referrals system in the West Indies? Why wasn't the referral system used for the India-New Zealand series where Sky actually had Hawk Eye, HotSpot and a whole lot of other gizmos?

Too early to call the IPL semi-final line-up?

2009-04-28T12:33:00.004+05:30

The Indian Premier League points table indicates that Deccan Chargers, Delhi Daredevils and Mumbai Indians should take up 3 of the 4 semi-final spots. Yet, it is perhaps worth pointing out that less than a third of the league phase games of this IPL season have been completed.

Each team plays 14 games in the league phase and most teams have something like 9-10 games more to play. That's a huge number of games still in hand to reliably predict a semi-final lineup. Bangalore Royal Challengers maybe down right now, but you really can't rule out anything for any side right now.

The key aspect in the remaining games is who will be available, who won't be and who will replace the ones that're missing.

The only international cricket being played is West Indies tour of England. The teams impacted are Kolkata Knight Riders (Gayle), Bangalore Royal Challengers (Pietersen) and Delhi Daredevils (Shah and Collingwood - are they both considered great 12th man material? Is that why Delhi bought them and haven't bothered playing both yet, especially considering they're going to be unavailable from next week?). Chennai Super Kings have already lost Flintoff.

Some of the Aussies currently playing against Pakistan will return. Kings XI Punjab will especially benefit considering they will have Hopes and Lee back (Marsh is injured). Bracken will be back for Bangalore Royal Challengers, Hussey (David, not Michael who's currently shopping for runs in Perth) returns for Kolkata Knight Riders, Symonds returns for Deccan Chargers and Watson for Rajasthan Royals, providing he doesn't injure himself while collecting his bags after getting off the flight from Dubai to Johannesburg.

Then there are some reasonably known 'foreign' players who haven't even been used so far (BRC - Cameron White; DC - Chamara Silva, Vaas & Zoysa; DD - Andrew McDonald & Maharoof; KXIP - Katich & Pomersbach; KKR - Langeveldt, Mortaza; MI - Dilhara Fernando, Mills, Ashraful & Ronchi; RR - Morne Morkel). Some others (McGrath, Fleming, Dravid) will probably turn up if needed.

It is perhaps safe to assume that by and large, the Indian players without international experience, who will probably start getting more opportunities now, will not significantly impact the result of too many games.

For evidence, the most runs made so far by an Indian player who hasn't featured in any (or too many) internationals for India is 88 from 5 innings by Virat Kohli. Next best is Ravindra Jadeja's 70 in 3 innings. Karan Goel's 57 from 4 innings is the highest by someone who has no international experience. The most wickets by an Indian player who hasn't played any internationals is Kamran Khan's 5 wickets from 3 games.

Last season, Yusuf Pathan (having played 1 T20 game for India) and Manpreet Gony were the best among those Indian players who didn't have any (or too much) international experience.

Looking at the list of new entrants (and those who haven't yet played), Mumbai Indians and Deccan Chargers seem best placed since they won't lose people and will have enough quality players available to pick from. Kings XI Punjab will gain the most since their Aussie players will be available and the bowling gets strengthened. Pietersen is an impact player, so even though he has flopped majorly so far, he could have turned it around in a couple of games to get Bangalore Royal Challengers' campaign back on the rails. Bracken is an excellent bowler, but Bangalore's main problem is the batting. Kolkata Knight Riders will suffer since Gayle will leave and assuming Langeveldt/Mortaza aren't drafted into the captaincy committee, that's one less skipper for them.

So now, maybe it isn't too far fetched if I predicted that Mumbai Indians and Deccan Chargers should make it to 2 of the 4 semi-final spots. Kings XI Punjab and Delhi Daredevils will in all likelihood make up the remaining 2 semi-finalists. But hang on, that is essentially what the points table is telling us right now! Like Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr said, "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" (the more things change, the more they stay the same).

Sudden growth spurt in Andy Caddick ears detected as contributing to memory loss

2009-04-20T16:47:00.004+05:30

In the context of Kevin Pietersen's recent comments on how the England tour of West Indies was far too long and that he'd missed his wife, Andy Caddick was quoted as saying

The simple fact is that you're there to play cricket, that's your bloody job. So forget your salaries, your cars, your watches and get on with it. Troops going to Afghanistan don't get a choice. They just do the job.

This is really rich, coming from someone who didn't quite do his job, forget his cars, watches or get on with it when opting out from the test cricket leg of the 2001/02 tour to India.

Breaking news: Pakistan will not co-host the 2011 World Cup

2009-04-17T20:06:00.009+05:30

As noted on a twitter update just now, Reuters reports that the ICC has ruled that Pakistan will not co-host the 2011 World Cup.

If you have an opinion about who's to blame for this move, pick from the options below!

Where's the ruthlessness?

2009-04-14T23:12:00.002+05:30

It is now a week since India won the test series against New Zealand 1-0. Yet, as has already been commented in a lot of places, the scoreline should really have been 2-0.

In just 7 tests as India's captain (won 5, drawn 2), MS Dhoni has already twice exhibited a strangely defensive mindset. First, at Mohali against England where the batting was needlessly defensive in the 1st innings and and an unnecessary and unhealthy focus on seeing if Gambhir and Yuvraj could get their centuries in the 2nd innings.

At Wellington, I don't think the declaration was significantly delayed. I know setting a target of 600+ in the last innings is a bit outlandish, but at least the positive intent was there while batting. The main problem is that the field setting during New Zealand's "chase" was ridiculously defensive a lot of the time, particularly after McCullum was wrongly given out.

For some strange reason, Daniel Vettori was allowed to pick up singles. Now, he's not a bad batsman and but for the need to preserve the image of New Zealand's "batsmen" he'd have consistently gone in at #5 or #6. Yet, given the state of the game and the immense pressure he'd have been under, there was a real shortage of close-in fielders. This tendency to "allow" the "better" lower order batsman to get off strike with the intention of focussing on the bunny at the other end is something I've seen several Indian teams employ. I dare say, it has failed every single time, for a variety of reasons (poor field placement, dropped catches, bad fielding, plain luck, etc.)

The ruthlessness that you expect from a side which targets a #1 position in ODIs by 2009 and in tests by 2010 (incidentally the very first time that a short-term vision is being outlined by someone representing the BCCI) has been absent for a while.

One could point out that South Africa lost the Sydney test while Australia lost at Cape Town. After all, if the other top two sides also seem to take it easy in "dead rubbers", why blame India?

Yet, why should the Indian team use the current Australian team as benchmark? Why not set new standards?

In the 18 series that Dhoni has captained, India have lost the final match after sealing the series on 4 occasions (v Pakistan in India, v Sri Lanka away twice and the recent ODI series v New Zealand). Add in the diffidence at Mohali and Wellington and you have to question if the team management is satisfied being a #3 side or if it really wants to be #1 soon.

There is absolutely no doubt that the side has the ability to do even better. What it does need though is someone other than Yuvraj at #6. Yuvraj is 27 while the others vying for the slot (Suresh Raina, Subramaniam Badrinath & Rohit Sharma) are 22, 28 and 25. In fact, if Irfan Pathan sorts out his bowling soon enough, I'd add him to the mix as well. After Sourav Ganguly's retirement, none of the top 6 bowl anything other than spin (excluding Tendulkar's all-sorts). So Irfan would provide a wonderful option. He can't bat worse than Yuvraj, so all he has to do is to get the bowling together and contribute something like 15-5-35-1 (with the occasional 2-3 wicket "haul") every innings as a 3rd seamer. That would be invaluable.

So really there's nothing to be lost in giving these chaps a few chances. I wouldn't associate any stigma with Yuvraj Singh not being able to make it in test cricket. He is one of the best batsmen in limited overs cricket. He has had enough opportunities, and I'll stick to my stand. He is an excellent replacement batsman, but he should never be a first choice pick despite him playing the odd sensational innings.

For all the talk of Michael Bevan not succeeding in test cricket, I think it suffices to point out his ODI record and the number of times he's won a game for Australia. There're several other players who come to mind - notably Symonds and Rhodes (batting & fielding) & Harris and Saqlain (bowling). Does that diminish their achievements? I don't think so. I'm not devaluing test cricket. But assuming that achievements in test cricket count significantly more than those in the other formats of the game is unfair.

A statistic to end this - Before this series win, the last time India won the test and ODI series of a tour (excluding those involving Bangladesh & Zimbabwe) was in Pakistan in 2004. If you exclude the sub-continent, the last occasion was in England in 1986.

	The PCB
	The ICC's double standards
	The BCCI and Sri Lanka Cricket
	Rest of the world (Australia, England, New Zealand, South Africa & West Indies)
	The Indian Premier League

Pollhost.com