Where is the IPL heading?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: auction, bcci, india, indian premier league, ipl 2011, lalit modi

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:57 pm | Sledge/Read 7 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

BCCI's planning for the 2011 World Cup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: 2011, 2011 world cup, bcci, india, selection

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:07 am | Sledge/Read 7 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: asian games, bcci, future tours programme, india, scheduling

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:35 am | Sledge/Read 10 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The skeletons tumble out of the BCCI closet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: asian games, bcci, conflict of interest, indian premier league, scheduling, sharad pawar

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:11 am | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

What is the point of this exercise, BCCI?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: bcci, indian premier league, ipl 2010

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:39 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Brett Lee retires, BCCI asks for a rule change

Yesterday, Brett Lee announced his retirement from test cricket, to focus on playing limited overs cricket (ODIs and T20 games). There's nothing novel about such an announcement. He's just following in the footsteps of others like Flintoff, Oram, Styris and Vaas. You could argue though that given Vaas hasn't been picked in any ODI or T20 game by Sri Lanka for over 6 months after he retired from tests, he is unlikely to make it to the 2011 World Cup as a Sri Lankan player.

I had pointed out when Flintoff, Oram, Styris and Vaas retired that cricket boards run a huge risk of many marquee names, especially quick bowlers and all-rounders, quitting test cricket. Will they wake up now and figure out how to optimally schedule tests, ODIs, T20 games, ICC events, bilateral & multi-lateral ODI series and T20 leagues like the IPL, Champions League, KFC Big Bash, Twenty20 Cup, etc.?

Lee's decision to retire was widely expected. He hasn't played a test since the series loss to South Africa at home. He didn't manage to last out the ODIs against India. He hasn't played a T20 game for Australia since August 2009.

Yesterday, Sachin Tendulkar became the first man to score a double-century in a ODI game, with Belinda Clark having been the first to reach the mark in a limited overs international. The logical question is if other cricketers will now start scoring 200s for fun.

It only took one effort of 400+ (Australia, at the Wanderers in 2006) and in the next 4 years, we've had 9 instances. It is quite likely that Sachin Tendulkar's achievement of scoring 200 will also fall in the next 1 year. After all, it wasn't too long ago that Herschelle Gibbs made 175 in 111 balls and Tillakaratne Dilshan made 160 in 124 balls.

In an unexpected development, it is learnt that the BCCI has approached the ICC with a proposal to limit the number of batsmen in an ODI innings to 7. While publicly, the BCCI claims to have done so to protect the ODI game and to reduce the imbalance between bat & ball, sources in the BCCI told this blogger that the main reason was the abject failure of India's bowlers after South Africa recovered from 180/7 (Jaipur) and 134/7 (Jaipur).

A few other occurences in the recent past have convinced the BCCI that getting the likes of Ashish Nehra, Sreesanth and Ishant Sharma to bowl well to tail-enders is really not worth the trouble. The better option is to ensure that they don't even bowl to #8-#11., thereby insuring against last-minute carnage by the batsmen.

Labels: 2006 champions trophy, bcci, icc, lee, retire, rules, tendulkar, test cricket

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:27 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Mahela: Kotla wasn't a fair wicket for one-day cricket

Mahela Jayawardene sounded very reasonable, it until he told Cricinfo that his team and the Indian team thought that the Kotla pitch was not a fair wicket to play one-day cricket.

I wonder what his opinion was about the Rajkot pitch where 820 runs were scored across 100 overs. Was that a "fair" wicket for one-day cricket? I'm totally on Jarrod Kimber's side when he writes "If these batsmen want to come out with two inches of unprotected space on their bodies, then they can take whatever comes at them".

The ICC's monitoring process is bound to kick in now since the assumption seems to be that all low-scoring pitches are sub-standard.

The Feroz Shah Kotla could be banned from hosting internationals for at least a year, although it is likely that the punishment could be more lenient considering this was the first adverse report by the ICC for a game played at the venue. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that previous ICC feedback implied that the ground conditions were poor.

Of course there was a risk of physical injury for batsmen yesterday. Of course that isn't fair to batsmen. But life isn't fair either, and I'm assuming all cricketers and cricket fans do agree that cricket mirrors life, to a large extent.

Don't bowlers risk physical injury and permanent mental scarring when they run in (some morons run in nearly 25 metres each ball) pointlessly, especially on hot sultry days? They put in their maximum effort, hoping that the batsman would defend the ball near his chest, only to see that it ended up at his knees and the ball ended up over mid-wicket.

So, who is responsible for the Kotla ODI being abandoned?
	BCCI
	DDCA (Delhi & District Cricket Association)
	ICC
	IPL
	Batsmen-friendly rules and committees

Labels: bcci, ddca, delhi, farce, icc, india, pitch, sri lanka

Thus spake Jagadish @ 5:10 pm | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

BCCI demands that ICC stop multi-team events

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!

Labels: 2009 champions trophy, australia, bcci, captaincy, champions league, champions trophy, dhoni, icc, india, spin

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:46 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Say no to drugs testing!

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?

Labels: bcci, drugs, icc, olympics, wada

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:41 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

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

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.

Labels: ashes, ashes 2009, bcci, book cricket, england, hall of fame, icc, lalit modi, retire, ten sports, tv rights, vaughan

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:23 pm | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

India to play 3 tests in New Zealand

After India cancelled the tour of Pakistan, the situation was such that the players would have had no international cricket between Dec 24 and Mar 3 and only some of them would have featured in the Ranji Trophy semi-finals and final. The BCCI was hit significantly by the cancellation of the tour in terms of revenues from TV and hence started talks with New Zealand's cricket board to include an extra test in that tour.

It is likely that the original request from the BCCI was for making it a 2-test 7-ODI series. I guess Cricket NZ shot down the idea. In any case, credit to both parties for the revised schedule.

The original schedule comprised of 1 T20 game, a warm-up game, 2 tests and 5 ODIs. Under the new schedule, India will play 2 T20 games, 3 tests and 5 ODIs, which means the warm-up game has been scrapped. I'm not too concerned about the absence of a warmup game since the bulk of the Indian team would have featured in the ODIs, the only exceptions being Dravid, Laxman & perhaps Mishra.

Labels: bcci, india, new zealand

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:18 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

England's test tour of India - should it go ahead or not?

Perhaps waiting for a few days after the terrorist attacks in Mumbai has helped me develop a better & clearer understanding of the implications, and the possible responses.

Soon after the attacks, the Twenty20 Champions League was cancelled. Then the BCCI announced that the remaining two one-dayers of the one-day series were off. As an aside, it is interesting though that had India won the series 7-0, it would have been the first ever time that a bilateral ODI series had that kind of result.

Interestingly, and perhaps disturbingly, the BCCI's press release on its website says that the last 2 ODIs have been postponed. Even more worrying is the fact that N Srinivasan, the treasurer said that the cancellation (or postponement?) of the 2 ODIs was done on the ECB's behalf. Why should the BCCI have waited until the ECB requested for it? Wasn't it bleedin' (pardon the insensitive pun) obvious that there was no way the ODI series would pan out as scheduled?

The second test, scheduled for the Brabourne Stadium at Mumbai, was moved to Chennai on the ECB's insistence for holding the game in a south Indian state.

Why wasn't Eden Gardens considered when it had last hosted a test a year ago? To what extent can the ECB dictate the choice of venues? I suppose the fact that among India's major cities, Chennai has not been impacted by terror attacks (so far, and touching wood as I type!) would have played a major role.

The way things stand now, England would be foolish to commit to a return in time for the tests, especially considering the first test is at Ahmedabad, where 17 were killed in July 2008. So, I don't really expect them to return for the test series unless the security folks give the venues a clean chit.

Should sport be used as a mechanism to heal wounds and ensure that civilians defeat the evil designs of terrorists? Is it the sportsman's duty to help with the process of healing, by entertaining?

Perhaps, to some extent. But the ones that play the sport are humans too. When the first reports of South Africa's players expressing a preference to go home came in, Ganesh wrote

The South African players, especially, seem to be afraid to stay in the island anymore and want to get back home which is completely understandable. We should realize that they are also humans and have their own families.

When South Africa did pack up and leave, I wrote

But human lives are far more important, more important than cricket. All this talk on the lines of "Blasts and terrorism are part of daily life. We ought not to be cowed down. The terrorists should not win. They won't target cricketers anyway" is just plain bull excreta. Even if blasts and terrorism are an everyday event, that does not mean cricketers, and indeed spectators, ought to invite trouble by playing games. The terrorists may not target cricketers explicitly. What if they hit the security folks who had the responsibility of guarding the cricketers? What if their aim missed and hit the cricket players' bus instead?

If England's players have even an iota of doubt about their safety in India, they aren't going to do justice to their their family, profession, their employers and other loved ones. If the security agencies give a go-ahead, individual preferences and choices must be factored in.

Also keep in mind the worries that India's players are likely to have. Sachin Tendulkar is apparently on the hit list of a few groups. The others are also likely to be extremely concerned for their safety. Playing international cricket now is probably the least of their priorities.

Not everyone is the same. Some are far more likely to prefer the comfort zone of their family & home. In such a situation, there's nothing wrong with it. Finding a slot for the test series or the T20 Champions League in the short-term future is not a big deal at all. It's just a sport, seen in perspective. Lance Klusener, if he indeed say it in the South African dressing room after he and Allan Donald had memorably cocked up at Edgbaston in the 1999 World Cup semi-final, wasn't too far off the mark in his assessment of the outcome of that game.

Vote in the poll.

Update: BCCI have now issued a revised schedule with Ahmedabad also not hosting a England Test this series. Looks like it would be Mohali & Chennai for the 2 Tests, although England haven't confirmed participation yet. This is baffling news, since Mohali had hosted a Test very recently, against Australia. Can someone remind the BCCI that only Ganguly retired and not his city?

Labels: bcci, ecb, eng v ind 2008, england, india, security, terrorism

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:04 am | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Cricket digs its own grave

Yesterday was a bad day if you were a fan of cricket, and wanted the game to survive. Funnily though, 8 out of the 10 test playing nations were involved in games yesterday and it should have been a moment of celebration, because its not something that happens too often.

Really, it should have been a fantastic sequence of games. Imagine someone in India would start watching the Trans-Tasman trophy test from 6 in the morning, switch to the England v India ODI at 9 am, then move on to the Zimbabwe-Sri Lanka ODI around 1 pm and then the Bangladesh-South Africa test at 2 pm. So basically there was cricket for something like 15 hours of the day.

The problem was that of the 4 games, 2 were guaranteed to be mismatches, and going by the past two one-dayers, the Eng-Ind ODI was also expected to be one. As it turned out, the NZ-Aus test and the Eng-Ind ODI were really enthralling to follow, while even a passionate fan of the game like me couldn't really bother about the remaining two games. Surely, that's not a good thing for cricket!

Zimbabwe collapsed from 124/3 in 27 overs to 127 all out in 31! Murali got 3 in an over, Mendis got 2 in an over. Bangladesh, after conceding 441 to South Africa, including a score of 299/1 at the end of the first day (after choosing to field first, no less, thus qualifying for a Cricket 24x7 captaincy clanger award!) were in danger of being dismissed for less than 100 and only managed to get 150 because of Mushfiqur Rahum & Shahadat Hossain. The big question was if Graeme Smith would take the huge risk and impose the follow-on!

As it turned out, while the on-field quality was poor in these two games, the other two interesting games showcased the worst of cricket's rules.

Let's start with the Australia v New Zealand test, where Daniel Vettori won the toss and sent Australia in despite the fact that the last time a visiting team won a test after sending Australia in was 1986!

Having batted for all of 20 balls, after coming in to bat at #5, Michael Clarke took a juice break. Why didn't the umpires step in and tell him to take his water break during the drinks or lunch interval? If the conditions are hot and humid, as they presumably were at the Gabba yesterday, why can't the umpires carry around a bottle or two of Gatorade (with ICC sponsor logo etc. on it) with them and get the players to take a swig whenever they feel thirsty? Instead, the 12th man or 13th man runs out during an break (in-between overs, or when a third umpire referral is pending, or when the ball is being retrieved/changed) and time is unnecessarily wasted waiting for the errand boy to get his fat arse off the field of play.

Then, after Clarke had finished his juice, it was ridiculous that New Zealand's bowlers & fielders hadn't yet gone back to their marks and were not ready to bowl. Australia were 55/3 at that stage. Any team that was desperate to make a mark would have been all set to have a go. An over or so later, Clarke got hit in the abdomen guard, and another bottle of juice was ferried out to him. That just proves my point - the umpires should keep a bottle or two with them so that the 12th man doesn't have to run these stupid errands.

It isn't just test cricket that showed the rules to be silly yesterday. The India v England one-dayer first was truncated to 49 overs a side even though play started 45 minutes late. What's the big deal about 1 over a side being reduced? That's like hardly 4-5 minutes each innings. So they really could have just gone in with a 50-over game.

Then, as it happened during the England v New Zealand one-dayer earlier this year, although play was lost, the lunch break was barely impacted. It's not as though the players have a seven course meal at lunch. In any case, only 13-15 out of the 22 players, and the umpires, will have to get their lunch done rapidly. If the ostrich ICC doesn't want to change the rules on truncating the lunch break, at least the umpires could be given the authority to accept a request from both captains to shorten the break!

The other problem was that the floodlights couldn't be used. This is something that I wrote about after the India v Australia test at Bangalore. It is downright stupid to require both teams to agree on usage of floodlights. It should be the host association's responsibility to provide good quality floodlights. The ICC must lay down & enforce the rule that all grounds which host tests, one-day internationals and Twenty20 internationals must have lights of an acceptable quality. If the lights are non-existent or aren't good enough, then the venue gets struck off until the lights are fixed. If the game is impacted due to bad light, (the floodlights don't work at all or don't provide quality & sufficient lighting) then the game is awarded to the visiting team. If the venue is a neutral one, the game is a draw/no-result.

Lastly, how on earth does Tony Greig manage to get away with commenting on a test match when he's so completely involved (on the executive board, no less!) with the ICL? Surely the BCCI has been sleeping. If it can prevent players from signing up for counties that have ICL players on the roster, it can also put pressure on boards to ensure that the broadcasters and telecasters don't have anyone associated with the Indian Cricket League on their list of commentators or anchors!

Labels: bad light, bcci, cricket 24x7 captaincy clanger, eng v ind 2008, icc, lunch, minnows, ostrich, playing conditions

Thus spake Jagadish @ 5:36 am | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Why is the England v India series a 7 ODI 2 test series?

Rob Steen's comment piece on Cricinfo a couple of days ago titled "The battle of the boards" listed out multiple instances of the ECB and the BCCI being on opposite sides, determined to not concede an inch. He quoted the chief executive of the Professional Cricketers Association, Sean Morris, as claiming that the BCCI had devalued the forthcoming series by making it a two-test series.

Now, I haven't been able to find any reference online to such a quote by Sean Morris. So I'll take it with a pinch of salt. Yet, I do foresee the possibility that several writers, especially from the English media, will harp on about how the BCCI had got its way with playing only 2 tests since it didn't care for test cricket.

Let's just go through a sequence of events, beginning from the early part of this century. The 1990s don't really matter, because Indian cricket was in a totally different shape then.

2001/2: When the scheduling for England's tour to India in 2001/02 and India's tour of England in 2002 was being worked out, the ECB wanted the Indian team to play 4 tests (originally a 3 test series) and the NatWest Series. In return, the BCCI requested for an extra 7th ODI, which was agreed to.

2002: India play 4 tests & 7 ODIs in the NatWest Series in England.

2004: The Indian team went to England to play in the 2004 ICC Champions Trophy. Before that, the ECB got the BCCI to agree to playing a 3 ODI NatWest Challenge, with the obvious intention of capitalizing on the Indian diaspora turning up in droves to watch their favourite cricketers.

2006: The BCCI got the ECB to agree to a 3 test 7 ODI series obviously since the ECB had got its pound of flesh in 2004.

2007: BCCI returned the favour and India played 3 tests and 7 ODIs in England.

2008: The series would have been a 3 test 7 ODI series, since it appears to be the agreement that the BCCI and ECB have reached. But England's players wanted to be home for Christmas. So the series became 2 tests.

What Sean Morris, and indeed anyone else who blames the BCCI for making it a 2 test series, is implying that it is ok for the ECB to make money when India tours, but the BCCI stands guilty of devaluing test cricket, when the fact is that England's players didn't want to stay on!

Labels: bcci, ecb, eng v ind 2008, england, scheduling

Thus spake Jagadish @ 9:02 am | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Evil Indian ploy to win series 1-0

Name the banned Gautam Gambhir in the playing XI for Nagpur. Would Chris Broad, the match referee, rule that the game was conceded to Australia? He could do this under Law 21.3 of the test match playing conditions, since India were not supposed to pick Gambhir, and the BCCI insisted on picking him. If he did that, the BCCI could say that it objected to him being a match referee, in which case, the status of the game would not be a test match. Recall what happened in November 2001 when the BCCI and the UCBSA rejected Mike Denness' role as match referee.

Under such circumstances, India would win the series 1-0. If Broad himself decided that since the BCCI was hell-bent on picking Gambhir, and he ruled that the game was not a test match, India would still be the winner.

In the ICC Code of conduct for players & officials, I find only one reference (K-5, page 22) to the player's home board needing to ensure that the player is not selected. But that is in the context of a player not paying the financial penalty imposed.

If any Player or Team Official fails to pay any fine imposed upon him within the prescribed period that Player’s or Team Official’s Home Board shall ensure that the relevant Player shall not be selected for any Test Match, ODI Match or Tour Matches until the fine is paid and that any Team Official shall not be entitled to undertake any of their duties in so far as the same relates to any Test Match, ODI Match or Tour Matches.

Remember that Justice Sachs' decision is final and binding as per the appeals procedure (Clause H-11-k). What recourse does the ICC, or indeed the opposing team, have if the BCCI decided that since it didn't agree with the decision, Gambhir was going to play?

If someone can go through the document and point out an section of the code specifying that it is the home board's responsibility to not pick a player who has been banned (although you could question that it is such an obvious thing to assume!), and that the game would be considered as a forfeit, that'd be great!

Labels: aus v ind 2008, ban, bcci, gambhir, icc, india, match referee

Thus spake Jagadish @ 8:36 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

ICL, IPL, Bangladesh cricket and a BCCI website!

A fortnight or so ago, six Bangladesh cricketers sent in their resignation letters to the Bangladesh Cricket Board, to join the Indian Cricket League and play as a team called the 'Dhaka Warriors'.

The board responded by banning them for 10 years. But it was pretty obvious that Bangladesh cricket was in serious shit. Big brother, the BCCI, stepped in to help out. How did the BCCI help? It offered to include more Bangladesh players in the 2009 edition of the Indian Premier League and a Bangladesh team in the 2010 Twenty20 Champions League.

The BCCI's decision is so ridiculous. The Bangladesh Cricket Board does not benefit when its players play in the IPL, or the Champions League. The players do. At this point in time, no cricket board gets any payment for releasing its contracted players for the IPL.

Perhaps the better option for the BCB would have been to get the BCCI to agree to a rapidly scheduled home-and-away test & ODI series. Bangladesh was to have played tests in India in April 2005. That then got postponed, so often, that no-one seriously expects it to materialize.

In a path-breaking, breathtaking and least-anticipated development last week, the BCCI launched its website (www.bcci.tv) over a decade ahead of schedule. One of the first few decisions taken by the outgoing BCCI President, Mr. Sharad Pawar, was to target a 2020 launch of the BCCI's own website.

It's perhaps apt to mention though that during the 2006 edition of the ICC Champions Trophy, you could buy tickets on www.bcci.tv. After that tournament, the site lay dormant, until it sprung to life over the weekend!

Amazingly enough, it even has RSS feeds for press releases and cricket news!

Labels: bangladesh, bcci, india, indian cricket league, indian premier league, ipl 2009, twenty20, website

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:55 am | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

A clear-cut case of 'restraint of trade'

The cheap fight between the BCCI and the Indian Cricket League has now plunged to new depths.

The BCCI today announced that India's contracted players would not be allowed to play in the English domestic season if the side they were representing had ICL players in it.

The ECB had initially followed the BCCI's diktat and banned ICL players from playing in the English domestic season. But just over 2 months ago, three South African players won an appeal and they were ruled eligible to play for their counties. The ECB's requirement was that players' home national cricket boards provide permission in the form of a 'No Objection Certificate'. Andrew Hall, Justin Kemp & Johan van der Wath did not get the NOC and were not allowed to register.

In the case that Kerry Packer filed against the ICC and TCCB in 1977, Justice Slade ruled in favour of Kerry Packer & his motley crew. He said "A professional cricketer needs to make his living as much as any other professional man."

In the light of that judgement, it seems to me that preventing Piyush Chawla, Ajit Agarkar and VVS Laxman from playing for county sides just because those sides have ICL players in them is a clear-cut case of 'restraint of trade'. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says (Article 23) "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."

I really hope someone forces the BCCI to quit the hallucination drugs and get back to reality. Today, cricketers are stopped from playing for other teams because those teams have ICL players. Tomorrow, will they be asked to stop staying in touch with those friends who've played in the ICL? After that, will the records of the ICL players be deleted?

If you do have an opinion, leave a comment and also vote in the poll.

Labels: bcci, ecb, indian cricket league, restraint of trade, twenty20

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:29 am | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Proposed schedule for England tour of North, West, Central & East India

The ECB announced that the BCCI had sent the proposed itinerary for England's tour India north of the Vindhyas later this year.

The ECB is totally peeved about the fact that 7 of the 9 international games are at smaller cities like Rajkot, Indore, Kanpur, Jamshedpur, Cuttack, Guwahati & Ahmedabad (Delhi and Mumbai host one game each). While they may be justified in their concern for the Barmy Army not watching cricket at other main cricketing centres like Bangalore, Chennai & Kolkota, the BCCI will obviously point out that the rotation policy, based on which games are allotted to various cities/grounds, has resulted in this situation.

The 61 ODIs that have been played in India over the last 3 years have been hosted at 25 different grounds. By and large, the rotation policy has been adhered to. There is the odd exception here and there for political administrative reasons, quite a few during the 2006 ICC Champions Trophy because of the ICC's ground-advertising restrictions.

There's no way a game in Chennai would have made sense. The tour is in November and Chennai's "rainy season", officially, is between October & December. You'd end up with 5 mm of rain in those 3 months, but it's still the rainy season! The last few internationals played in those 3 months have all been affected by rain: a test v Sri Lanka in 2005, an ODI v South Africa in 2005, a potential classic v Australia in 2004 and an ODI v New Zealand in 2003.

But yes, some aspects of the schedule are definitely hard to understand. Such as not a single game being scheduled anywhere in South India. Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala are typically exempt from the North-East monsoon. So I don't understand why they've been left off the schedule altogether. There's also a distinct West Zone bias to the schedule: 3 games (1 test) in Mumbai, 3 games in Gujarat (Rajkot, Baroda & Ahmedabad). That's hardly surprising given where Sharad Pawar, Ratnakar Shetty and Niranjan Shah are from.

Labels: bcci, ecb, eng v ind 2008, england, india, scheduling

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:37 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Squad announcements: India's tour to Sri Lanka & Champions Trophy

The BCCI announced the Indian squad for the test series in Sri Lanka today. Since Dhoni had opted out, citing overwork, there is no designated vice-captain. I guess Sehwag, who was sacked from the role during India's tour of South Africa in 2006, will step in when required. In any case, Kumble has more than enough people to chip in with suggestions (Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Laxman, Zaheer & Harbhajan).

Dhoni had opted out since he was obviously tired, stressed & probably getting burnt out from having played out his multiple roles as captain, wicket-keeper & star batsman almost continously for over a year without ever getting a chance to sit out a game or two. He has done the right thing. On his personal website, Gary Kirsten touched upon the necessity to give Dhoni a break.

Mahendra Singh Dhoni is probably the most obvious example of a man needing a break. In my own experience, by the time a player is feeling tired or 'flat', it is already too late to rest him. The rest needs to happen before fatigue sets in. MS is a brilliant cricketer and the sort of man who is happy to play every game, but he knows that it is not practical. Fatigue can lead to loss of form as well as injuries, both of which can adversely affect a player's long-term career.

Like I've mentioned before, the responsibility and right ultimately rests with the player. Unless the players have a mechanism to be actively consulted when the board draws up schedules, they have to play when required to.

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.

Thankfully, the selectors have lost patience with Yuvraj. After his blazing century against Pakistan at Bangalore, he has been quite hopeless. He'll keep saying all the right things about the need to make an impact in test cricket, but personally, despite the fact that he is only 27, I think he should just stick to limited overs cricket. I'm sure he'll do a very good job.

Presumably Dravid & Ganguly have been 'rested' for the ICC Champions Trophy later this year, since they don't feature in the list of 30 probables.

Labels: bcci, burnout, champions trophy, dhoni, fatigue, india, squad, sri lanka

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:34 am | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Bvute & Chingoka are right, let's focus on the cricketing aspects!

The ICC will today come to a decision over how to handle the current situation around Zimbabwe's status in international cricket. Last week,
I posted my views on the topic. They were primarily centred around Zimbabwe's cricketing credentials. I wrote:

Zimbabwe doesn't feature in the ICC test rankings since they haven't played a test for nearly three years now. The last time Zimbabwe won a ODI against major countries other than Bangladesh was in November 2007 (against West Indies). Before that, we go back to November 2003 (West Indies again!). They've been that pathetic.

Let's just give you some idea of how long ago they last played a test. That last test featured Sourav Ganguly as India's captain and Greg Chappell as India's coach. This was the test after the one where Ganguly revealed that Chappell had asked him to quit as captain. In 3 years, so much has changed: Ganguly was out of the side for over a year while Chappell resigned after the pathetic show at the 2007 World Cup.

Zimbabwe Cricket's Managing Director Ozias Bvute had questioned why only the ICC was discussing Zimbabwe when other sporting bodies were not. He pointed out that Zimbabwe was playing in a World Cup qualifier and a Zimbabwean swimmer had won gold medals and broken world records at the World Championship. The chairman of Zimbabwe Cricket, Peter Chingoka, claimed that a ban on Zimbabwe would be for political reasons and not cricketing. Like his MD, he also pointed out that there were no moves to ban Zimbabwe from other international sporting events or organisations.

Perhaps therein lies the problem: Zimbabwe have a FIFA ranking of 82 out of ~ 200 countries while Kirsty Coventry obviously can swim. Zimbabwe's footballers and swimmers are not banned from international competition because they are competitive. The time has come to rethink about Zimbabwe's status in international cricket because the cricketers are not competitive, as has already been pointed out last week.

Mike Atherton too says the same thing. Since the 2003 World Cup, which is about the time after which Zimbabwe's cricket started going into free-fall, Zimbabwe have tied with Ireland, lost twice to Kenya and 15 times to Bangladesh, without even going into their performances against better opponents.

Zimbabwe's cricketing credentials are surely poor enough to stop all debate about whether the ZCU should continue to be a full member of the ICC. I suspect the compromise reached, which will ensure that the BCCI gets 1 vote from Zimbabwe, is that Zimbabwe will continue as a full member but without the same amount of monetary assistance from the ICC. The BCCI will do its bit by hosting Zimbabwe in the Duleep and Deodhar Trophies. Other sub-continental boards will also do similar things.

PS: What on earth has happened to Irfan Pathan?! Just six months ago, he was man of the match, winning a test match for India at Perth. He did a decent job in the Commonwealth Bank triangular series as well. He picked up 15 wickets @ 23 each with a good economy rate of 6.6 in the IPL. Now, his bowling has lost all sting and he's repeatedly getting carted around. Is it because of the wickets he's bowling on? Or has he not completely recovered from the injury?

Yesterday against Pakistan, India's opening bowling combination (Pathan & Praveen Kumar) was probably its friendliest & most non-threatening since Abid Ali & Eknath Solkar did the job in India's first ever ODI.

Labels: bcci, icc, irfan pathan, zimbabwe

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:19 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]