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 ]

ICC and PCB - The 'unfathomables'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: 2011 world cup, afridi, ban, icc, pakistan, reviews, selection

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:29 am | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: india, indian premier league, ipl 2010, selection, twenty20, twenty20 world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:47 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Rahul Dravid's selection just doesn't make sense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: 2009 champions trophy, champions trophy, dravid, gambhir, raina, rohit sharma, selection, squad

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:57 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

If it's a tour of Australia, there must be a selection controversy

Almost exactly four years ago, just before the Indian team left for a tour of Australia, Abhijit Kale was banned by the BCCI for attempting to bribe selectors for a place in the national team (or was it an India A side?).

This time around, with another tour of Australia coming up, another issue related to the selection committee has cropped up, this time it has to with the way Dilip Vengsarkar has been allegedly treated by BCCI administrators.

Vengsarkar has been in the news for the past month or so since quite a few BCCI officials have taken umbrage at him writing columns, and earning a living from them. This apparently violates the board's policy. The board then went one step further, putting out a list of do's and don't's, all of which were essentially to press home the fact that the BCCI executives and administrators were the bosses and not the selectors.

One of the directives, relating to being involved with player agents, is noteworthy, in that it seeks to eliminate any potential conflict of interest. Yet, it is also interesting to note that CricketNext reports that Niranjan Shah tried to get his son selected for an India A tour.

Jaydev Shah scored 255 runs from 11 first-class innings, 40 from 4 list-A innings and 86 from 4 domestic Twenty20 innings last season. The season before that was equally pathetic. He isn't a bowler either. So there's no evidence to suggest that he deserved an India A spot.

Clearly there's a conflict of interest here. The BCCI should ensure that none of its office bearers' sons/daughters/close relatives are playing for any of the first-class teams in India.

Getting back to Vengsarkar, he then promptly shot off an email to Sharad Pawar, which obviously got leaked again, just like emails tend to when it comes to BCCI matters.

The matter, at this point in time, seems to have been swept under the carpet. But I'm fairly sure Vengsarkar is just biding his time. BCCI officials have been very prompt in asking him to quit if he doesn't like the guidelines. It really is high time they got off the high horse and realized that they exist because of the game. The first thing that needs to change is the name of the board - just call it the Indian Cricket Board. Remove the Control!

But that's a bit too much to expect from a bunch of people who don't care if the Indian team plays Australia in a test match after one warm-up game. As if this wasn't shocking enough, there are indications that Cricket Australia agreed to a BCCI request to shorten a warm-up game to two days.

The game is against the Australian Capital Territory XI and there are two ways to look at it. There's not much cricketing benefit from playing an extra day against a side which plays various state 2nd XIs and so the team might as well proceed quickly to Perth, where they haven't played a test match for 15 years. The other way to look at it is that any sort of valuable match practice possible has been lost, and the packed itinerary is to blame. The series against Pakistan ends on December 12 and the first tour game in Australia is on December 20.

To make matters worse, at this point in time, it isn't even immediately apparent which quick bowlers will be touring Australia. If Zaheer, Munaf, RP Singh or Sreesanth aren't going to be fit, why bother turning up with Ishant, Irfan and Ranadeb Bose?!

Labels: australia, bcci, conflict of interest, ind v aus 2008, india, injury, scheduling, selection, selectors, sharad pawar, vengsarkar

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