Twenty20 beats Tests and ODIs hollow

The first ever test match, in 1877 was not recognized as the inaugural test until a few years later.

The first ever one-day international, in 1971 was not recognized as the inaugural ODI until a few months later.

In contrast, when Australia played New Zealand in February 2005, everyone already knew it was the first Twenty20 international!

Labels: first test, odi, test cricket, twenty20

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:32 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 ]

A strong link between the IPL and the T20 World Cup

Based on statistical evidence^*, Mumbai or Bangalore will win the IPL and 11 out of the 16 teams playing in the T20 World Cup have no chance of winning the World Cup.

Here're the damning statistics:

• Mumbai or Bangalore will win the 2010 IPL tournament. The previous 2 editions have been won by Jaipur (league topper) and Hyderabad (4th on the league table).
  
• The only sides with a reasonable chance of success at the T20 World Cup are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ireland, Pakistan and Zimbabwe. The World Cup winning side has never included even a single player who played in the preceding IPL tournament.
  
• Based on current evidence from IPL tournaments preceding a T20 World Cup (sample size: 1), the top 2 run-getters are usually not good enough (or too old) to even feature in their national side's squad. So, the only consequence of Suresh Raina and Rohit Sharma hitting a real purple (orange?) patch is that they will eventually not play at the 2010 T20 World Cup. The only other real contenders are Herschelle Gibbs and Mahendra Singh Dhoni, but they'd need to score something like 300+ runs across 2 innings to race to the top of the 2010 IPL run-getters list.
  
• 3 out of the top 5 wicket-takers at an IPL event played in a T20 World Cup that immediately followed. Hence, at least one out of Pragyan Ojha, Amit Mishra and Irfan Pathan will definitely be called up to play at the World Cup. The first one to have a confirmed ticket booking on a trans-Pacific flight, or willing to travel by road, will get the nod.
  
• West Indies will continue a rich tradition of the hosts (1996 World Cup and 2002 Champions Trophy being examples) never winning a 'World Cup' like event. In much the same manner that the 'home' team has never won an IPL to date.

* - All data is valid as of before the first semi-final of the 2010 IPL event

Labels: indian premier league, ipl 2010, prediction, statistic, twenty20, twenty20 world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:39 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Choking at the IPL

Everytime I see a team screw up a chase at the IPL, I wonder what is it that causes batsmen to choke in a T20 chase.

To a large extent, it is because of the huge pressure on batsmen to succeed. Like several worthy commentators have pointed out, the bowler is really under no real pressure. More often than not, he expects to be tonked around and is reconciled to conceding 8-9 runs an over with the hope of picking up at least 1 top order wicket.

However, a top order batsman is expected to smack it around at a strike rate of at least 150. Every dot ball increases the pressure. A batting effort of 30 in 20 balls with 5x4 and 1x6 looks excellent. Except that the batsman actually scored only 4 runs off the 14 balls that he didn't hit a boundary. This potentially means he had at least 10 dot balls, i.e. he wasted 70% of the balls he faced.

Let's define the set of circumstances that describe how a team chokes while chasing.

• The score being chased isn't ridiculously high (e.g. in excess of 180)
  
• The team is at a fairly comfortable position halfway through the chase (e.g. a required run rate of 9-10 with 7-8 wickets in hand)
  
• The team is fairly well placed with 5 overs to go (e.g. a required run rate of 11-12 with 5 wickets in hand)

In the 2008 IPL tournament, there were 11 such games. In 2009, the number was 13. So far, in 2010, there have been 7 instances of a chasing team 'choking'. It seems quite likely, given there are another 19 games to go, that we'll end up with a similar number of chokes this year as well. Maybe there's a better way to force batsman into taking more responsibility to finish off games - like we wrote over 5 years ago about Twenty20

I think one option would be to have Twenty-20 games with 11 players but only six are allowed to bat, not all eleven.

The main problem that the IPL will face is the number of mismatches. This year alone, there have been at least 20 games where the result was known before the last over of the game started. Somehow, winning margins of 20+ runs, 7 wkts etc. don't seem right for this truncated format. If we extrapolate a winning margin of 20+ runs (say chasing 180) into the 50 over game, it amounts to something like scoring 280 when the target was 320 - a sound thrashing. The debate over which team will lose the most number of games is over. Mohali has lost 8, and have 3 more to play. This means they could end up with 11 losses (from 14 games). Hyderabad is the only other team that could get to 10 (won 4, lost 6 with 4 games to go).

Whoever voted for the Mohali franchise wins themselves a gift voucher for a 2 week fitness programme to be conducted by Yuvraj Singh, Yusuf Abdulla and Ramesh Powar. Sreesanth will be a special guest and he will conduct aerobics sessions for 2 days. VLCC is one of the team sponsors.

In other news, I find it baffling that the various commentators, ex-cricketers, administrators, etc. who protested against the absence of any bids for Pakistani players during the last IPL auction have missed out one very obvious fact - Sri Lankan cricketers are being sidelined at IPL 2010.

The Sri Lankan players in this tournament are Murali, Thushara, Perera, Vaas, Maharoof, Dilshan, Jayawardene, Sangakkara, Mathews, Mendis, Jayasuriya and Malinga. All teams have played 10 games by now. Only Murali, Maharoof, Sangakkara, Jayawardene, Mathews and Malinga have played 6 or more games. Chaps like Dilshan, Vaas, Mendis and Jayasuriya have been sidelined with no-one protesting!

To paraphrase Lord Tennyson, is it better to have been picked and left out than not to have been picked at all?

Labels: indian premier league, ipl 2010, twenty20

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:48 am | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

IPL 2010 semi-final prediction

We're pretty much at the half-way stage of the league round of the 2010 IPL. At this point in time, Mumbai, with 6 wins from 7 games is the runaway leader, and has definitely sewn up a semi-final slot.

The remaining 3 are the tough ones to predict. In 2008, 7 wins was enough for Delhi to sneak into the semis ahead of Mumbai. In 2009, Hyderabad sneaked in ahead of Mohali though both had 7 wins.

So it is fair to say that 7 wins out of the 14 games (i.e. winning 50% of the games) should be sufficient. Bangalore, Jaipur and Delhi have 4 wins. Hyderabad and Kolkata have 3 wins. Chennai has 2 and Mohali has 1.

That said, momentum is a huge factor, and teams can get going with just 2-3 wins in a row.

The arrival of players from Australia, England and New Zealand will be a significant factor. Which teams are likely to benefit?

Bangalore: Pietersen, Steven Smith and Ross Taylor are the new arrivals. Bangalore's batting has been awesome, especially their top 3-4. But Kohli, Dravid, White & Morgan have been untested and with Pietersen & Taylor joining, this would mean Morgan and possibly White being left out.

Chennai: Hussey and Ntini are the new arrivals, with Ntini returning from injury. They should really have found some hospital as a sponsor given how much they've invested in Flintoff, Oram and Ntini. The bowling leaks far too many runs, and Ntini won't actually change the status quo.

Delhi: Daniel Vettori. This could mean Mishra and Vettori bowling in tandem. So unless Maharoof has a couple of excellent games, he'll be sitting out.

Hyderabad: No new arrivals.

Jaipur: No new arrivals.

Kolkata: McCullum. Their batting has really been pathetic, clicking twice and their highest total is only 180-odd. So his entry will hopefully result in some better performances in the first 5-10 overs.

Mohali: No new arrivals - Hopes is injured.

Mumbai: No new arrivals.

Given the influx, it is quite possible that Bangalore and Kolkata will make it to the semi-finals along with Mumbai provided Kolkata's bowlers learn something from Wasim. Between Delhi and Hyderabad, I'd go for Delhi because their bowling is better than Hyderabad's.

So the semi-final lineup will be Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi and Kolkata (in order of points from the league stage).

Labels: indian premier league, ipl 2010, prediction, twenty20

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:30 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Last hurrah for quite a few players at the 2010 IPL?

When the Indian Premier League started in 2008, the likes of Hayden, Gilchrist, Kumble, Ganguly, Tendulkar, Dravid, Murali, etc. were eagerly sought after for being famous [then] current international cricketers. Warne had only recently retired.

In 2011, there will be a new fresh player auction and it is quite likely that the likes of Hayden, Gilchrist, Kumble, Warne, Murali and Ganguly would not be purchased at the auction, especially if they don't perform too well in this year's tournament.

While a Kolkata Knight Riders side sans Sourav Ganguly (or indeed a Rajasthan Royals minus Shane Warne) seems unthinkable, the whole point of organizing a tournament on this scale, with title sponsorship sold for 5 years, mobile rights sold for 8 years and TV broadcast rights sold for 10 years, is to ensure that the tournament outlasts individuals.

Hopefully from next year, the IPL will trim down the number of games by splitting the 10 teams into 2 groups. A 45 day tournament to decide the best T20 side from among 8 is around 15-20 days too long! Having 2 groups, and sticking to the current play-each-other-home-and-away formula would mean a total of 44 games (20 league games per group, 2 semis, 1 wooden spoon game and 1 final) and we could be done with the tournament a month!

The quality of cricket so far has been excellent. While seamers have actually made a mark (Vaas, Angelo Mathews, Malinga and Sreesanth), they'll find it tougher as the pitches ease out over the next 40 days. The fielding has largely been really good and all evidence points to R Sathish as being one of the fielding stars of the tournament. For further evidence of his skills, see one of his catches in the 2008 Indian Cricket League tournament.

While we're at it, why don't you take a shot at who will lose the most matches at the 2010 IPL?

	Bangalore Royal Challengers
	Chennai Super Kings
	Deccan Chargers
	Delhi Daredevils
	Kings XI Punjab
	Kolkata Knight Riders
	Mumbai Indians
	Rajasthan Royals

Labels: fielding, indian premier league, ipl 2010, twenty20

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:55 am | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Are 50-over ODIs in danger actually?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: burnout, fatigue, future, odi, prediction, test cricket, twenty20

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:00 am | Sledge/Read 5 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Could retainerships in Twenty20 leagues prevent premature retirements?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Given all these assumptions, how do we best balance the self-interests of the players and the administrators? The combination of the last two factors hugely influences a player's decision to quit playing test cricket and free up that time to play more and more Twenty20, including at events like the IPL, Champions League, etc. Adam Gilchrist was largely spot-on in the talk he gave as part of the 2009 Cowdrey Spirit of Cricket Lecture (transcript & video) when he said:

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

Let's leave aside for a moment the reality that Gilchrist contradicted himself in that statement. If the FTP was jettisoned, this would directly result in the likes of Bangladesh, West Indies & Zimbabwe playing less cricket against the 'stronger' (cricketing & economic factors) teams like Australia, South Africa, India & England. That would imply a reduction in the quality of cricket they're exposed to as well as revenue for boards. Do you seriously expect a cricketer from West Indies to say "No thanks, I'd rather play a test against Bangladesh because I'm so much in love with my administration"? Of course not! He's going to take the first opportunity available to throw away the WICB contract and play in one of the T20 leagues. So actually, by jettisoning the FTP, you could be increasing the risk that "a young first class cricketer in Bangladesh or the West Indies may have an entirely different set of playing priorities and goals to those youngsters playing in England or Australia". Having digressed, we now go back to the question - how to best balance the self-interests of the players and the administrators? Would a retainership-based payment structure work? What if the IPL (or other T20 leagues) split up the player's payment on a 60-40 basis, whereby 60% of the money they get is based on the number of games they play? But the remaining 40% is actually given to their cricket board. The cricket board could reduce the payment made to the player if he skips commitments (training, other contractual obligations, international games, etc.) because he gave a higher preference to playing in the T20 tournament. That 60-40 split is just a number. It could have been 50-50 or even 70-30, but the split-up needs to provide sufficient incentives & disincentives. Players who are not contracted to their boards would receive a pro-rata amount based on the number of games they played along with other contractual obligations fulfilled. This gives cricket boards enough incentive to release players for the tournament, knowing fully well that they will get something out of it if the players don't honour their side of the bargain. Players have an incentive to balance playing T20 leagues and international cricket. They don't fall under the 'daily wage worker' category, because really speaking when you're paid on a pro-rata basis, that is what you are! The tournament organizers & sponsors benefit since they know that cricket boards and players are both committed to the event because they both stand to gain. What are the potential problems associated with such a model? Manipulative boards (and there're plenty in that category) could reduce the payments on the basis of flimsy arguments. Players could opt out of board contracts, thereby removing the boards from the equation altogether and destabilizing international cricket. Tournament organizers & sponsors could offer incentives for players to give up their existing board contracts.

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

Labels: ashes, ashes 2009, burnout, champions league, colin cowdrey lecture, fatigue, flintoff, future tours programme, gilchrist, indian premier league, lord's, mcc, retire, spirit of cricket, twenty20, vaas

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:35 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The 2009 T20 World Cup - quite eventful

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

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

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

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

• India's exit at the Super Eight stage following losses to England (!!!) and West Indies. As is usual, multiple theories started doing the rounds, such as player fatigue, infighting, lack of skills and overly focussed on ad-shoots, to name a few. The truth, as usual, probably lies in-between everything else.
  
  Fatigue is an ever-present reality in modern sport, especially when new forms of the game keep getting invented and commercialized. Players are supposed to know when their minds and bodies can't take it any longer. If India's players want a break, they always have the option of opting out, preferably an entire series/tournament so that there's some stability in the squad. If they believed that the IPL was far too lucrative to miss out on, then they could have opted out from the ODIs in Sri Lanka or the games in New Zealand. They could have also opted out of the upcoming [pointless] ODIs in West Indies.
  
  The fact that they chose to not do any of the above indicates one of three things:
  1. They are not fatigued
     
  2. They are fatigued but fear that they'll lose their place to someone who steps in while they're away
     
  3. They are fatigued but are in a 'will play for money' mode
  
  Last May, when Pieter$en revealed that he was almost certainly signing up for an IPL team a few months after complaining about burnout, I wrote

  My take on there being too much cricket is that players always have the option of opting out of series. Typically the only players you'll see complaining about too much cricket are those that play the most often, and hence are the 'star' players. Surely they've performed well enough to risk skipping a game or a series and not face a piquant situation where they won't be included next time around. Also, if a sufficiently large number of players keep opting out of tournaments, cricket administrators will realize that they may be doing a lot of damage to the golden geese.

  Gary Kirsten, India's coach, had already voiced his excuse warning prior to the tournament that fatigue would be India's biggest challenge.
  
  He was only partly right. I don't think India failed to make it to the semi-finals because of fatigue. They failed to make it to the semis because they couldn't cope with West Indies and England using the short ball to great effect. They had no plan-B. They failed to make it to the semis because the batting order bizarrely got revamped. In 'easy' games against Bangladesh and Ireland, Dhoni came in at #3. But when it was time to face the music, Raina was sent in. Where's the leadership?
  
  
• If its Pakistan in England, there must be some dark arts involved. Vettori's "informal approach" to the match officials (the umpires and the match referee, presumably) and his post-match interview comments after New Zealand got their arse whipped by Pakistan were totally unwarranted. Umpires, especially those standing in Pakistan games, will undoubtedly be examining the ball far more closely after the events at The Oval in August 2006.
  
  
• Messrs. Duckworth & Lewis made an entry during this tournament after West Indies were set a ridiculously easy target of 80 from 9 overs, with the luxury of all 11 batsmen available to have a hit, against England. Frank Duckworth, who along with Tony Lewis, devised the system, has revealed plans to rework the numbers by incorporating Twenty20's duration and far more frenetic pace.
  
  I'd really love the rules to be changed to allow only 6 players to bat and allow a maximum of 6 overs per bowler. I really don't see the possibility of this happening (because of the stupid sanctity around 11 players making up a cricket team). So I'll probably settle for the D/L method tweak restricting the [additional] number of wickets that can be lost by the chasing team. Just compare a team knowing at the start of the innings that it has 10 wickets in hand to chase down 80 in 9 overs with the team knowing it only has [say] 6 wickets to play with.

Labels: ball tampering, burnout, duckworth-lewis method, england, fatigue, india, pakistan, sri lanka, twenty20, twenty20 world cup, vettori, women

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:17 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: india, indian premier league, rashid latif, twenty20, twenty20 world cup

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:10 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

What motivates them to play in the IPL?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: ganguly, gilchrist, hayden, indian premier league, ipl 2009, kumble, mcgrath, twenty20, warne

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:23 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: india, indian premier league, ipl 2009, twenty20

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:33 pm | Sledge/Read 14 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Hardly breaking news - Sunil Gavaskar faces conflict of interest situation yet again

An English newspaper editor once wrote about Sunil Gavaskar - "He has an inability to realize a conflict of interest even when it stared at him in the face". He keeps proving it right every now and then.

In early 2007, he and Ricky Ponting had a slanging match when Gavaskar commented on Australia's behaviour and in response Ponting pointed out that Gavaskar had no business talking of behaviour when he had famously dragged along Chetan Chauhan after being given out lbw off Lillee at the MCG in 1980.

Then last year he alleged at race being involved in Mike Procter's decision to ban Harbhajan for 3 tests after the events at Sydney. David Morgan, the then President-elect of the ICC, expressed concern over the conflict of interest (Gavaskar was ICC Cricket Committee chairman & cricket columnist/commentator). A couple of months later, there were rumours that Gavaskar would be asked to choose from one of his roles and in April of 2008, he resigned from his role as chairman of the ICC's Cricket Committee.

In a column published last weekend, he rubbished John Buchanan's idea of having multiple captains by wondering aloud why people even bothered listening to him. He pointed out that Buchanan had successfully got roles within the Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR) support staff for a lot of Queensland friends. He also generally rubbished Buchanan's coaching skills, qualifications & achievements.

Sunil Gavaskar is a member of the IPL's Governing Council. Thus, he really has no business passing judgement on the strategies and plans proposed or adopted by any of the teams that are playing in the tournament. If he isn't on the governing council, he is well justified in criticizing (or applauding) what the various teams do (or don't do). But since he is, surely it is a huge conflict of interest. If there was some decision that the IPL Governing Council needed to make regarding something related to KKR, that team would be be perfectly justified in demanding that Sunny recused himself from the proceedings.

Labels: conflict of interest, gavaskar, indian premier league, ipl 2009, twenty20

Thus spake Jagadish @ 5:46 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

IPL facing far too many questions

Before India's general election dates were announced, there was little doubt over the 2009 edition of the Indian Premier League being held. The primary concerns were over what all it would be blamed for, the impact of the attack in Lahore and whether anyone would actually care if Andrew Symonds or Ricky Ponting were missing.

However, it soon became apparent that the Indian government was not quite thrilled with the schedule drawn up for the IPL because the priority in terms of deployment security personnel would (obviously) be for the conduct of elections. After some initial attempts at playing down the issue, the IPL administrators then got into overdrive to accomodate the concerns of the various agencies involved in providing security for the games - the central government, the state police, the state government, etc.

Now, the situation is still in limbo. Revised schedules are being drawn up and I guess things will clear up in the next 2-3 days. I'm sure the IPL administrators will accommodate the government's concerns (as if they had any other choice! It's actually fun to see Lalit Modi actually acknowledging the power of some other authority!). I do believe that the IPL will find in its favour that the government would not want a situation where a sporting event was cancelled for security reasons.

This though doesn't really mean everything else is hunky-dory. Even if the revised schedule is arrived at and announced, there's no guarantee that audiences can actually watch the games. The IPL administration and Sony Entertainment Television (who has the broadcast rights for the Indian sub-continent) are at loggerheads after the BCCI suddenly attempted to remove SET as the broadcaster. That issue is now in the courts.

I do hope that the court also accepts public interest litigations on the actual quality of TV telecasts. I don't think I'm too far away from a stage where I won't bother following a game "live" on TV. Coverage on TV is so irritating to follow, because even as the ball is up in the air and a fielder is getting under it, we're transported to an ad break. The logical next step is that when a bowler loses his run-up, we go for an ad break.

Then of course, there's the whole question of the on-field happenings. I think right now, even 50-over games are forcing bowlers into considering retirement. For evidence, consider the recent India-New Zealand ODI series. It produced the highest ever runrate for a series of 3 games or more and the 2nd highest for a tournament of any length excluding games involving minnow sides (a definition that does include Bangladesh & Zimbabwe but excludes England).

Yes, the grounds were smaller than Ashish Nehra's brain, and the pitches were flatter than Cameron White's legbreaks. But the fact remains that bowlers, by and large, are being made so irrelevant that they might as well not bother turning up. Do I love watching batsmen smacking bowlers around? Sure, at most once or twice a series. Would followers of the IPL T20 games love seeing nothing but sixes and fours? Chances are the answer is no.

Labels: economics, india, indian premier league, ipl 2009, security, tv rights, twenty20

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:40 pm | Sledge/Read 8 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Bretton-Woods system collapse blamed for England collapse at Sabina Park

When England lose, and especially badly, we're normally guaranteed some extremely creative excuses. At least as far as I remember, there've been excuses about prawns, pollution, alignment of stars, too much cricket, too little cricket, injuries, "what's the big deal?", etc.

After England collapsed horribly at Jamaica to lose the first test by an innings (Video on YouTube), two former England captains, coincidentally both from Essex, have now blamed the IPL for distracting England.

I have news for you, Nass & Goochie. The IPL didn't cause the collapse. The England batsmen's poor skills, application & response to pressure did.

Surely then the team shouldn't even bother turning up for games, because all players aren't paid alike. The dressing room should have already been a war-zone, because chaps like Flintoff, Pietersen, Collingwood, etc. obviously earn a lot more than Swann, Bell or Broad. Should all the players be paid the same?

Next thing, they'll blame the collapse of the Bretton-Woods system and the emergence of the US dollar as the reserve currency. Why? Because the IPL bids were in US dollars.

Labels: england, indian premier league, ipl 2009, twenty20, west indies

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:49 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Breaking news: Andrew Symonds pulls out from IPL

In a stunning development, Andrew Symonds has exclusively revealed to this blog that he is pulling out from the Indian Premier League. The news comes a couple of days after Cricket Australia announced that he would not be considered for national selection until he completed his counselling & rehabilitation. He said that his decision was not related to any on-field related issue with Deccan Chargers.

Readers will recall that he was sent off during the Bangladesh one-dayers. Subsequently, he was recalled to the side. However, as part of his rehabilitation programme, Symonds was barred by Cricket Australia from going fishing anywhere.

Having looked at the various teams in the Indian Premier League, Symonds came to the conclusion that it would be impossible for him to resist the temptation to go fishing in the cities where the IPL games were played in. Delhi & Kolkota have rivers, Chennai & Mumbai have beaches while all the others (Bangalore, Hyderabad, Jaipur & Mohali) had lakes (artificial & natural).

Symonds is the latest among prominent cricketers who've decided to give the IPL a miss - Michael Clarke, Stuart Broad and Mitchell Johnson. Michael Vaughan really doesn't count. With a ODI batting avg 27, sr 68 from 83 innings, there's a high chance that he gracefully stepped aside lest the IPL team owners ask him to pay up to go anywhere near one of the teams in the league.

Labels: breaking news, exclusive, indian premier league, ipl 2009, symonds, twenty20

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:59 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

ICC rights a wrong

Last July, the ICC wrongly decided that the Oval test of 2006 was a draw. Barely 6 months later, yesterday, the ICC has announced that the original result would stand, i.e. England won the game.

It does seem bizarre that the same organization came to different conclusions. How likely is it that David Morgan, as the ICC President, had his way in return for Sharad Pawar having his way over the ICL being declared 'authorized' cricket?

Instead, the ICC has now left it to individual boards to decide if a game or tournament in its territory was approved or disapproved. What this means is that New Zealand, Pakistan and Bangladesh (the 3 countries mainly impacted by the ICL exodus) can have their players back, but the BCCI will continue to ban ICL players from playing in BCCI-conducted tournaments (& thus be ineligible for national or other representative selection)

Pakistan has been ruled out as the host of the 2009 edition of the ICC Champions Trophy and the new venue will only be decided in April. After the terror attacks in Mumbai in November, India cancelled its tour of Pakistan. Now, Pakistan has responded by barring Pakistani players from playing in the IPL. There's nothing wrong with that. A country has the right (& duty!) to assess threat perception and act accordingly.

But now, we're left with 2 countries being ruled out from hosting the tournament - Pakistan because of the ICC's decision yesterday and India because Pakistani players won't turn up. There's talk of Sri Lanka hosting the tournament, currently scheduled for September-October 2009. But consider that Colombo, the main cricketing centre there with three international grounds, typically has heavy rainfall from end-September all the way till November. The only international cricket venue which will be unaffected by the monsoon is Dambulla, in the centre of the country. Can the pitch handle 15 matches in a span of 17 days? I suspect not!

Do us all a favour - just scrap it!

Labels: 2009 champions trophy, ball tampering, champions trophy, icc, indian cricket league, oval 2006, twenty20

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:47 am | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Mohammad Yousuf joins the ICL, but had he ever gone away?

A little over a year after speculation began that Mohammad Yousuf had joined the Indian Cricket League, he confirmed the news in a press conference yesterday.

Yousuf and the ICL go back a fair distance. First, he joined the ICL. Then, faced with the possibility of the PCB banning him, he backed out and wanted to join the Indian Premier League. After that, he was dragged to court by the ICL since he had obviously reneged on a contractual obligation.

Then, he couldn't play in the IPL tournament earlier this year since the ICL folks correctly reckoned that he would be breaching the contractual obligation if he played in that tournament. Meanwhile, since he had informed the PCB that he was no longer associated with the ICL, he was picked for series against South Africa and India where he failed in the tests but did very well in the ODIs.

Despite the PCB fighting his case against the ICL on his behalf, he has now opted to join the ICL, barely a day after being named in an ODI squad against the West Indies. The Pakistan Cricket Board has obviously banned him now.

In other news, a Lahore court lifted the life ban on Saleem Malik imposed as a result of the Justice Qayyum investigation into the match fixing controversy. Once that was out of the way, he declared that he had been offered the post of the head coach of the National Cricket Academy, which the PCB denied.

Meanwhile, when he came to know about Malik's claim, Rashid Latif promptly resigned, and as is expected with Pakistan cricket, reversed his decision within a day.

Pakistan cricket could be going through a very tough phase potentially lasting a year at least! The national side is ranked six in tests and ODIs. There's no cricket scheduled in Pakistan for the foreseeable future aside from the series against India.

There was a change in the PCB administration following the presidential election. There has been a change in the coach before the tenure ended (Intikhab Alam replacing Geoff Lawson). The current captain is being pilloried by everyone, and not everyone in the cricketing circles is convinced he can hold his place in the test side. Two of their stalwart bowlers, Mushtaq Ahmed & Waqar Younis, have been lured away for coaching positions with the ECB.

Labels: indian cricket league, mohammad yousuf, pakistan, saleem malik, twenty20

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:50 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Stop this sanctimonious sermonizing about the Stanford 2020 game

Ok, for starters, there're just far too many 'S' words in the title.

I've read far too much stuff (sample a few) about how the Stanford 2020 for 20 (million dollars!) is a disgrace to cricket because it is an instance of Stanford creating a reality TV show and giving players the opportunity to earn an obscene amount of money for three hours of effort (or lack of it, even!)

I'm sure that these writers too would be more than happy to, if given the chance, play such a game on these turns. Actually, they'd even be more than willing to ferry the drinks or act as 'support staff' (like second assistant to the deputy data analyst) if they could earn around USD 100,000.

It's a cricket game. There's a prize at stake. I'm not saying its as important as, say a World Cup or a test series win against high quality opposition, but there's obviously prestige (and a lot of money!) at stake.

Who do you blame? The players? Obviously the players aren't going to say no to such an opportunity. The cricket boards? The boards would be stupid to turn down the opportunity to earn USD 3.5 million each, regardless of whether their team (ok, the WICB doesn't really control the Stanford Superstars) won or lost. Allen Stanford? He sees a great marketing opportunity, and has pounced upon it. The ECB were ripe for the taking since they weren't too thrilled about the BCCI's tie-ups with South Africa & Australia for the Champions League. So he flew in to London in June and made the ECB an offer that they were never going to refuse!

Just hope for a great thrilling game next Saturday (Antigua time), preferably an even contest between bat and ball which ends in the 20th over of the second innings. The icing on the cake would be if one of the players got cold feet in the last over, and bowled pathetically (no-ball, wide, full-toss, long hop), dropped a catch, mis-fielded, got run out, slogged a pathetic ball straight to a fielder while going for the big hit, tried to be cheeky and got bowled trying a pick-up shot over short fine-leg, etc.

Labels: stanford 2020, twenty20

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:13 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

ICC Champions Trophy in Sep-Oct 2009, but where?

At the ICC Board meeting, there were quite a few decisions which would have a short-term and long-term impact on the game.

On the first day, the ICC decided that the BCCI would meet representatives from the Indian Cricket League. This was a result of the ICL folks meeting ICC President David Morgan a couple of weeks ago. The ICC is no doubt serious about a rapprochement with the ICL after the way several Bangladesh players signed up for the ICL last month.

It is in the interest of cricket players and administrators that the BCCI and the ICL arrive at a solution in a reasonable timeframe. While I hope that it can be sorted out by the end of the year, I don't think things will move that fast. The ICL's new season has just started. Zee has invested far too much in the venture to agree to an abrupt end. My guess is that over the next year, negotiations will result in the ICL disbanding and players being allowed to first represent their domestic teams and then a year or so after that, become eligible to be picked for national duty. Will it result in the likes of some obviously talented blokes like Rayudu, Jhunjhunwala, TP Singh, Sathish or Shalabh Srivastava getting picked, or will the youngsters who've played in BCCI authorized tournaments be given priority?

The umpire decision review system will be trialled in four more important series (NZ v WI, Ind v Pak, WI v Eng & RSA v Aus) over the next 6 months. That's a good idea, except that the system as it existed in Sri Lanka should be fine tuned a little bit and then trialled. There are some obvious flaws, and it doesn't make sense to persist with them when series are at stake. In addition, I wonder why the ICC didn't think of trialling the system in ODIs and T20 games. After all, in those shorter forms, the chance of a wrong umpiring decision having an irreversible impact on the result of the match is so much higher.

In order to target having cricket included in the 2020 Olympic Games (venue to be decided in 2013), there would be further research done. It is worth noting that cricket wasn't included in the 2006 Doha Asian Games, but will be included at Guangzhou in 2010. The list of events for the 2014 Incheon Asian Games is not yet published. Cricket wasn't part of the agenda at the 2006 Commonwealth Games in Melbourne. Even more farcically, it isn't part of the 2010 Commonwealth Games in New Delhi because in 2005, the BCCI decided that it wasn't in favour of Twenty20 being included at the games. Was that a missed moment or what?!

The ICC Future Tours Programme is all set to be disbanded with effect from May 2012, as if anyone cares about it anymore!

On the second day, the ICC decided that the 2008 ICC Champions Trophy, which had been moved to 2009 a couple of months ago, would be held between September and October 2009. However, it would only last 12 days and would be held in one city (as against 17 days and 2 cities). The final decision on if the event would be held in Pakistan would be made after India's tour of Pakistan in early 2009.

So let's see how this could go. In Feb 2009, after India's tour, the ICC could decide that it was safe enough to conduct the tournament in Pakistan. But there would still be 7-8 more months to go before the start of the event. Countries could develop cold feet in that time gap, for real and imaginary reasons. So what would the ICC do then? The best option would have been to move the 2008 2009 next edition out of Pakistan, perhaps to West Indies (the 2010 hosts) and allot the 2010 event to Pakistan. By 2010, the concept of the ICC Champions Trophy would be gone anyway!

Labels: 2009 champions trophy, champions trophy, icc, indian cricket league, olympics, reviews, twenty20

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:56 am | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]