Twenty20 Cup

I write this blog immediately after watching a taped broadcast of India beating Pakistan in a nerve-wracking final at the Wanderers in Jo'Berg, SA.

My thoughts after watching about 3 games of this tournament, but following the scores closely on cricinfo.com and watching some snippets on youtube.

The format
I believe T20 is here to stay!! This World cup has provided several close matches and I have been very impressed by the quality of cricket that was played throughout the tournament. There were a lot of close matches, and although it sounds to the traditional cricketer as a "wham-bam-thankyou-mam" format, it really isn't and requires a fair amount of skill and planning. I think in the next 2-3 years, this format will replace 1-day cricket. I still hope that Test cricket continues, but I won't mind seeing the natural death of 1-day cricket. 50-over-a-side matches take too long to complete, and overs 15-40 are usually very boring and don't add much value to the game. The "real" 2007 world cup in the Caribbean was probably the most boring sporting event ever -- and not only because India and Pakistan were knocked out very early.

India winning this world cup is probably great for the game and this format. BCCI, in all its endeavors to make as many profits as it possibly can, has steered away from the short format since it is not as lucrative as the 1-day format. The Indian public is willing to sit for a whole day and watch a game, thereby allowing advertisements to be squeezed in between every over. T20 is faster-paced, with not as much room for ads, and I doubt BCCI would give it as much priority had India not done well in this tournament. The Indian win will now force BCCI to look into this format and hopefully schedule a lot more T20 games with touring teams rather than pointless 7-match 1-day series.

The Indian Team

India went into this world cup as underdogs and without their 3 main batting stars - Tendulkar, Dravid, and Ganguly. This was a blessing in disguise, and I am truly amazed at how some of the players stepped up and showed the kind of application, enthusiasm, and aggression that is rarely seen among Indians!
My players for the future are:
-- Rohit Sharma -- very good technique, will turn out to be a great and dependable middle order batsman (watch out Dravid!)
-- Gautam Gambhir -- he has been in and out of the team for a while now, but I think he deserves a permanent place in all formats of the game. I'd rather see him open the innings in Tests ahead of Dinesh Karthik.
-- Irfan Pathan -- now that Greg Chappell has gone for good and stopped screwing up Irfan's brains, I think he has a future, at least in the shorter formats (1-day, T20). He has lost a lot of pace, and will go for many runs in some matches, but he has a very good attitude and deserves to be persisted with.
-- Yusuf Pathan -- too early to say, but obviously he looks promising. I will give him 2 more series to come good.
-- RP Singh -- my pick of the bowlers this summer (including the tour of England and the T20 cup). An excellent attitude towards the game, and can move the ball both ways. Also plays his game without the histrionics of a Sreesanth.
-- Robin Uthappa -- great determination and attitude... though sometimes he thinks he can hit every ball out of the park. I think he trusts his instincts, which will hold him well when times are good, but I will wait to see how he copes when his form slips.
-- Dinesh Karthik -- he has a very good future, but might struggle to maintain his place in the team purely as a batsmen. And if Dhoni is captain, he might just continue to be the best 12th man.

My players of the past are:
Ajit Agarkar... seriously it is time for him to go. I am so glad he wasn't picked for the latter games of this tournament. The youngsters showed a lot more aggression and even though they went for runs, they showed a lot more application than Agarkar.
Joginder Sharma ... I think he is too slow and will always bowl too many "hit-me" balls to the batsmen. I still cannot believe how we got away (twice) with Joginder bowling the last over. We just got damn lucky against Pakistan.
Sreesanth ... he blows too hot and too cold too often. I don't know if we can afford his mood swings for any lengthy period.

Last Word:
I am fairly impressed with Dhoni as captain. Though it is a little early to judge, but he obviously has a future. I'd like to see Tendulkar captain the Test team and groom Dhoni for the job. I don't think we have much of an option for captaincy in 1-day or T20 format.


Well played India. And thank you Pakistan for putting on an EXCELLENT performance, that entertained us all!!

role of corporate sponsorship in team selection

Just before the world cup started, I remember arguing with my dad about the role of corporate sponsorship and player seniority on team selection. My dad was of the opinion that certain players are selected in the playing 11 because they have lucrative sponsorship deals. This was particularly the case when the captain and senior players were being sponsored by the same corporation. I remember vociferously arguing that the captain and coach (who supposedly decide the playing 11) would not be influenced by sponsorship, but would play the best team for that game.

I am beginning to have second thoughts on my initial "assessment" of the game and the captain's interests. My case in point is selection of MS Dhoni for the first test match between India and England at Lords. I don't see any sane reason to include Dhoni in this side. He hasn't batted well outside of "home" conditions ("home" includes playing in and against Bangladesh), while Dinesh Karthik has been batting very well over the last year or so. Dhoni failed miserably in the World Cup and batted horribly in the 1st innings at Lords -- in all cases got out to very poor shots. Dravid, during the pre-match interview, claimed that "Dhoni has done no wrong to exclude him" -- I beg to differ! More importantly, if we were really choosing a horses-for-courses team, I don't see a place for Dhoni. Karthik is known to have much better and softer hands behind the stumps, and has been batting reasonably well to deserve a place ahead of Dhoni. Then why include Dhoni as well?? Wouldn't it make much more sense to play Yuvraj, a more recognized batsmen, to bolster the middle order, or include Gambhir so that we can have 2 regular openers in the side.

OH! But that would mean dropping Dhoni which would irk those sponsors who have spent millions in making Dhoni a rock-star!

Chappel and Powerpoints

Recent media reports suggest that the BCCI was once again "wowed" by Greg Chappel's hour-long power point presentation during the meeting "suggesting measures to improve Indian cricket". I remember when the 3 candidates (Chappel, Tom Moody, and Mohinder Amarnath) were shortlisted for the post of Indian cricket coach about 2 years ago, each presented their case to the board. Even then, Greg Chappel had impressed the Board with his great powerpoint. The BCCI Board constituted a different "bunch of jokers" then ... :-) that's what Amarnath had called the BCCI when he was dropped from the team in the '80's... did he really expect to get the job?
Everyone was so impressed with Greg's powerpoint that he got the job! I wonder what he puts in those powerpoints. Perhaps some custom animations with fancy slide transitions?!!
I don't doubt Greg's great cricketing brain, etc. but from the very beginning he always occurred to be someone who would be difficult to approach... like the extremely learned school principal who you admire, but cannot really go and talk to. It did not help that the stupid Ganguly was rooting for Greg from the outset... because Greg had showed him how to grip his bat while facing the Ausies... and Gangs had had a very successful tour! Greg's (mis)handling of the Ganguly ouster and his recent alleged altercation with Tendulkar surely don't come across as a man who understands how to coach a passionate Indian cricket team. Coaching the Indian cricket team needs much more than a learned person; I do believe we need someone like John Wright... he may not have been the most admired person, but he had an effective way of managing the team. It is no coincidence that we did pretty well while he was the coach. I gained a lot of respect for John when I heard his commentary during the India matches in the league stage. He has a fantastic cricketing mind, and what was more important was how he narrated his thoughts... it was said in a calm manner with no "airs" or pride. I am sure it was the same when dealing with the Indian cricket team.
We must also realize that in Cricket, and unlike many sports (American Football, Basketball), the coach does not have the same powers as the captain. During the game, it's the captain who makes all the decisions. Now if we had the captain wearing a ear-piece and getting instructions from the coach (like the quarterback in Football) during the game, I would elect a coach like Greg... but until then I would go for someone like Wright.
Let's see how Shastri does... I think he falls between John and Greg. Perhaps that's what we need!

BCCI "cracks" down on Indian players

The BCCI just completed it's much-publicized meeting after the unceremonious exit of the Indian team from the World Cup. My personal reactions:
1) Nice to see that they hired Ravi Shastri as the Cricket Manager / Interim Coach. Shastri has the relevant experience and is able to communicate effectively. He also holds a fair amount of respect within the Indian cricket team. They have gone to him for advise in the past (the now-abolished contract system was ably supported by Shastri). I do hope Shastri, Venkatesh Prasad (bowling coach) and Robin Singh (fielding coach) interact closely with each other to improve the overall standards of the current team with an eye on upcoming youngsters in the domestic circuit.
2) I am not so sure if limiting the number of endorsements (to 3) is a good idea, nor am I sure it is legal, especially after the BCCI terminated the contract system. The players will now get paid for each match they play, with a bonus if they win. This means that they will not be employed by the BCCI for the entire year, or at least will not be paid for the entire year. In which case, how can the board restrict the players from making financial gains outside of their cricketing commitments.

The subject of player earnings appeared to be the main focus of the meeting, and it was decided to replace the system of graded contracts with a standard fee for all, and additional bonuses for series wins. However, no figures were mentioned in this regard. This effectively means that seniors and juniors all earn the same, the difference being in what they earn from endorsements.

There, too, the board has cracked down: eEach player will be allowed a maximum of three endorsements a year but will not be allowed to shoot any commercials up to two weeks prior to any series. Also, not more than two players can endorse the same product. However, Srinivasan stressed that these were decisions taken looking ahead, as a plan for the future.

How can you limit what the player does if you don't set up a contract with him? I can understand if there is a conflict of interest, but what happens when the player is not selected for a particular series or is in between two series. I understand the "clause" that suggests that players cannot be endorsing products just prior to a series, but is it legal to disallow a player from doing something else when he is not working for the BCCI?

I don't think the players are going to argue too much now... but after winning a series or two, I am sure things will change.

If the players don't perform well, they will automatically lose their popularity, and will not be on any TV ads and getting such lucrative offers. That's how one would expect it to work... or atleas I hope!

NCAA "Commercial" Madness

I am amazed at the commercial aspect of college sports in the US. College football and basketball have such a large fan following and is a multi-million-dollar commercial venture! It's a profit-making system for almost everyone --- EXCEPT the players, who are putting on the show and providing the entertainment! I understand that they receive a free education, and the really good players go on to get lucrative contracts in the professional league. But I feel it is sure "madness" that so many people are making money on a bunch of college students who are actually putting on the show.
A lot of college athletes make themselves available to the PRO league long before they complete their education. I don't really blame them, because that's where the money is, and what if they acquire a career-ending injury while playing that extra year in college when they could have made millions playing pro?
It is, however, nice to see the importance college programs give to sports. Back in India, college sports is only considered a hobby. When I represented my college in the Inter-collegiate Badminton tournament within the University of Mumbai, I could not even get reimbursed for travel to/from the tournament venue. It was near impossible to get money to buy equipment for the game; we had to buy our own shuttlecocks during practice.

without

One of my favourite poems is Robert Frost's Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening:

Whose woods these are I think I know,
His house is in the village though.
He will not see me stopping here,
To watch his woods fill up with snow.

My little horse must think it queer,
To stop without a farmhouse near,
Between the woods and frozen lake,
The darkest evening of the year.

He gives his harness bells a shake,
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound's the sweep,
Of easy wind and downy flake.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

I first read (or heard) the poem when I was a kid, even before it was part of my curriculum in the 7th or 8th grade (thanks to my elder brothers having recited it several times when they were studying the poem in school). The poem is so serene, yet metaphoric, but as a kid I guess I just enjoyed the rhyme, and the famous last 4 lines. Given that the poem is really short I could recite it easily. Growing up in a crowded and temperate city like Bombay , I never really experienced a "snowy evening" or even "stopping by the woods".

Also, I found it very interesting, that the word "without" could mean "absence of" or it could also mean "outside" (opposite of within); both these meanings would be relevant in this poem. Did Frost suggest that the horse thinks it strange to stop with no farmhouse close by, or that it was strange to stop outside the farmhouse when it was snowing? In fact, we had two English professors teach this poem to us in school, and one of them said it meant 'absence of' and the other suggested it meant 'outside'. I think it means outside in this case, esp. because it would be queer for a horse only if it knows that there is a farmhouse near by.

PS: Isn't the English language is rather strange?! Shouldn't you be frugal at spending if you are a spendthrift! Here is an explanation why it is not.

Blame it on the rain... blame it on the stars...

So India is officially out of the 2007 Cricket World Cup! It is a foregone conclusion that this World Cup will be financially affected by India and Pakistan's early exit. A lot of the excitement that the sub-continent giants provide will also be missing in the Super 8's. Instead of blaming the cricketers and their lackluster display in 2 out of the 3 games, I am going to go ahead and blame the format. The entire schedule of this edition of the Cup was "designed" to allow the 8 regular Test playing nations to make it to the 2nd round after they walloped the so-called "minnows" of the tournament. The real cricket was then supposed to start, with each team playing the remaining 6 teams that qualified from the other groups. The team would also carry forward only those 1st round points (and net run rate) of the team that qualified for the 2nd round, thereby eliminating the effect of any big wins over the minnows. In fact, many months before the tournament began, the official world cup website had the top 8 teams slated to meet each other, allowing people to book their tickets for the India-Pakistan clash on April 15. Those ardent cricket fans will now get to witness an Ireland vs. Bangladesh match, which will be the most insignificant match of the Super-8's.

As it stands before the start of the next round, Sri Lanka are sitting pretty with a huge NRR thanks to their big win over Bangladesh.

In retrospect, the tournament organizers will rue their decision to eliminate 8 teams out of the tournament after playing just 3 games each.

OR Perhaps this is just the rumblings of an Indian-cricket enthusiast, having wanted to watch his team play for one more fortnight, given that he has bought the World Cup streaming video online!

deathly effigies

It is a common practice in the Indian sub-continent to burn effigies of cricket players when the team performs badly. Recently, after the India-Bangladesh World Cup game, the effigy of Mahindra Singh Dhoni was burned and his home was damaged. If India gets eliminated from the tournament tomorrow, I won't be surprised if more effigies are burnt and cricket-crazy fanatics mob the players families and homes.
Wikipedia defines effigy as follows:

"A different type of effigy is used in some religious rituals to represent an undesired person or spirit. The effigy is burned as a sign of the participants' shared intent to banish the represented element from their lives."

Given the recent confirmation that Pakistani cricket coach Bob Woolmer's death was murder by "manual strangulation", it seems that burning effigies may no longer be the modus operandi of disgruntled fanatics. Why burn a card-board, full-length figure of the person when you can actually eliminate the real-life form!

Cricket does need a reality-check, but I hope it does not come in the way of an India loss tomorrow. I have a selfish motive of wanting to be entertained for another few weeks by the Indian cricket team.

P.S.: Who makes these effigies? Is there a business model behind the manufacture of effigies? It sure must be a lucrative business; people must be working overtime these days to create effigies of the Indian cricketers. It does not even have to be a good piece of art... it is going to be burned if India loses! If India wins the World Cup, the effigy makers can then work overtime to spruce up their products... the effigies have to look good when garlanded!!

fixing cricket matches

Given that Sri Lanka thrashed Bangladesh today in the 2007 Cricket World Cup, the India vs. Sri Lanka game becomes a virtual Super-8 game. Of course, India has to win to advance. Sri Lanka has played really well in the last 2 games, which may suggest that they are due for an "off" day. If India does win, I am sure there will be plenty of conspiracy theories and match fixing allegations. After all, India is currently the big cricket powerhouse, and a loss for India would mean a large loss in advertising revenue for the rest of the tournament.

I have always found it hard to understand the concept of "match fixing" as it relates to losing a cricket match. Unless several (at least 4-5) members of the team are together involved, it would be very hard to "fix" a match. I don't disagree that match fixing was a real disease in the 90's, but I wonder how much did it really affect the outcome of the games. I think that the fixing happened with individual players who were given big bucks to limit how much they score or how many wickets they take. If 1 team member is paid to "fix" the match, he could possibly get out early if he is a batsmen or try to not take a wicket if he is a bowler. But so many players have "off" days even without the intent of fixing the match. Agarkar would be a case in point. He bowls at least 3 "hit-me" balls in every over. Hmm... I wonder if Agarkar has been fixing matches throughout his career!! :-) But we have won matches inspite of routine failures from many of the top players. Keep in mind that the players cannot fix every match, because they have to maintain a high average and maintain a place in the team.

I do hope India wins on Friday... else they will be "fixing" their homes that will be destroyed by the Indian cricket "fans".

Wool mer(der)

Just saw the news that Bob Woolmer may have been murdered!! That is BIG news. The Jamaican police said earlier that initial post-mortem results were inconclusive which suggested that something was amiss. I initially thought (when I heard the news over the weekend that he was dead), that perhaps he committed suicide. But that was hard to fathom... he surely was a stronger man than that!
I wonder what is going to come out of all of this. Could betting/match fixing have played a role?? Or religious fanaticism. After all, cricket is a religion in the sub-continent.

O'Reilly vs. Jon Stewart

I had the misfortune this evening to see Bill O'Reilly interview the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah (Mayor Rocky Anderson). This was regarding the Mayor's opinion that was voiced over the weekend to impeach Pres. Bush and Dick Cheney regarding the false information provided by the administration that led to the Iraq war. Keep in mind that this was the 4th anniversary of the beginning of the war, and the Mayor's speech over the weekend was at an anti-war demonstration. Bill was obnoxious during the interview; he did not give a chance to the Mayor to complete his sentences, and upon repeated attempts by a very calm Mayor to finish his point of view, Bill resorted to calling him names and insulting him. It was very sad to watch. There was absolutely no respect for the Mayor. Unless you agree with Bill's point of view, please do not ever get on the show. This surely was NO debate. The Mayor had interesting stuff to say, or at least it seemed that way, until Bill barged in every time the Mayor began speaking. Bill alluded to the Mayor blogging for the extreme left wing, to which the Mayor (who was rather surprised) responded that some speeches of his were put in those blogs. Does that suggest that the Mayor is actually blogging for the left wing??? And it was so very ironical since Bill's initial 'talking points' memo was about his problems with New York Times publishing "factually incorrect" statements. Bill wasn't even interested in hearing the Mayor's opinions on the impeachment of our President. Shame on you Bill!!!
On the other hand, on the same night, Jon Stewart interviewed John Bolton (US Ambassador to the UN) on the Tonight Show. John Bolton is a well-known "loyal Bushie". What a stark contrast between him and O'Reilly!!!! Remember, Jon had the advantage of having a live audience, who applauded after every comment of Jon and even sarcastically laughed on a comment or two from Bolton. Jon could have easily shut up Bolton every time he opened his mount and disagreed. But of out respect for the Ambassador, Jon let Bolton complete every point he wanted to make, even though he disagreed with the POV. Jon even ended it by thanking the Ambassador for coming to the show and debating on topics on which they had completely different POVs.

I do watch O'Reilly once in a while just to get a sense of what the 'right wing' media and news is all about. I don't agree with a lot of his opinions, but I don't feel it necessary to hurl abuses at him. But today, O'Reilly was obnoxious, and does not deserve to be on Air and given such importance.

PS: During the interview, the Mayor finally got 15 secs to speak without Bill interrupting, and it looked so obvious that Fox News cut the Mayor off so that Bill could ask him another ridiculous question. Sick!!