The Great Indian Team Performance Curve: A Thesis

I read a friend’s Facebook status post, wondering about the changes we are witnessing  in the Indian team’s performance. To be precise, his questions were “how so much” and “how so quickly”.

A while ago, I had read an extremely well-conceived article by Cricinfo’s Siddharth Monga on the contribution of the “system” to India’s Champion’s Trophy win last night. Here it is.

Armed with the thoughts that came while reading Monga’s thoughtful piece, I set about trying to construct a quickfire “thesis” to explain the path charted by the Indian cricket team

Part A: how so much?

Ans: The direction that a cricket team – correction, an Indian cricket team goes can be largely explained by measuring the following areas:

(A)   the leadup to selecting the final 15 who set off for the tour – including resourcefulness, non-compromise and vision,

(B)   Captain’s performance as a player

(C)   The captain-coach duo and their (interpersonal) vibes within the team including handling of individual players as well as coaching staff,

(D)   Form of individual stars in the team, if any; and

(E)    Expectations set by the leadership team from the players, series by series (completely on-field stuff, nothing interpersonal here). This includes flexible thinking.

[A, B & D are extremely version specific; hence same set of people can produce different performance curves in different versions of cricket]

• Ganguly's team, in rebuilding phase of 2000-2003, thrived partly on A & B,  a lot on C & D and little less on E (except uncompromising integrity).

• During the latter parts of Ganguly era (late 2004-2005) the team form dipped due to partial dips in B, C & D.

• In Dravid’s (2005-mid 2007) era the emphasis on A & E became supreme; B was very good too, for most parts. However all of that was completely undone by the then coach Chappell's effect in undermining C - so much so that the huge minus in B led to underperformance in D as well.

• MSD's 1^st era (2007--2010), on the other hand, revived team form almost entirely based on C, D & E. In Tests, B almost did not come into picture, such was the overwhelming effect of D [Big four + Viru + Zaheer]!! A got toned down to moderate – which is fine if D is good.

• Dhoni’s 2^nd era (early 2011 to end 2012) saw a virtual disappearance of D, while B did not come up to compensate. This made BIG difference, even as A & E remained very similar and C dipped only marginally compared to Dhoni’s 1^st era. [Not by coincidence, Era-2 was the first days for captain with new coach]

• Dhoni’s 3^rd era is just starting. D is not likely to reach the stratospheric heights of his 1^st era anytime soon (certainly not in Tests). I agree majorly to this article. By accident or by design, Team India's A has shot up in past 3 months, even compensating for seniors' exodus contributing to instability in D (it is also looking up, thanks to performing youngsters).  In fact, A has fared so well that D (at least in Champion’s Trophy) was a factor of A!!   Decisive A has also led to decisiveness in E. Factor C, while still very good, is now so very different from Era 1. These days we see an animated Dhoni who actually tells youngsters what to do…and I believe he is now in sync with India's "new" coach Duncan Fletcher.

Part B: how so quickly?

A & E are the only components that are largely controlled by intent rather than chance. While teams thrive or perish on ‘culture changes’ in either direction it is foregone that culture changes take a lot of time.

A & E can be implemented in a very short time-frame. It is only the start, though. Any major changes in A & E, implemented too quickly, might create a shock-wave in ‘good’ (read ‘comfortable’) times, leading to adverse impact on results. However in THIS case, major changes in A & E were done when the team performance was close to its nadir (i.e. around when Dhoni’s 2^nd era was closing out). Things that would seem to be “upsetting” otherwise...those were perhaps now seen as a “Ray of Hope”.

Everything, absolutely EVERYTHING can happen when people chuck out the resistance and look forward to a change.

That ends my thesis, responding to Shrikant Subramanian’s Facebook question. [wiping brow]

Exciting? Indeed. I was just as excited while force-fitting the pieces of the puzzle. Thanks to you for appreciating. And at this humbling moment of success I would like to thank my…zz-zz-zz-zz

Crappy?? Yippie kay yay…..all theses necessarily are.

Greg Chappell, the cricket visionary: caring(!!) views on Indian cricket

I was going through some of Greg Chappell's articles in The Hindu. They make for intriguing reading, quite far removed from "the guy that rubs everyone up the wrong way", an image that Indian cricket fans make of him due to his negatively eventful 1½ tenure as coach of Indian cricket team (end 2005 to Mar 2007). In fact, on the contrary these articles are a testimony of why then-captain Ganguly thought of him as a personification of astuteness in 2004-05, and strongly recommended Greg to BCCI as next Indian coach.

The articles were especially delightful to read in this tough period for Indian cricket. These are times when fans are not sure if anybody really cares for Indian cricket. If we can detach the much-hated name while going through the content of these articles, these are valuable views and analyses coming from someone with no ulterior motives and wanting to share his knowledge for the betterment of cricket in India.

Sample this one: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/greg-chappel/karthik-thrown-a-deserved-lifeline-sreesanth-could-do-with-one/article4702845.ece?ref=sliderNews

Even more than his fine take on Karthik in that piece, the discussion on Sreesanth's cricketing talent was my takeaway - perhaps because Greg kept the section to just that: discussing Sreesanth's cricketing talent (even after the IPL spot-fixing fiasco). However he has also touched upon the latest controversy. Like a wise statesman, he has clearly  hinted at the fact that accepting Sreesanth as an eccentric talent and handling him accordingly JUST might have avoided him from turning into a wasted cricketer with unfulfilled potential. I liked the tone of that comment. 

There is a hint of sadness as he witnesses the fall of Sreesanth, a player that Greg still believes to be a major talent. He suggests that there was scope of improvement in the way Sreesanth was handled, but he makes his point without looking to transfer the blame of the errant cricketer's own indiscretions towards BCCI's incompetence at talent management.

Greg himself was hardly better at managing talent....while he was excellent at spotting talent, he failed abysmally in turning it into finished product. I reckon he still cares for these young guys he backed, if not for Indian cricket. Perhaps he realises today that HE could have done things differently as well.

[BTW, this is not the first time that BCCI's talent management woes are costing Indian cricket of its talents. If they had been even half decent at it, then Yuvraj Singh should have been India's next cricketer to retire with 50+ Test average, and Zaheer would have been our spearhead much before 2007..not to be.] 

And this marvellous piece on what EXACTLY is needed to be done for improving a batsman's concentration: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/greg-chappel/curing-crickets-attention-deficit-disorder/article4769944.ece

What I found during this phase, was that I tired very quickly and actually began to make mistakes after a relatively short period of time. If I did succeed using this method, I was usually so tired that I couldn’t relax easily afterwards and I was generally ‘flat’ for a few days.

On reflection, it dawned on me that this method was bound to fail and I had to find an alternative method. The alternative I chose was to train myself to concentrate for one ball at a time.

Concentration is the ability to focus on what is important at that moment.
From that point, my practice sessions became a contest with myself to see how well I could manage the conflicting messages in my head. Training was no longer an exercise in polishing my technique, but a mental exercise in engaging with the bowler at the appropriate time.

What I learnt to do was to switch-on to the bowler once he reached his bowling mark. The fiercest concentration was saved for the time that the bowler reached his delivery stride until that particular play was finished.

In between balls, I had a quick look into the crowd to give my mind a break before returning my attention to the field of play. I re-engaged with the bowler again once he got back to his mark.

The look into the crowd was an important part of my concentration routine. If I was playing at home, I would pick out someone whom I knew to look for. I astounded my family and friends when, at the end of the day, I could tell them what time they had arrived at the ground, who they had spoken to and what time they had a drink or something to eat.

Once I perfected this routine, I was never fatigued during play nor was I exhausted at the end of a long innings. Effectively, I had only concentrated at full intensity for a matter of minutes, even if I batted all day.

This is a pearl of wisdom coming from one of the finest batsmen ever. I wish to take printouts of this article and share with cricket crazy kids in our backyard. It is a must read for anyone who wants to become a better batsman at longer versions of the game (i.e. longer than 20 overs).

Last but not the least, Chappell’s article celebrating Sachin on his 40^th birthday: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/greg-chappel/sachin-still-pushing-the-boundaries/article4648090.ece?ref=sliderNews

What did surprise me was the meticulous attention that he gave to his bats.

I had seen others who were quite protective and caring of their bat, but I had never seen anyone who showered their bat with such loving attention. He constantly altered the batting grip and spent hours with a scalpel scraping and cleaning the blade so that it was pleasing to his eye.

As he explained it, he did not want anything out of place when he looked down at his bat when standing at the crease. I can’t say that I ever noticed my bat to that degree. It was an implement that I used, and as I often had to get used to another one, I did not want to be too attached to my current bat in case we were separated, for any reason.

Sachin built a symbiotic relationship with each bat that he used. Batting, I began to realise, was why Sachin lived and he was taking every part of it very seriously indeed.

A special and sensitive insight from a great batsman admiring another within the sacred confines of the Test match dressing room. Another section of that article discusses about the changes Sachin made in his batting stance and preparatory movement over his career.

I am looking forward to his Hindu articles hereafter, expecting those to be the best insights into Indian cricket that I am going to get on print or web in coming months.

Update: Here's another offering from Greg - discussing the reasons for India's cricketing upswing (barring those two 2011 away series) coinciding with Australia's downswing: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/greg-chappel/things-to-be-learnt-from-the-indian-model/article4902529.ece

Simon Taufel: the best umpire I have seen

Till about half an hour back, I did not even know that Simon Taufel has retired from international duties.
More than me, the media and sports pages need to be ashamed of that. At least I am open about a constantly increasing distance with the only game I ever loved.

Osman Samiuddin's farewell post on Simon can be read here.
And here's a tribute from his colleague, Daryl Harper.

Getting the drive right in eight & nine year olds

Following on my previous posts (this and this) urging all of us to be more open and allow day-night first class cricket to happen:

I just came across a brilliant post from Michael Jeh on cricinfo's Different Strokes (reminds me of some delicious old days). That post was most impressive, not the least due to the fact that I have been spending some time of late with the kids playing cricket in my apartment complex and I have seen some of the things he mentioned in that blog happen right in front of my eyes.

Quoting a part of that blogpost that was most relevant:

Junior cricket, at my son's club anyway, is predominantly played in the V between midwicket and fine-leg. dominated by strong boys who can play the 'hoik' to every ball. Most bowlers at this age can barely get the ball to the other end without a few wides each over. A far cry indeed from the Azar Maidan in Mumbai where I recently watched a group of very young lads with impeccable batting techniques facing a bowler who bowled doosras on request! These Indian kids were probably not deemed "elite" and will probably never grace our tv screens but their rudimentary skills suggested that something (or somebody) has got to these youngsters at an early age and set them up with a framework that they can extend as their bodies grow stronger. Cameron Tradell was one of the few coaches who was able to get the message across to my son (and friend) that playing straight was a long-term goal that would outlast the temporary glory of scoring cheap runs exclusively through square leg. Try telling a seven year old that technique is more important than runs - this was the first time playing straight made sense because of the use of a unique bat that rewarded the boys for hitting the ball with a full face. It absolutely pinged off the sweet spot when they hit straight down the ground and all of a sudden, the hoik was yesterday's shot!

Ponting himself was a junior prodigy, brought up on a classical technique and clearly coached by someone who knew how to coach a kid properly. We are reminded today that soon he will no longer stride out to bat for Australia at number three, arguably our greatest ever in that crucial position. I don't think we'll ever see the likes of Ponting again in this country unless our junior cricket system can encourage kids who can bat for long periods and play straight. Not unless we can find ways to encourage coaches who can see the big picture and can find ways to communicate those simple techniques to young minds who cannot easily understand why a single to mid-on is less preferable to a boundary through square leg. That's the difference I see at the grassroots level between the Asian countries and Australia at a very young age.

I let Michael know that he need not judge 'Asian countries' by his good experience of enriched youth cricket at Azad Maidan, amongst the cricket-elitest places in cricket-elite Mumbai. That would be as accurate an assessment as estimating rhinoceros count in the world by taking rhinos per square mile in Kaziranga and multiplying that by surface area of the earth. That 2nd para in the above quote from Michael's blogpost could well be about any of Tendulkar / Dravid / Laxman / Gavaskar / Viswanath instead of Ponting, and the country India instead of Australia.



Check my comments below that blogpost (comments dated 4th April), sharing my thoughts on the subject and recent experiences of being a 'very senior' player amongst 8-9 year olds. If you enjoyed Michael's post, chances are you may like my comments too.

'Change Managers' & 'Continuous improvement agents' Dhoni & Kirsten

Mahendra Singh Dhoni was part of the previous Indian world cup (2007) team that was eliminated early. He, in fact, was integrally involved in the failure, when he failed to support the then skipper Dravid in the still-in-balance elimination match with Sri Lanka. He played the ugliest first-ball shot of his career to Murali first up and departed almost looking happy to go.

Then came the elevation. Dhoni became the T20 & ODI skipper in 2007. The T20 WC win gave him some power with the authorities as well. And he set about arranging his pieces for the change he saw as compulsory.

Irrespective of what people think of him, everything he has done since was done with the good intent of increasing India's chances of success. Some of them were drastic yet right decisions. Dravid & Ganguly's one day omissions were such. These are two players he respected for their ability and Test performances, but also rightly judged the unsuitability of these two to modern limited overs cricket. Some in recent times have been controversial. The selections (or non-selections) of Pragyan Ojha and Ashwin in various series / tournaments are amongst those.

While each decision can be discussed and criticised, it surprises me that so often the INTENT of MSD's decisions gets questioned. And especially as it involves a man who is the first one to admit his positives and his mistakes including his own non-performance after every match in front of all the world (try that just ONCE, to understand what it takes to do it) and tries to build further on it. All of it an extension of the mission of continuously improving the team he is entrusted with.

For the Indian ODI side, we have seen the COMPLETION of transition from dependence on the 10 year+ greats in the match yesterday. Make no mistake. What the cricket world saw yesterday was awe-inspiring.They saw a bold, formidable team which has delivered when it mattered. What's awe-inspiring? That the win came through guys that will return at the next world cup at their peak powers (or still close to it). This team has its problems, but it is aware of those and is perhaps smart enough to assess them well and chart a near perfect 'horses for courses' solution for the chinks. Much of it MUST BE thanks to their skipper and coach...combined with some support from the selection panel who at times have trusted these two guys even when they were unconvinced themselves.

Gary is now leaving for home. Do you think this is going to be Dhoni's BIGGEST contribution to Indian cricket? Much less. He has a far tougher transition in hand in next 2 years - doing to the Test team what he did to the limited overs side. That side is far more dependent on 10+ experience players. Alarmingly it still remains so even after retirement o 2 greats like Anil Kumble and Sourav Ganguly. And the reason behind it is why that makes it more important - young talents are not adept at the longer version as the older generation and this gap is increasing ALARMINGLY. Dhoni's ability to keep the Test team at the top and hence creating a 'suction' for Test cricket amongst youngsters picking up a bat or ball is critical to the health of Indian cricket (and hence cricket in general) in next 2 decades.

Imran Khan made a great comment after yesterday's victory when Rajdeep Sardesai asked him if Imran was expecting India to win the World Cup. Imran said words to this effect:

"India have been doing well in all forms of cricket in the lead up to world cup. And this is what was Pakistan team was also doing in 1992. This is always the case.'

Imran was not far off the mark. India 1983 were the SOLE instance of a 'not-doing-too-well-for-previous-years' team winning the world cup and sending shock waves. All the others were always major contenders. Success in all forms of cricket is thus intertwined.

If India's Test side tails off, it can still enjoy ODI / T20 sucees for a couple of years. At most. But such anomaly will indicate inability of Indian first class cricket to produce Test quality players...and soon enough the cracks will show up in ALL forms. See Australia between 2007 & 2011? If the Aussie case looks like a moderate decline, we need to remember that such decline in quality is happening INSPITE of an Aussie cricket system in place to prevent it. We do not really have a strong system as yet - we depend heavily on the individual leaders for identifyig talents that come up, how these talents are nurtured and focussed to perform well as well as work for team's cause. This has a big bearing on the team performance, hence its ability to create a following and generate for talent.

That is why people like Ganguly & Dhoni are important to create this 'suction' at top by generating success. That is why the ONLY person I have seen close to God in cricket is Imran Khan of Pakistan, where even the gradually-shaping-up cricket system we have is non-exitent.

From that ugly dismissal in 2007, to the gutsy and brilliant innings culminating in an unforgettable winning sixer in 2011 - the circle probably turned the proverbial FULL circle for Mahendra Singh Dhoni when India chased a once-in-4-years Cup final with 2 of their 3 "10+ years big batting guns" gone within 1st 12% of the chase.

The ODI transition is complete for now, even though Sachin chooses to plays on for a couple of years.

Waiting for the next great transition show for Indian cricket - the Test team. And this time Mahendra Singh Dhoni will need to bridge a bigger gap, with no Gary Kirsten as his accomplice. This where the new coach is going to be critical in carrying on the legacy of Kirtsen-Dhoni combo, albeit with tweaks to suit the style of the new guy. And this is where all of us - cricket followers & media alike - are also going to be critical. How? Simply by appreciating that the Test transition is going to be tougher, with the self-styled-self-techniqued-self-taught-but-team-oriented Amazer from Ranchi himself getting on in years.

The legacy of Dhoni-Kirsten will matter. Just as it always did ever since a rotten, shame-ridden legacy was chucked away 11 years ago and a new legacy gradually emerged under Sourav Ganguly and John Wright. A legacy that has since underwent upheavals, modifications, even personal clashes and downward spirals but nevertheless always strove to achieve improvement [Some things do not really change, perhaps..]

-----------
[Edited from a note in my Facebook page]

Need your support in favour of marching towards floodlit first class cricket

My appeal to any cricket followers that read this post by intent or by accident:
-------------------------------
Please spare a thought about supporting first class / Test cricket played with pink balls. It needs support. No use supporting the branches and leaves (read ODI's & T20) of a tree whose roots (first class cricket) are shrinking by the day.



Currently floodlit first class cricket has a downside: it leads to more consumption of resource (power) but I believe that can be managed in near future by advanced solar energy harnessing resources. A cricket stadium receives a lot of solar energy in daytime - which can be used at night!

Want to see the pics? Here they are: http://www.lords.org/latest-news/news-archive/mcc-v-nottinghamshire-champion-county-27-30-march-2011-sheikh-zayed-stadium-abu-dhabi,33,PS.html?imageNo=4

 
While the cricket crazy world is keeping collective eye on the climax of the global event, a silent revolution has been started by people concerned with the health of the 'Mother' format of the game - first class cricket.
It is clear now that while the Son (Tests) augmented the mom's health since itis inception, Grandson (One dayers) had been a mixed bag- positive in some ways and negative in others. Mother was still doing fine but now the Great Grandson (T20) threatens to finish it off by pumping away all blood (read talent) from it by lucre of money.
This development is quite a shocker, as the lifeline for all 4 generations resides solely in the mother. Without survival of the mother, the next three generations might either perish or go into a coma (read 'associate member quality'). Problem is: the Great Grandson is kind of a 'bull in a china shop' guy, one who has immense power but does not know about using it for family's good.
For the Mother to stand a chance of survival, she may need to raid the Great Grandson's territory. The 'positive move' may or may not work but it is worth trying as the mother is dying anyway if she tries nothing.
The preparations for that assault into grandson's territory started at Abu Dhabi on 27th March. Support the cause.
-------------------------------------------
More links:

MCC website report of Rahul Dravid endorsing to take 'pink ball first class cricket' experiment forward: http://www.lords.org/latest-news/news-archive/dravid-pink-the-future-for-tests,1969,NS.html
Pink ball day-night first class match between MCC & Notts at Abu Dhabi - scorecard: http://www.ecb.co.uk/stats/fixtures-results/score-card.html?Pfixture=com.othermedia.ecb.stats.Fixture-L-16738

Here's a link to my previous post listing the exact concerns on health of first class cricket that I discussed heart to heart with a cricket loving guy I know very well - MYSELF.

This is the cricinfo report where Dravid, after completing his participation in the experimental floodlit first class match at Abu Dhabi, has endorsed the new idea as good for cricket's future. The comments in that article list concerns of the readers - one of which was negative impact on energy consumption.

Ind Pak semi final proved existence of God

The high voltage Ind Pak semifinal match of 2011 World Cup proved that pressure matches can also be played in good spirits.



It also finally proved that God exists amidst us.


Don't get me wrong - he is not a player who is in his 22nd year of career as many hallucinate. There was proof yesterday that the guy is a mere mortal.


He is a slim, sharp looking umpire who has been sublime for many years, and divine yesterday.


He is Simon Taufel.

Pink balls: first class and possibly the last hope

Q-AH: "If India win the WC, would that be more special that winning a Test series against a formidable SA in SA?"

A-AH: Difficult to tell - India stopped short of winning the series this January. Had India won the SA test series, I would have probably gone ahead and said 'No'. Actually a World Cup win would be a collective joy, something that I can enjoy with all...without being extra special to me personally. I will be excited & delighted about a WC win all right, but I won't dream about it like a smitten schoolboy for days on end. An away Test series win against the best side available, on the other hand, would certainly have been a personal moment of cherish.

Q-AH: Could you say that the response of too many others who follow cricket would be the same?

A-AH: Can't say. It depends on the section of followers we consider.

Q-AH: Explain.

A-AH: The relative importance of Tests and limited-overs cricket varies across the globe. Even in the same region, it will vary across the generations. In India, Tests are back in spotlight mainly because India are number 1. The following for Tests is still not much compared to ODI's and is restricted mainly at cities ..which in turn are now falling short in comparison to T20's. Generally it is limited overs cricket that has a far bigger fan base, especially so in the younger generations.

Q-AH: Why do you think it is so?

A-AH: Because for the last 20 years, generations are growing up seeing all the focus from media and sponsors on limited overs cricket. Also - to be truthful - people have lesser time in their lives these days to witness Test matches.

Q-AH: Why do you think people have less time for Tests?

A-AH: They now have lot more options to invest their time on. Cricket itself has produced one - T20.

Q-AH: Do you think Tests will ever get back the following of pre-ODI days?

A-AH: No

Q-AH: Do you think Tests will ever get back the following of pre-T20 days?

A-AH: Don't know - but this one can be tried. And it MUST try before T20 internationals gain more ground (T20 is still more of a club game than international sport).

Q-AH: How does a 5 day game attack a 3 hour game which is getting lapped up by masses?

A-AH: It will need support from the administration. But the first target is to create competition in the strength of these T20's - essentially that 9-to-5 people can follow these 3 hour games fully with no impact whatsoever to their careers. If Tests are going to survive, they must invade this 'time slot advantage' territory and take it from there.

------------------

That's quite a frightening conversation with myself.

We are just not aware of the exact current health of the support base of Test cricket.

In general, all awareness of the viewership health comes from qualitative judgement from people writing their pieces from own, coloured standpoints.

That won't do.

We need cold, unbiased facts. The viewership data....for Tests, for ODI's, for T20's....From television audicences across the globe. From the ticket counters of stadia. With locationwise breakup. With age-wise breakups if possible.

We need it NOW. It will form the 'before expt' data.

And then we start the experimental period of say, 3 years. QA period where first class cricket is played in pink balls, starting late afternoon and ending at 10 pm. Not only for Tests, but also for Ranji matches, Duleep matches, County matches - everywhere....certainly wherever the players and boards agree.

Then at the end of the period we take a second set of data. The 'after expt' data.

We inspect what we have. We compare the two sets of data.

From that data, a picture will emerge.

We will get a good indication if Test cricket can soldier on inspite of 'loss of territory' or it is scheduled to die away.

If Test cricket fades away, cricket as we know it today also goes with it. We will then have players groomed without skills to last 2 days at a stretch in whatever weather they are exposed to...players 'designed' for limited overs cricket ONLY (which NONE of the current players are)....players who will play the game in such an alien fashion that we will identify the rules & the equipment but not the game.

If the data reflects 'regaining of territory', the experiment is taken further logically and Test cricket is redsigned in the next 10-15 years based on tweaks and subsequent results of those tweaks.Tweaks that do not alter the freedom that the basic first class game offers to all players (batsmen / bowlers / captains / fielders) or the endless possibilities that can emerge from the format.

Either way...those of us who hope to see the return of first class cricket as the prime form of cricket will be expressing gratitude to those who at least tried to do something for it.

I am one of them.

I hope the one-off experiment being carried out at Abu Dhabi does not remain one-off.

I hope we see bowlers running in with pink balls everywhere by the end of this year.

See them for yourselves: Pic 1: Pic 2

Update: An experimental first class match between MCC & Nottinghamshire was played out with a pink ball for the first time. After the match, Rahul Dravid endorsed furthering the experiment of using pink balls for First Class matches and Tests, albeit with a few more 'tweaks' to the rules.

He made a few comments on the experimental first class match in which he participated. Rahul scored a duck in the first innings and a century in the 2nd. Here's an excerpt of his quotes from the MCC report:

"As with any new innovation administrators and the players will need to take a leap of faith at some point." said the 38-year-old batsman.



"I think there is definitely a future if people are going to have to have an open mind to it."

Despite some issues, the day/night matches have been deemed a success and Dravid would like to see more experiments in the future.



He added: "It was a new experience batting against the pink ball under the lights. I never found sighting the ball under the lights a problem at all.


"There are some things which need to be looked at - for example the twilight period and dew which can be a problem in some parts of the world.


"But there is definitely a future for day-night Test and First-Class cricket.


"I think there are a few further tweaks that need to be made, and it would be beneficial to play some more trial matches at different venues and in different conditions as well."

Hope we see pink balls and day-night first class games sooner rather than later.

But honestly, how do you make them honest?

I just read an interesting article by Rudi Webster on 'the psychology of cheating', including possible ways to encourage integrity in sportsmen. Recommend it even for non-cricket fans..especially the results of the tests with and without vows of code of honour.


What the article does not say: Does it work as well even on sample students taking their 100th test with such vow? Those tainted guys across all sport - none of them did it in their first match. In all likelyhood they would not have done it even if there was to be an offer.
 
Sharda Ugra has her individual take on the factors that may lead to sportsmen demonstrating loss of morality. She tries to answer her question:

Sporting heroes build their careers, their lives, on reputation. Of athlete as fighter, athlete as adventurer, athlete as risk-taker, but a man or woman doing so always within the rules of their sport. When the boundaries around those reputations begin to fray, we are faced with the same old, weary questions. Guilt and innocence. Reason and impulse. It's what was asked of Hansie Cronje or Mohammad Azharuddin or Saleem Malik, even of Mark Waugh and Shane Warne. Why? Whatever the hell for? What on earth were you thinking?



We want to know what leads men of such skill, achievement and fairly firm financial ground, to make choices that, before they are unethical, are so utterly illogical.

She cites another example of a non-cricketing great sportsman explaining the 'why' what for' 'what were you thinking' questions by looking back to that dark phase:

Tiger Woods described what life was like inside elite sport: "I thought I could get away with whatever I wanted to, deserve to enjoy all the temptations around me. I thought I was entitled. Thanks to money and fame, I didn't have to go far to find them." That was his answer to the questions "Why?" "Whatever for?" "What were you thinking?"

I also found some words of interest in Sandy Gordon's study of such incidents as excerpted by Sharda. Along side his famous contributions to international cricket teams, Sandy is professor of sport and exercise psychology at the University of Western Australia's School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health.

One of the more unusual terms Gordon used in his responses to ESPNcricinfo was the "derailer". It comes from a psychological questionnaire called the Hogan Development Survey (HDS), used to study an individual's responses under stress.


The derailer refers to traits that belong to the "dark side of personality", which can sometimes take over under pressure and play an important part in decision-making - traits that are normally tolerated, even indulged, as Gordon says, but which, when "tempted with opportunity", can derail. "It's about character meeting opportunity and/or sport revealing character," Gordon said. Temptations come in many disguises; what stays constant, though, is the powerful lure.


The personality types on the HDS scales include "colourful" (seekers of attention, productive, with ability in crises, and possessed of belief in self and ability), "bold" (overly self-confident, arrogant, with inflated feelings of self-worth) and "mischievous" (charming, risk-taking, limit-testing and excitement-seeking). Gordon says "bold" and "mischievous" characters abound in the entertainment industry (e.g. professional sport...) We may often call them "characters" in cricket.

How do you fit the naturally superslow in super slo-mo replays...

"Can't you just speed it up a little bit, because we struggle to fit it into the super slow-mo replays."

Rudi Koertzen gets some advice on his signature 'slow death' signal from a television producer

[source: cricinfo quotes]

Read an older post on Rudi's slow handedness here

Spinners were more successful in SA's IPL-2009 than the Indian IPL of 2008

What was it that allowed that to happen?

Was it the extra bounce? Perhaps it was. The extra rise was clearly worked to the advantage by all the top spinners including Kumble, Ojha, Warne, Vettori, Harbhajan and Muralitharan.

Also, was it the extra 10 or so yards from the batting crease to the boundary ropes? I remember Ian Chappell expressing frustration last year at the bats getting better and the fields getting shorter at the same time. His argument was that by allowing this to happen the cricket administrators were looking for short sighted satiation of the spectators for more sixes (for that is what the administrators can think of as the only love of us one-dmensional cricket fans). The short boundaries were making the spinners lose the inclination to flight deliveries as even the mishits created by good bowling from spinners to top batsmen would regularly go over the fence instead of becoming a catch in the deep. At least the 75-80 yard boundaries in South Africa give tweakers some extra 'ground'.

But someone will need to explain to me where the turn came from. Since their return from exile in the 90's, the SA cricket team were as notorious for their lack of spinners as the pitches in their country were renowned for not supporting them. However spectators got to see some sharp turn in some matches with 6-7 over old balls. And they got that not only from the best spin doctors but also from some of the lesser known (but adequately effective) practitioners of spin bowling.

Did the IPL supremo Lalit Modi manage the impossible of not only taking the tournament from Asia to Africa but also some of the original Indian 'pitch' and tenor within a one month timeframe?

Can't rule that one out, going by the way Modi is beginning to rate himself as a 1st class miracle worker and trying to conjure up bigger challenges for himself.

Arranging 2 IPL's a year, for example!!

Wanted: Umpires with no affinity for showbiz

Upon the fall of last wicket in the Australian first innings of the 2nd Ind-Aus Test, Cricinfo ended its text commentary on the innings with a cricket fan's rant-in:

Billy Gane writes in to say: "Seriously; is anybody else out there sick of the "slow death" finger of umpire Koetzen? Can't we get back to the umpy being a non-entity and letting the players shine?"

C'mon folks, let's allow them umpires a few things of their own liking as long as those are not called 'bad decisions'. We don't mind Shoaib Akhtar taking off after every wicket as if he won the match with it, or the regular fist pumping of batsmen after reaching their centuries. So why grudge Rudy Koertzen his slow finger or Billy Bowden his crooked one as long as the receiving team has no grudges against the umpire?

Billy has a disability that prevents him from straightening his finger. Maybe Rudy too has a mystery disease called 'cold muscles' where the muscles on his arm go cold due to prolonged inactivity. This can explain the he takes to raise his arm in the event of a dismissal.

Going by that logic, his speed should increase at the end of a hat-trick. Surely the arm muscles would be sufficiently warmed up by then. I am willing to spend millions to get a video where some bowler bags a hattrick with Rudy officating at the bowler's end. Oh yes - the last wicket should be lbw. The TV guys forget about the umpire when a bowler hits the stumps.

I am tempted to stretch the imagination further on that last line. The 3rd ball hits the stumps but the bowler oversteps. Will old Rudy be as slow in stretching out his right hand in the other direction to crush the aspirations of the bowler dreaming of a hat-trick? Not necessary - the affliction may only be on his wicket-taking left-arm. Even for the left arm the problem may only be restricting movement in one direction (i.e. the same left arm may well be quick as a flash in signalling no ball which requires hand movement in another axis).

Isn't it strange (and shameful) that I do not recall Rudy's speed (or lack of it) at raising either of his now-contentious arms to signal no-ball? I must have seen it umpteen times during various matches.

Too many open threads. For now let us assume that Rudy has slowness stacked up both his sleeves and in both directions, and that he uses it to mill-grind the hattrick hopes of this imaginary bowler. I do not wish to read the unreadable thoughts of the bowler with crushed hat-trick hopes but some of the batsmen given out by Rudy's finger would certainly feel appeasement by the sight of him finally administer 'slow death' to a bowler instead of a batsman!

VVS' vision and Ishant's mission

VVS Laxman must be very very sad after losing today's IPL game, his 3rd in a row, to rival skipper Warne's last over Symondsisms (meaning sixes - in case you are suspecting any reference to is year's Sydney Test).

VVS is under pressure for bad personal batting form and dubious decision-making as the Deccan Chargers skipper but look at the vision of the man. In the midst of the hot and happening IPL he says his aim is to make India the number one Test team in the world! This guy has forever looked like an other worldly entity with a bat in hand but this statement, with the IPL right there on his platter, makes us think if the world is lucky to be having him.

Laxman's decision to forego the icon status (and so losing out millions for the sake of a better team) sounded queer to our monetised ears then and looks a tragedy now as his team has crashed to 3 straight defeats right at the start. However these observations can only belittle us, people that can view things that way. They do not even faintly touch a man of Laxman's mental makeup.

He knows his priorities in life and will not budge from them. After an unsuccessful stint as opener in the late 90's Laxman, at the turn of the decade, announced himself closed from being considered as a prospective India opener again. That could have meant early curtains to his career as the middle order was a traffic jam. Today he has not changed much. Even a Great Indian Distraction lke the IPL fails to shift his focus from the fact that a full strength Indian team (with the big five + Ishant / RP / Bhajji / M Kartik et al) facing Australia later this year will have their best ever chance to become the best Test team in the world.

Hope they make more men like him in the 21st century. India and her cricket will keep needing them.

Not that I am disappointed with Ishant's rather opposite natured comments on IPL but I still hope he can get over his 'mission' and then get back to what he was born to do - stay fast and fit for fiery spells home & away in Test matches that make other sides spend 50% of the match-eve meeting time on him.

If ever he is short on inspiration Ishant can just glance at a tall man in his slip cordon.

The Future Guys of Indian cricket & the non-‘plus’sed seniors

I could not believe my ears when I heard Maninder Singh defending Yuvraj Singh in the face of questions raised on his form and fitness in a tele-discussion on dropping Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly from the one day side.

Upon being reminded of Yuvraj Singh’s inability to last long in any of his Australian outings Maninder argued that Yuvraj is mostly getting dismissed through slip catches in the first class matches; however since Yuvraj bats at number four / five in ODIs & T20s there will be no slips when he comes in and he should score! Whether that comment was more insulting to Ponting’s captaincy or Yuvraj’s batting ability is for you to decide.

I have long been supporting the cause of picking only those players in ODIs who are either good batsmen or good bowlers depending on their trade but who necessarily have the accepted ‘plus’-es called good ground fielding and deft running between wickets. The philosophy is more rigidly applicable to T20 teams.

I have always believed that Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly should have retired from ODIs just after the 2007 world cup. Both are very good batsmen. But unlike Sachin Tendulkar the Lords 1996 twins do not have quick feet; they are neither skilled ground fielders nor quick runners between wickets. They are not going to contribute that little extra to the team in normal ODI / T20 conditions where we need slip fielders (Dravid’s specific plus) for only 10-15 overs and part time seam bowlers (Ganguly’s specific plus) only in overcast conditions. This means they are susceptible to finger pointing and selection hazards even if they do not perform in 2 or 3 games. You don’t want to see players of their calibre facing it.

However Australia is a place where the Golden generation boys’ batting assumes greater importance than that of the next generation of batsmen simply because the men hold their performances in these shores while the boys have been unable to do so. It happened during the 2003 tour and it has happened this time too in Test matches. I see no reason for that not happening in ODIs unless the matter is as simple as explained by Maninder.

These two ex-captains should have deserved serious thought from selectors just as the right, experienced horses for the course. There are horses by the dozen for Indian courses but the away courses have not yet been happy for the colts. The benching of the senior pros could be postponed by one series in this context.

Moreover, the specific ‘plus’-es of Dravid and Ganguly (and even Laxman’s catching, for that matter) come into play so much more in Australian conditions.

Let us ignore that all. Now we go to their ‘minus’-es, i.e. lack of the commonly accepted pluses. Since both were dropped after a very short run of failure in ODIs and don’t look likely to be considered for a re-admission we can safely attribute their dismissal to their minus-es which can no more be improved unlike form.

Surely we can then safely assume the chosen few for the ODI side for the tri-series to have those ‘plus’-es.

Let us check up on the facts with the names in the announced squad. We will call them the ‘Future Guys’. Bowlers first.


S Sreesanth
Speciality: bowler
Plus: Virtually None - not much batting, was not impressive in the outfield in the last series he played, is coming back from injury

RP Singh
Speciality: bowler
Plus: Virtually None - not much batting, not the quickest outfielder.

Ishant Sharma
Speciality: bowler
Plus: None - No batting at all, quick legs but lousy outfielder.

Piyush Chawla
Speciality: bowler
Plus: batting has never clicked in international matches, but a good outfielder.

Irfan Pathan:
Speciality: bowler
Plus: Has developed into a very good outfielder, good runner between wickets
Plus 2:. Very capable with the bat

Praveen Kumar is unknown to me. Harbhajan is an adequate selection displaying some plusses for his lower order batting and decent outfielding in ODIs.

The batsmen’s list: Mahendra Singh Dhoni (capt & wk), Sachin Tendulkar, Yuvraj Singh, Virender Sehwag, Dinesh Karthik, Robin Uthappa, Gautam Gambhir, Suresh Raina, Rohit Sharma.

All the batsmen are good outfielders, and most are good runners between wickets. Some are excellent catchers.

So even if the omission of Ganguly & Dravid looks unjustified if we look at the bowlers, it looks less debatable when we see the people they are competing with. If some of these guys can perform like a Ganguly or Dravid in his prime over the upcoming tri-series they would be justifying the selectors’ faith in them as the ‘Future Guys’. They would have then rightfully ousted the two iconic batsmen from the ODI squad simply by being better than them.

What if they do not live up to it? It has already happened once, and the same Ganguly was at the centre of it.

We will all be watching. We have been hearing this ‘blooding youngsters’ theme for sometime now. We have seen how our youngsters can be relentless in 20 over games some months back. And we have also seen in the very next ODI series against Australia how they start looking like amateurs in longer games. We have seen confirmation of it in the ongoing Test series.

We remember that these same ‘Future Guys’ fielded incompetently and batted poorly for first half of the ODI series at home against Australia. That they won two matches out of seven. That the 1st win came from the bats of Sachin & Ganguly, the second from the bats of their bowlers and they wasted the platform to win a third that was laid by – who else – Sachin and Ganguly.

It is not the fault of the ‘Future Guys’ themselves. Many of them are talented, agile and intense (enough for T20s) but have not yet acquired the stamina required for long games. Moreover Sourav and Rahul are greats – and to replace such people you must develop their successors over a period of time. You can’t just select their replacements in the hope that you will be as lucky as the guy that picked the two of them for the same trip 12 years back. The system they came up from did not ensure Sourav and Dravid were excellent by the time they played in the national team – they just turned out that way. Are we living in the hope that such players will just emerge out of nowhere?

We hope the concerned people – the selectors, the board members, all that are party to this young team theory - have studied the reasons of failure of the earlier ‘Team building for the future’ effort ahead of the 2007 world cup. We hope they have ensured that the youngsters included in the sequel to the big flop are adequately groomed. If not then I’m afraid the whole exercise, even when done with best of intentions, can look like one big and dangerous experiment quite resembling a conspiracy against the seniors to replace them with inferior players. Just as it did the last time.

Suresh Raina has already faced one such ‘battle with oldies’ in his first stint with the national team. It may not be good for people like him if they are to be declared losers in this ‘war’ the second time round. The missile, however, has been launched now.

The future of Indian cricket will look healthy if the Future Guys achieve the double bill of performing with the primary skills as well as the 'plus'-es right throughout the series. However if they do not then people representing the BCCI selection process should accept their inability to develop (as against ‘select’) replacements for the older generation in public and ask the rich board of India to arrange a detailed training for them from Cricket Australia.

Meanwhile, the effect this selection has on the team morale ahead of the Adelaide cruncher remains to be seen. I would have no doubts on the effect if Dhoni was also the Test captain. However Kumble’s absence from the ODI side should help calm down the dressing room infinitely.

PS: Let’s give the selection guys, at least one of them, some relief. Vengsarkar picked and backed Ishant Sharma all through and must be complimented for the way he identified this boy’s gift of natural bounce and accuracy.

[cross posted on Desicritics.org]

No-o-o-o

That’s my answer to the 'sms poll' question for today on a local news channel: “Did Australia deserve to win the Sydney Test?”

That also happens to be the answer to a lot of other questions clouding my mind. Here are some of them:

“Did Australia deserve to get 450+ in the first innings?”

“Did Michael Clarke and Ricky Ponting deserve to go scot-free (which I know they will) for lying to an umpire’s query just because they belong to Group ‘A’ and not Group ‘B’ where a Rashid Latif got banned for some matches for a similar offence?”

“Is it a mere coincidence that the wrong decisions from umpires tend to go up in crunch ‘Group A team – vs – Group B team’ matches and that far more of them go against the Group B team?”

“Is the Australian team confident of beating India fair & square – even in Perth?”

“Am I sure that the Aussie players genuinely have a grievance against Harbhajan and they are not trying to get the ‘monkey’ off the embarrassed skipper’s back?”

“Should India have left Akash Chopra out of the touring side?”

[Group ‘A’ : Australia / South Africa / England
Group ‘B’ : Bangladesh / Sri Lanka / India / Pakistan]

You may be wondering what happened to the burning issue of standard of umpiring. Even I, a very ordinary blogger, consider it below my dignity to even discuss about the unprofessional, even partisan attitude shown by Benson and Bucknor. That was more obnoxious than the deluge of bad decisions against the visitors. The latter followed from the former.

I sensed something more. It sounds genuinely outrageous but I have to say it. The umpires appeared to have been instructed by their ‘bosses’ / ‘patrons’ to help the hosts win their record 16th consecutive Test. Right from the bad decisions going in the hosts’ favour in both Australian innings at touch-and-go situations to the decisions going (and made to go) against the Indians in both of their outings the decision making had the look of an ugly ‘set up’.

I will try to leave this comment with a consoling thought. Australian cricket lovers are blokes that deserve none of this. And from whatever I have learnt about them, they may be as upset as Indians with their New Year Test win coming in that fashion. But if they aren’t, I’m afraid I am prepared to lose some more admiration. [There goes the consoling thought. It is one of those days…]

Update: Peter English & Peter Roebuck have a few things to say about the Sydney Test.

Peter English:

"Australians see catching differently to appealing and walking. They say it's up to the umpire to decide on edges and lbws, but when it comes to knowing whether a ball has carried, the fielder is the best person to judge. What they miss is that both arguments are about telling the truth. Why should Clarke be trusted to rule on a potentially match-turning catch when he stayed at the crease on day four after edging a ball to first slip?"

Here's the the part that was sadder than all others for me as a cricket fan and worshipper of that incredible package called Adam Gilchrist:

Roebuck:

"Then came the moment that compromised all subsequent events, rendering meaningless the continuation of Australia's run of victories. Dravid thrust his pad forwards at a wide delivery and wisely took the precaution of tucking his bat out of harm's way. The ball brushed the front pad and was taken by the local gloveman, a man with a high reputation for sportsmanship. Adam Gilchrist and his
comrades around the bat immediately roared a raucous appeal. Gilchrist was especially animated. To think there was a time when teammates chided him for holding back."

Rolling stock expected to get better tracks

If I remember correctly I had tagged this Siddhartha Vaidyanathan piece, revealing the true magnitude of effort coming from Railways players for annexing THE Ranji Trophy, to an old post on Sanjay Bangar. Perhaps those boys in the pic on that page will now have a silent word of thanks for the organisers of ICL. In addition to the increased match fees and prize money that the BCCI was forced to announce on them players, hopefully they will now get better facilities to do the job, which is where the cricketing impact of ICL begins.

A chunk of credit for that development - in all senses - should go to their big boss, the brilliant Indian Railway Minister Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav, , who masterfully announced a semi-dictatorial decision of letting out Railways cricket infrastructure to the ICL when everyone else pretended to be 1000 miles away from the league. It was a micro revolution of sorts and before long others like West Bengal sports minister Subhash Chakraborty, who is quite smart but less so than Lalu, also saw the double bonus of earning some easy money on rentals along with getting a free maintenance / upgradation of facilities in such venues and immediately declared the cricket stadiums of Bengal as Sports Economic Zones.

For Mr. Chakraborty though, there is a third angle yet - he has as massive an axe to grind with the present rulers of Cricket Association of Bengal as he has with BCCI management.

I do not buy nepotism and scams put me off - and yet I will not mind having the ex Bihar CM lead our country for one tenure. He has a rare gift, one that differentiates genius captains from brilliant ones: he sees an advantage where all else sees a handicap. Like all legendary skippers his moves return handsome dividends for his team while furrowing a few brows.

Follow whom?

Rahul Dravid’s decision not to enforce a follow-on allowed England to escape with a draw in the last Test. But it is amazing, the Indian media’s obsessive desire to keep cricket in the centre of a controversy with the current Indian skipper preferably at the wrong end of it. The debate on Rahul Dravid’s non-enforcement of follow-on in the Oval test refuses to die down. It was a national shame, it seems, that the think tank led by the captain inflicted upon a proud cricketing nation.

Excuse me? Are we talking about the same nation that sent that team management on a three month long far-n-away tour without a coach and carrying a grandfatherly manager? The same team that is forced to make a gutsy wicketkeeper play as a Test opener and is lucky to see the gamble come off? The team in which the captain, upon arriving at venues, learns that his duties include assigning room allotments to players with little or no help from people generously sent on a benefit tour of England in the guise of official post holders? The team that has never put forward either a bowling quartet that surprises none when it takes 20 wickets or a set of Test fieldsmen that routinely complete fielding innings without allowing a few important batsmen of the opposition to bat twice?
We can go on, really. Is that the same country where the cricket Board considers its job as done merely by issuing ban threats to an alarming multitude of first class players joining a rebel league and thinks nothing of starting a dialogue to get to the root? Are these players not playing for a board that goes on to call a meeting amidst this Indian Cricket League controversy - only to complete the far more critically relevant job of trying to identify a future replacement for the present Board President a good part of a year ahead of his expiry date?

To call a spade a spade, Rahul Dravid was afraid of even chasing 150 odd in the final innings of the Oval Test. He was not taking a risk – the great Indian last-Test-last-innings ‘chokes’ efficiently led by the man himself in numerous recent home and away series (v-Pak-05, v-Eng-06, v-SA-07) played on his conservative mind. He was being defensive. Rightly so. An amateur, playing against a professional, plays with a clear mind and takes a few risks when he has nothing to lose; however when some of those come off and our amateur friend secures a position of ascendancy he is happy to just ensure that there is no reversal ‘coz the ascendancy is win enough for an amateur playing a professional.

Rahul wasn’t defensive in Trentbridge (2nd Test) at the toss. He had precisely 2½ in-form bowlers in his team (one Zaheer, 0.75 Kumble, 0.75 RP and a wandering spirit by the name of Sreesanth) to take 20 opposition wickets, none a run-through’er and the 1st innings of the 2nd Test was likely to decide it all. Fresh from the ‘glory’ of saving the Lords’ Test Rahul the India-A captain (A for amateur) saw nothing to lose there and backed his two-and-half to try and give their best. Rahul hit a jackpot when they went further and bowled out opposition for less than two hundred. Further, the makeshift opening pair, not expected to last this summer, virtually wiped off the deficit without getting separated. At this point the captain woke up from his daydream and, sensing ascendancy, decided to close out the opponents by not taking any more risks.

We are yet to grasp the extent of Indian fortune there with English batsmen generously helping the Indian bowlers remove them before the latter could get tired and look around for the non-existent backup. Dravid the captain could do with some praise coz’ he decided to field first without still being fully confident of ineptness of the English tail (Prior had a near match winning partnership with KP in the opening test)

Coming back to the follow on, if I had arranged rooms and pairings for players (like Dravid had) and found myself in a scarcely believable position in the series on the fourth morning of the Oval Test, I would gladly opt for any option of closing out any remaining risk of not winning the series even in exchange of my own chance to extend the lead. Throughout the series the Indian seam bowlers punched way above their height inspite of shoddy fielding support to their efforts (the latter led by Rahul himself). Rahul the skipper did not want this miraculously succeeding setup to be tested by the English professionals once too many.

In other words. Rahul played the 14th and 15th days of the series as if he was captaining an amateur cricket team on the verge of giant killing history. And I see no misinterpretation by Rahul there, for all the messages that the Board administrators directly or unwittingly sent to its players in recent times through its handing of the game and its burning issues scream and say ‘we are amateurs’.

In all the gung ho about Rahul’s timid decision making we recall having seen that decision by India on Australia at Sydney 2004. I supported it then, and I support it now. Yes, if this ‘timid’ ploy were to be adopted with the opposition 1-0 up I would have questioned it. That is the time for amateurs to take risks, isn’t it? And I would definitely have questioned it if this team with a lead were a profesional setup.

Interestingly in both the Oval and Sydney matches we might have won notwithstanding the defensive ploy but for fielding lapses. It’s been three and a half years and we still offer crucial let-offs just as merrily. Just as well; learning for mistakes is for professionals, not for teams picked by selectors doing their services on honorary basis.

Now can we stand up and appreciate the Indian players at all levels for what they achieve inspite of these hitches?

PS: I was a bit too harsh there – actually they were semi professionals playing under amateur administration. How else do you explain Rahul Dravid offloading important duties to other senior players and coming out triumphant? For the first time I wish guys like Sachin, Anil and Sourav retire immediately and kick out some of the BCCI ****ers functioning irrespective of place value much like those asterisks. I seriously back our players to do a better and more honest job of ruling Indian cricket any day.

Every doc says she's sick and yet....

BCCI woke up like Kumbhkarn in the Ramayana (too late, that is) and declared they would be taking drastic steps. Soon they realised that they perhaps had already taken one of them by promising to act tough even before they had a plan in place. They subsequently called for suggestions to restructure Indian cricket from ex India skippers and asked them to meet. It was a second drastic step because till that date ex-skippers were a breed that got remembered only for medal distributions at jubilee celebrations of various state cricket boards and for filling up vacant NCA Director posts (the latter even had an elementary cut off criteria of 400 + Test wickets or 10000+ Test runs).

The invitations to ex-captains of Indian Cricket Team were official upon hindsight, because the ex-skips actually acted on it (the NCA issue need not be brought up again in this context). They met and solemnly came up with a few logical yet not-too-rare points. This post is not an exploration on the action points coming out of that meeting. Rather we take a look at some of the opinions that spontaneously came across in response to the distress signal that the invitation to skippers sent ever so silently to many who either love Indian cricket or love to think about it.

[For all you know that not-fully-cured infection of ABCD - Acute BCCI-ian Cyber Diarrhoea for the uninitiated - may have resurfaced at an appropriate time. In simple non-medical words, an invitation email for 'f1 Indian Cricket' may have customarily got leaked and ended up in mailboxes of an interesting cross section of cricket folk across the world.A decade or two will surely pass before that cyber disorder issue comes up on the BCCI uncles' list of 'drastic steps needed' areas.]


Here's a nice triplet of instances. Old Indian cricketer (& incisive cric blogger) V Ramnarayan, old Indian foe Allan Border [that constitutes another ABCD: Allan Border's Cricket Discussion] and old Indian friend John Wright have all come out with their perceptions of the do's and don'ts facing Indian cricket. These pieces are all roadmaps for Indian cricket circa 2007 with a surprising similarity of style. The likeness of presentation is all the more striking as they are coming from three dissimilar people separated in time, space and upbringing.

These articles, read over the past week or so, evoke a deep sadness in me. Those pieces incite a feeling that my dear IC is in the ICU and a set of three doctors, doctors that we think are pretty dependable and without malice towards the patient, are dropping in uninvited from various corners of the world to offer their take on the drastic steps needed to resuscitate the ailing patient. All of this happens while the officially appointed internal medics mull over an action plan to get their patient out of the precarious position.

The unison in opinion that these docs have with each other and with the internal medics is desperately bad news for all ears aching like mine to pick up the smallest bit of good news on this patient for quite some time now.

Sometimes you have to smile to yourself when no one else allows you to. So until the day there is reason for genuine rejoice I take delight to imagine what this sick patient can do to her craft if her vigour, even in this condition, is what the world still seeks to draw from.