Those who get the short shrift at the World Cup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: 2011, 2011 world cup, capacity, facilities, icc, minnows, stadiums

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:35 am | Sledge/Read 31 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 ]

More torture for ODI cricket watchers

The 2007 World Cup lasted nearly 1.5 months and involved 16 teams. It is common knowledge and opinion that the tournament was really and got boring far too often for one that was touted as the ICC's flagship tournament.

At least the ICC is doing something about the format for the 2011 World Cup.

But when it comes to a 'much-ado-about-nothing' tournament, nothing beats the Asia Cup. Beginning tomorrow, the cream of Asian cricket (6 teams) will feature in the tournament, over a span of 2 weeks. The tournament is eagerly expected to be very tightly fought with Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and UAE in one group while Hong Kong, India and Pakistan are in the other group.

I'm fairly sure that the organizers reckon that there is always the likelihood of an upset by UAE or Hong Kong which could throw up a surprise 2nd round lineup. But I'd reckon the chances of that are lesser than the probability that the ICC will wake up to its responsibilities, or indeed the likelihood that someone will clarify why the BCCI announces decisions on ICL players playing in the Champions League when Cricket Australia is supposed to be drawing up the rules!

Instead of getting the tournament done and dusted with as soon as possible by having the top 2 qualifiers from each group play in the semi finals, spectators & viewers will undergo the torture of watching these 4 teams play in a league. The schedule doesn't make it immediately apparent, but it seems like the top 2 from that league play in the final.

It gets even more sickening when you realize that 3 out of the 6 teams were playing in a triangular barely 10 days ago. So the organizers could have just had one single tournament, the Asia Cup, and donated some money to the Bangladesh Cricket Board instead of having the triangular tournament there!

Yet another case of ODI cricket digging its own grave.

Labels: asia cup, bangladesh, hong kong, india, minnows, odi, pakistan, scheduling, sri lanka, uae

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:50 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

2007: The year of the minnows?

For the first time in over five seasons, 2001/02 being the last time this happened, Mumbai will not feature in the semi-final stage of the Ranji Trophy. Saurashtra will join Delhi, Baroda & Uttar Pradesh in the semi-final lineup.

I've always felt that the Ranji Trophy really needed to be fine-tuned to ensure that states didn't have multiple teams representing the region (Baroda, Saurashtra & Gujarat; Vidarbha, Maharashtra & Mumbai; Andhra & Hyderabad) as well as a revamp required to exclude the likes of Services, Tripura, Himachal Pradesh, Saurashtra, Jammu & Kashmir and Goa purely on the basis of their past performance over the 70+ year history of the Ranji Trophy. So, Saurashtra's success is a surprise to me, and makes me eat humble pie.

Perhaps 2007 is the year of the 'minnow': Saurashtra reaching the semi-final of the Ranji Trophy (who knows, what'd happen next!), Tasmania reached the Pura Cup final, Durham fell short of eventual County Championship winners Sussex by just 4.5 points, Zimbabwe beat Australia at Twenty20 while Ireland & Bangladesh created major upsets at the World Cup.

Labels: australia, bangladesh, baroda, durham, india, ireland, minnows, mumbai, ranji trophy, saurashtra, semi-final, sussex, tasmania, twenty20 world cup, uttar pradesh, zimbabwe

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:02 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

I thought he was supposed to be intelligent

Kumar Sangakkara:

Having picked up two valuable points against India, we realistically need to win three out of our six matches to qualify for the semi-finals.

Kumar, India are out. Your two 'valuable' points were Bangladesh, the pseudo-minnow. If everyone else (excluding Ireland) beats Bangladesh (which, although not certain, is more likely than the same happening to India), then those points will be effectively worthless. I want Sri Lanka to meet the West Indies in the final; don't tell me you're going to turn in to South Africa.

Labels: 2007 world cup, minnows, sangakkara, sri lanka, world cup

Thus spake Geoff @ 11:02 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Éireann go Bràch!

The minnows at this World Cup have so taken one of two options:

• Capitulate miserably, for (near-)record margins. See Bermuda, Scotland, and the Netherlands.
  
• Fight hard and show more nous and spirit than some would expect, giving themselves a real chance of progressing. See Kenya, Bangladesh, and, most thrillingly, Ireland.

Listening to Ireland beat Pakistan was nerve-wracking beyond belief, and I'm not Irish or Pakistani. Ireland needed one an over, with the field up, and still they didn't score many. But Pakistan gave them crucial runs in extras, which is absolutely unforgivable. There's no doubt that Shoaib and Asif would have ripped Ireland to shreds, had they been drug-free. Their target was almost exactly the same as England's win at Trent Bridge, and this again featured an heroic partnership for the eight wicket, even if it was less than 21.

Ignoring more ties, Ireland can only fail to go through if Zimbabwe don't lose their remaining two matches. Pakistan can only go through if Zimbabwe and Ireland beat West Indies, and they beat Zimbabwe. West Indies should go through as group winners, with Ireland second.

It's been a bad day for other 'foreign' sports in Ireland. The rugby team were very unfortunate to finish second in the Six Nations, and their ex-captain, now a manager, slated the recent football squad selection. Cricket isn't even Ireland's fourth sport. By participation, it falls behind hurling, Gaelic football, rugby union, football, and maybe even hockey. I'm lost for words to describe the scale of this achievement.

By contrast, Bangladesh beating India seems also a normal result. Assuming that the subcontinental teams in that group all thump Bermuda, it could well come down to the games against each other - and possibly even run-rate. One thing's almost certain, though: Asia and Europe will both lose two of their four participants after the group stages, with the other two progressing.

Labels: 2007 world cup, ireland, minnows, pakistan, upset, world cup

Thus spake Geoff @ 4:32 am | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Minnow words

'Minnow' is a term used to refer to small fish. In sport, it also refers to small/underdog teams who're competing with established giants.

At this World Cup, although Geoff had England in his list of ODI 'minnows', the minnow teams are (in alphabetical order): Bangladesh (despite wins against Sri Lanka, Australia and India in the last 2.5 years), Bermuda, Canada, Ireland, Kenya, Netherlands, Scotland and Zimbabwe.

Ergo, half of the teams in this World Cup count as minnows. Australia's thrashing of Scotland and Sri Lanka doing the same to Bermuda will undoubtedly get people asking the ICC more questions about why these countries are playing at the World Cup. Like Stuart pointed out, a close game between the minnow was realistically the only way there could be some interest in a game, say between Ireland and Zimbabwe.

This discussion on minnow teams is interesting and it comes at a time when Tasmania, who topped the points table in this season's Pura Cup, find themselves in the Pura Cup final, against New South Wales, starting next week.

If Australia's cricket administrators had stuck to their stand and not included Tasmania in the domestic competition at all, or had included it say in the 1990s rather than in 1977/78, we may not have seen the emergence of the likes of David Boon or boring run-machine Ricky Ponting.

Ponting ought to realize that Tasmania was a minnow too. He spoke out against minnow teams for this World Cup and also during the 2004 ICC Champions Trophy. To be fair to him, he does have a point. The ICC gives these teams a series of big games once in a couple of years (at the ICC Champions Trophy and at the World Cup). There's no doubt that these minnow teams feel hopelessly out of depth in such events. The better way to get these teams to improve their standards are to first make them play more games with each other (which the ICC is doing) and to have them play against at least one major team on an annual basis, so that by the time they get to a major ICC tournament, they've played against at least some of the major teams at least once.

In other minnow news, there seems to be dissent in the English ranks. When England were 4-0 down against India last year, Hoggard commented that he'd rather take a 5-fer in an Ashes win than a 5-fer in a World Cup win. Of course, they were his views. Michael Vaughan though seemed to offer a different take now that the Ashes were lost 5-0. He said

I guess winning the tournament, with the relative inexperience of our bowling attack and where we've been in one-day cricket recently, would be a bigger achievement than winning the Ashes.

The general rule of thumb, by the way, is that England always have an inexperienced bowling attack. Find me one series in the last couple of years where England's captain/coach haven't been quoted as saying their bowling was inexperienced. I'm fairly sure they said it before the 2005 Ashes too.

Back to what Vaughan said though. He's obviously saying that he'd be happier with winning a World Cup (with this team) than the Ashes.

Labels: 2007 world cup, australia, bangladesh, bermuda, canada, england, holland, kenya, minnows, netherlands, ponting, scotland, tasmania, vaughan, world cup, zimbabwe

Thus spake Jagadish @ 10:02 am | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]