Hiatus

Blogging will happen, people -- later in my day. Open forum, meanwhile, and hopefully you find much to talk about.

Maharashtra on the move

One day it is hiring an Aussie coach; the next day it is casting the net far and wide -- Ajay Jadeja from Delhi; Nilesh Kulkarni and Sairaj Bahutule from Bombay -- for players to beef up its team. Good to see a state association taking domestic cricket so seriously.

Sachin. Again. *sigh*

Now Kapil Dev says so sorry, when I said Sachin is finished, I didn't mean Sachin is finished, I meant Sachin will know when he is finished and with that, can this matter be finished, please? Or some such.
And in the Times -- no, not the London one, the other one -- Siddhartha Mishra celebrates Tendulkar. Or takes a class in Math 101. Not sure which.
Donno about you, but I am getting the feeling we are taking this 'cricket is our national religion' thing even more seriously than the RSS-VHP brigade takes the real thing.
It's gotten to where you just can't say anything about the pantheon -- Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid, whoever -- without the Shaivites, Vaishnavites, Tendulkarites, Gangulyites et cetera taking a colossal dump on you.
Come on -- celebrating a player's sporting achievement is one thing, but to elevate the chappie to godhead and to suggest that any word that even remotely smacks of criticism (and even some words that do not) is sacrilegious is a tad much. Repress healthy criticism, and you are left with the alternative -- unhealthy adulation. You want suprabathams sung to Saint Sachin, morning noon and night?

Vaughan gone?

On his Corridor of Uncertainty blog, Will argues that Michael Vaughan's forced absence from England's ODI squad is no big loss:

He’s carrying a groin injury at the moment, facing a late fitness test. And despite his 50 the other day, he continues to baffle the world at his inability to play ODI cricket. Immense class, but England need quick runs, not stodgy ones. It’s an almost identical situation to when Michael Atherton was in the side: he just wasn’t made for ODI cricket and, unless Vaughan starts scoring soon, Marcus Trescothick (or Andrew Flintoff?) might well take up the ODI captaincy.

Point well taken -- but on the day, Vaughan's replacement outdid his captain. At number three in a game of this kind, you didn't need Vikram Solanki going 34 off 69 with 47 dot balls in there -- and crucially, just five singles, pointing to an inability to get the strike across to the other guy.
In the Times (the London one, not the desi version which puts up links to stories without stories in them), Richard Hobson has an interesting take on the Vaughan question: he argues that the England captain may not be the hottest ticket in the shorter game, but to remove him from the captaincy (as prelude to removing him from the team) could be counter-productive:

In his guise as an opener, Vaughan was prone to be too aggressive too soon. It is always difficult to find the right tempo in the first 15 overs with fielding restrictions in place. His problem at No 3 has been piercing the inner ring. He does not scrape and scratch out runs in the ugly manner of Nasser Hussain, the former captain.
Yet the experience of Hussain ought to remind of the pitfalls of split captains. He never recovered true authority of the Test side once he retired from the one-day game after the 2003 World Cup. Regardless of the result this summer, England cannot afford to jeopardise enormous potential as a Test team by separating the captaincy roles again.

Moving on, Shane Warne in his column in the Times (you know the one I don't mean) says it's too soon to be writing the Aussie epitaph.

Our batsmen and bowlers have not found their rhythm so far. But is anybody really surprised? Let’s put this into perspective. Most of the guys had gone something like nine weeks without competitive cricket before they arrived. McGrath always says that he gets better as he plays, so I expect we will soon see an improvement from him. Jason Gillespie and Mike Kasprowicz also need overs behind them.

Elsewhere, on Fox Sports, this story taking Ricky Ponting to task for lying. A bit much, surely? I mean, bloke wanders in half drunk, on the morning of a game; as captain, he would want the team management to haul the player up, look into his case, decide the punishment, then make a formal announcement. In the morning, he drops the player's name from the team list and when he's asked why, what's he supposed to say? Just an off-hand 'Oh, he's a touch under the weather', as place-holder till the enquiry is complete, and a full statement can be released. (A full statement *was* released) Not quite the same as hiding the confession of the two amateur weathermen, Mark Waugh and Shane Warne, surely?
Off topic, while wandering through the Corridor of Uncertainty, found this link to another blog, which has the story of the Shane Watson-Kevin Pietersen to-do.

Point-counterpoint

Too early to know what the British and Aussie press make of the game today; Jenny Thompson on Cricinfo is first out of the blocks with a detailed bulletin.
On more general lines, Peter Roebuck in the Hindu says the countdown to the end of Aussie domination has begun; in the Express, Harsha Bhogle takes the contrary view. From Harsha, this:

I am not convinced this is a slide though. Form is being questioned at the moment, with some maybe a little more than that, but character, the reserve fuel, will soon kick in. If their current lethargy prevents their character from coming through only then can we announce the decline of a dynasty.

Elsewhere Imran Khan -- who seems to be keeping abreast of cricket when he is not scanning the fine print in international newsmagazines looking for material for his political pulpit -- couldn't care less; the Aussies, he says, dominate because the rest of the cricket world has shrunk to midget-size:

"There's hardly any match-winning bowlers these days.
"You don't have the relentless pace the West Indies had.
"I batted against them and it would just drain you, having to concentrate for so long."

Hopps on Pietersen

David Hopps, in the Guardian, celebrates England's latest savior.

It is intriguing to wonder how all this is impacting upon Duncan Fletcher. England's coach believes in nothing more than plans and strategies, carefully devised over cautious, well-spaced-out halves of lager. And then along comes Pietersen, afantasy for a coach who does not fantasise, a must-do gamble for a man who would not buy a lottery ticket without an attached print-out of the pay-out percentage.

Rayudu heard from

Following on from the earlier Omissions and Commissions post, a balanced reaction from Ambati Rayudu to being excluded.

‘‘It was expected. I’ve not had a great time with the bat and so there wasn’t any disappointment on not being called. But I am keen on correcting all those things that had been going wrong and want to get back to scoring some runs,’’ Rayudu told The Indian Express today.

England-Aussies thread

Good morning all -- ignore the time stamp, pl, I set it this way so this thread will stay on top of other postings today. Open Forum, for all those watching the game, and even those not, to input their takes on the action as it unfolds.
I will, meetings permitting, keep popping in every over or so. Regular blogging will happen around this -- see you in the Comments field in here, when the game starts.

Omissions and commissions

Sandeed Dwivedi and Faisal Shariff clear up a few questions about the names picked, and omitted from, the probables list for the upcoming coaching camp in Bangalore.

The selection committee, More said, had to make some hard choices keeping in mind the ‘36-man outer limit’. ‘‘There were some young players who didn’t quite perform in the last season and there were those who did really well. We are aware of the potential of those who were dropped but we can’t just ignore those who have done well.’’
Talking specifically about Rayudu and Dhawan, More said, ‘‘These two boys have not been left in the cold. They have a great future ahead of them. They certainly do feature in our long-term plans.’’
‘‘We have invested a lot in Rayudu. He is a player of the future.’’

Wondered a touch about the 36-man outer limit -- this article seems to suggest that is what Chappell wanted, but it's not really clear. Personally, I'd have thought when making the cut, if you felt two, three more players needed to be added, you would -- rather than get all hide bound about some artificial ceiling. Anyways.
I've been watching with some amusement the way Greg Chappell has, with minimal effort, accomplished the hardest task of all -- to wit, getting the selection committee favorably disposed to him.
This guy should be giving lessons in man management, really -- ever since he took over, he's been giving the selectors reason to feel important. He consults them at length, he suggests that chairman Kiran More should spend four-five days in the camp before the date of the actual team selection...
On those lines, check this out:

Yesterday was the selection committee’s first interaction with the new coach and Chappell seemed to have made a big impression. ‘‘He is a guru’’, More said. ‘He has some great plans for Indian cricket. I hope we are able to take full advantage of him while he is here.’’
‘‘He came into the meeting and asked us to give him 36 players because he didn’t know most of the boys. He clearly stated his requirements to us and was very concise in his requirements. Once that was done he excused himself from the meeting.’’

They love him. And by giving them a sense of importance when he can, he seems to have ensured that they will listen to him when he *does* have something to say, and be disposed to giving him what he wants. Neat.

Shastri unplugged

Well, sort of. Did you read his interview, on Deccan Herald?
This bit, without taking names, seems to be an allusion to Greg Chappell's recent statement that he would need to work out with Sachin Tendulkar his role in the team -- a comment interpreted as lese majestie in sections of our media:

For individual talent to be converted into team effort, you have to share responsibilities, be flexible with the batting order, where each man is assigned a role. Sometimes you feel that's the one of the biggest problems in Indian cricket. And certainly one of the problems John faced. If a guy has played 80, 90 or 100 Tests, it is an automatic feeling that he should know his job. No, at some stage, you must remind him if he has forgotten. There is every chance that he might have forgotten or got confused.

And this bit I'll throw in here, because that phase of mindless play was a sore point for me when doing the ball by ball commentary.

Let’s cast our mind back to the last series (against Pakistan). You have a crackerjack at the top of the order who is in brilliant form -- Virender Sehwag, who gets a blistering 173 and sets up the game for India. You cannot say that partnership in Mohali on the last day saved the game for Pakistan. The game should have been in a winning position for India by lunch on day five, if not on the fourth day.
Where we lost the initiative, I think this is where the coach has an important role to play -- to get involved in tactics. After the game was set up by Sehwag, in the last two sessions on the second day, India had 120 runs in 54 overs. And no excuse for that.
When you have Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly, Laxman — with that kind of talent, there is no excuse. Instead of 120, if you had got 200, the game was set up. You could have put more pressure on the opposition. That is what I mean by a little more team play. It will make India a better side.

To each his own

Inzamam gives the whole 'patriotic' trend (Jimmy Amarnath currently holds pole position, with his gimmick of planting a little national flag on the table in front of him when he sat down for the interview for national coach) a bit of a fillip by suggesting that Pak pacers have no need to come to India to train.
Fair comment, that Pakistan has in the two Ws two of the greatest fast bowlers of all time; fair, too, to suggest that the PCB should be tapping into their expertise. Strikes me, though, that countries like Australia and South Africa have produced a fast bowler or two of note -- yet, the likes of Lance Klusener, Jason Gillespie and such have come down to the MRF Academy to train.
Elsewhere, Inzy does the right thing when he suggests that Younis Khan was on the right side of the fracas involving Shahid Afridi.

He supported makeshift captain Younis Khan and said as skipper he (Younis) had the right to send Shahid Afridi as opener in the first Test. He denied the impression that he was also involved in the brawl inside the dressing room and supported Afridi.

Ooops

Sorry, guys, bad day in office, and it looks likely to go on till pretty late... so no updates today, but against that, will be online, and sort of live, with the Aus-England game tomorrow. See you around 8.30 am my time... and sorry about today.

Break

The blog will take a break for the rest of the working day, and get active again after 5 pm NY time... CEO calling. :-)

Man of the moment

Can't wait, can you, for Bangladesh's next ODI match -- if only to see what Mohammad Ashraful will do next? David Hopps, in the Guardian, celebrates the talented youngster.

In the quiet of the pavilion at Fenner's, back at the start of the tour, Mohammad Ashraful had risen to his full height, a good foot lower than Steve Harmison, and predicted that he would hook England's bowlers to distraction in the one-day series.
Harmison? Yes, no problems, he would hook him. Andrew Flintoff? Why not him, too?
Any fast bowler you cared to name he would hook him, because the Bangladeshi likes to hook. He had hooked Glenn McGrath and he had hooked Brett Lee. He was not about to stop now.

Selective Sachin?

Brian Lara is, this story says, getting selective about his cricket -- and making a conscious effort to play less ODIs so he can extend his Test career.
I wonder -- is there a lesson, and an opportunity, here for Sachin? Does he, whenever he returns from his injury layoff, have to play every damn match going (for instance, an ODI series in Zimbabwe, say?). Or would he -- and more to the point, the Indian team -- be better served by using him predominantly for Tests?
The longer version of the game is, first, perfectly suited to his game as he is evolving it, with premium on accumulation rather than the foot-to-the-floor acceleration that characterised his play in the 90s.
Secondly, his being rested for no-account ODIs means the team can seed fresh young players into the side and give them time to grow. It all seems to make even more sense now that Sehwag is providing the acceleration, and MS Dhoni is looking good to add his two bits to Viru's orchestrated violence.
Is resting Sachin, and using him more selectively -- in the process extending his Test life -- quite as sacrilegious as it sounds? Somehow, I think the time has come...

Import duties waived...

...apparently, on coaches from abroad. You read of course that Maharashtra has appointed an Australian coach for its state side?
The appointment seems to be for just one season -- some kind of experiment, perhaps? -- but the good bit is that Darren Holder is being given a larger role than just coaching the state team.

Besides coaching the senior team, as Director of Cricket, the Australian is expected to run a high performance cricket training programme through out Maharashtra for all age groups of cricket players, he said.

Food for thought

'Morning, all -- it's apt to be a day of intermittent blogging; my CEO leaves NY this weekend, and there's a stream of meetings to get done before that. (Oh, and? Intend to make this blog go 'live' tomorrow morning, when England and Australia play the second ODI -- join in, all those who are watching, with your own commentary).
For now, a news item I read first up this morning, and which had me wondering at the subtexts, the lines hidden behind lines.
Raises a lot of questions, this story. First up, what is triggering this recent spate of attacks on the BCCI's functioning? It's almost like guerilla warfare has broken out -- the sniping is coming from all directions, and with increasing frequency.
What prompted Wadekar to say this:

Pointing out that there was interference from the Board president in selection of teams in the past, Wadekar said, "The president should ratify the selected team straightaway. It is a must. There has to be transparency in everything that the Board does.
"I strongly feel that naming of the captain should be left to the selection committee and there should not be any interference from any quarter including the Board or its President, excepting in cases of discipline," said Wadekar, who led the country in 16 out of the 37 Tests he played in an eight-year career.

The reference is obviously to Jagmohan Dalmiya -- so then, on which instances did the BCCI chief interfere with team selection? When was the selected team not ratified -- and why? More to the point, when did the board president interfere with the picking of the captain?
That bit, about ratifying the selected team immediately, raises an interesting question. You know how team selection works, right? The selectors meet at the appointed venue; they shut themselves up in a room; they come out after a suitable interval of time, and announce the team.
To the best of my recollection, there has been no instance where the team selected and announced -- invariably, by the BCCI secretary -- was subsequently repudiated or changed by the Board. So if Wadekar has a specific instance in mind when he talks suggests the board does not always ratify the picked team at once, the subtext is the whole selection exercise we see has to be a staged play -- the real selection has to have been done before, the team picked has to have been transmitted to the board chief, the changes made, and *then* the drama staged for public consumption. That seems to be the logical deduction, from what Wadekar is saying -- and it opens up a whole new can of worms.
Outside of this, Wadekar and Kirmani make some interesting points: (1) The need for paid, professional selectors; (2) The option of players nominating selectors (not sure if that is a solution -- will there then be a tendency for players to nominate 'friendly' selectors? If I were to sit for an exam, should I get to pick the person who will frame the question paper, for instance?) (3) The lack of interaction between junior and senior selection committees -- which at least partially explains why young talent is not blooded into the team as often, and in as timely a fashion, as we would like.
Interesting stuff here -- appreciate your thoughts on all of this.

Chappell scopes out tech

Thanks, Steve, for this link to a Deccan Herald story; says here, Chappell visited the office of Phoenix Global Software, in Bangalore, to check out a software program designed -- with considerable input from Javagal Srinath and Anil Kumble -- to evaluate cricketers and point to their strong and weak points.
The story says the software was developed a couple of years ago, which is not strictly accurate -- it was actually developed around 2000. At the time, Sri had proposed licensing it for use by Rediff; at his invite, I'd gone down to Bangalore for a demo.
It's pretty nifty: a team of cricket-savvy programmers work off the television feed, recording every game. While the feed itself is direct from TV, the associated software is a complex interface, with several parameters possible for every ball bowled and every stroke played.
Where it comes in handy is in the realm of video-analysis. The software parses the recorded games any way you like. Assume, for instance, you want to check out a batsman's weak areas -- you can question the software, and it will throw up all the deliveries the batsman played and missed, the ones he played at without being in full control, the ones he left alone... you name it. You can similarly check every aspect of a batsman's -- or bowler's -- performance.
At the time, Sri and Anil were making calls to broadcasters, asking for archival tapes of India games to feed into their database; the more games they could record the better the results they could generate, Sri explained.
I'm not sure how different this software is, from what Bob Woolmer used to use in South Africa. But I do recall Anil and Sri telling me at the time that they had demo-ed the software to the South African authorities, who were impressed enough to want to buy it.

McGrath to open

I saw this piece in my old paper, Mid-Day, and first checked the date. Nope, not April 1. Then I checked the byline -- Khalid Ansari, the paper's founder and father of its current publisher Tariq; not a man given to hallucination.
So what to make of this story -- McGrath apparently wants to make money -- for charity, that is -- with his batting talent.
Did a Google, on the off chance the whole thing is a hoax, but there really is an Australian Primary Club.
Elsewhere in the same paper is this denial, by BCCI chief Ranbir Singh Mahindra of his comments about Saurav Ganguly, in course of an interview with Karan Thapar.
Damn -- wish I had seen this interview. Must be historic: A guy is on TV, seemingly saying something. Everyone hears him say it; the tape captures him saying it -- but in actual fact he didn't say it.
Anyone, anyone at all, out there who saw the interview and can confirm or deny what Mahindra told Thapar?

Cricket by the numbers

The ongoing Natwest series is the last to be played before the new rules -- floating substitutions, the option of splitting the field-restrictions phase into two, et al -- come into play.
David Clough, on cricket365.com, argues a hands-off policy and suggests that rules involving more knowledge of advanced math than of cricket could be counter-productive.

Modern-day limited-overs cricket also has the added mystery of Duckworth-Lewis to contend with - and while there is no doubt the formula for settling rain-affected matches is painstakingly assembled and entirely fair, the logarithm tables involved demand an extra leap of faith from all the game's followers.
Cricket needs to be pretty sure it is on the right track then before it throws another bunch of numbers into a spectacle already unavoidably beset by mathematics and equations.

Star in the making

The Times is first off the block in paying tribute to an outstanding innings by Mohammad Ashraful.
It was the heck of an innings, by any yardstick -- the strokeplay so incandescent, Paul Collingwood is quoted as saying it was like watching Tendulkar in his prime.
Every bowler he faced, he destroyed -- 2 fours in seven balls faced off Tremlett, 4 fours and two sixes (one the sort of wristy flick you would expect from an Azhar, or a Laxman) in 12 balls off Steve Harmison; 2 fours and a six in 11 balls off Flintoff; 21 runs in 14 balls faced off Ashley Giles -- and mind you, it wasn't as if the bowlers weren't trying to get the little lad out.
Check out his wagonwheel -- there's an obvious on-side bias, which you would expect from a batsman hell bent on hitting everything; but it's not as if his off play was limited. An edge and a cut behind point, two drives through the covers, one on the up through mid off... very similar, in fact, to the innings he played against Australia the other day (see wheel).
Dileep Premachandran, elsewhere, sees parallels between Cardiff and India's 1983 win over West Indies at the now defunct Albion Sports Complex, Berbice.

The ghost who walks

As if the Aussies don't have enough troubles on the field, it appears a ghost has been haunting their rooms -- Angus Fraser has the report, in the Independent.
And while on the Aussies, here's a Buchanan-eye-view of how the team is coping with successive defeats.

How narrow is narrow?

It's been a heavy work day -- and a slow news day, which makes me feel a touch easier about not blogging quite as much as usual.
This story about Arun Lal's possible hire as coach for Jharkand, is worth a read -- if only because it shows you how narrow our world view can be.
When Greg Chappell was being interviewed for post of national coach, the cry raised by Mohinder Amarnath, Ajit Wadekar and others was 'Why do we need a foreign coach, why not an Indian?'
So when Jharkand wants a coach, what happens? Chaos, confusion, in-fighting. And then this bit:

Some of the senior cricket coaches of the city have also questioned the idea of hiring Lal. “There are experienced coaches in Jharkhand who have earlier worked with the Ranji players. Lal’s presence would make things more complicated,” a city-based coach, who is also a former Bihar captain, said.

Bangla bashing back

Work is damnably difficult to do when there is live cricket on; I figured Bangladesh chasing 392 wouldn't tempt me into watching but boy, what a game. More to the point, what a player -- Ashraful, for a brief while, ignited hope. Not that you figured Bangla could hunt the target down -- but that lad is nerveless, and he can bat. To go along at close to seven an over against the England attack, till just beyond the halfway stage, was a little triumph in itself, surely?

What's with Windies cricket?

Back for a bit, one eye on the ritual annihilation of Bangladesh, the other on recent developments in the cricket world.
Windies cricket appears to be in terminal decline -- the situation getting to be so bad, they can't even get candidates for the post of board president.

The West Indies Cricket Board has postponed its annual meeting to allow more time to receive nominations for the posts of president and vice-president, an official said.
The board received no nominations for either post by Thursday's deadline, prompting it to postpone the meeting from July 17 to August 7, cricket board spokesman Leonard Robertson said late Friday. Nominations must be submitted 30 days before the meeting.

A hard-hitting piece by Vaneisa Baksh on Cricinfo argues it is not just a lack of candidates. Two good ones in Derryck Murray and Clive Lloyd, she says, came up -- and went down, for no fault of theirs.

The substandard arguments against them require little rebuttal. In the case of Deryck Murray, his sin was his challenge for the leadership of the Trinidad & Tobago Cricket Board of Control that left him persona non grata locally, and by extension within the regional cabal. None of the other boards dares to nominate him if his local board would not. Murray has ample experience, knowledge, and business background, and his commitment to cricket development is sound. Why should he be excluded?
As for Lloyd's eligibility, questioned by the TTCBC in relation to his residential status, can we have confidence in a body that would resort to such pedantry to block the former captain's contribution?

Closer home, in-fighting within the BCCI ranks gets into overdrive. Less than a month after Kamal Morarka spearheaded a move to get Lalit Modi ousted from the Rajasthan Cricket Association, Morarka has been suspended.
The gloves are now well and truly off, with the Dalmiya faction, of which Morarka is a key component, and the Modi faction locked in battle for control of the board. (Those wanting an up-close look into the mind of this man should check out a three-part interview Faisal Shariff did for Rediff, some four years back).

A must read

Was about to exit this for work, when I chanced upon a Greg Baum piece pegged on Shane Warne's latest indiscretion.
Eloquently written, this; Baum argues a case for why we need to treat sportsmen as performers on a stage -- but stop well short of investing them with moral authority and building them up as role models.

Strangely, we - the media - and the public continue to invest players and ex-players with moral authority, then to dwell upon the latest abrogation as if it has come as a shock when in fact it is not even a surprise. Not many sportspeople were pillars of society even when they lived in it. Now their world is so remote from the real world that almost nothing applies: not wage scales, not responsibility, least of all propriety.

Later, guys... off now to work.

Off for a bit

That's Strauss gone, and no 400-plus score, not today (unless Hossain bowls a couple of no-balls to end the innings).
Off to get some work done, back in here in about two hours.

More Warne

Been keeping half an eye on the Bangladesh-England game -- where England is poised to, who knows, become the first team past the 400 run barrier?; half an eye on work; and half an eye (alright, I'm kind of losing track here) on the net, where I spotted this discussion board on the news.com.au network on Warne's recent troubles.
Lots of fun posts -- my pick being this:

From: Kyle
Comment: I thought Warney was a leg spinner not a quick.

I witness

Madhav, one of the regulars on here, sent us this account of a day at Southgate, watching action in the recent Middlesex-Glamorgan (that is Irfan Pathan-Saurav Ganguly, for us) game.
Reminds me -- would love for you guys to send in your own pieces. Stat based analysis seeing the game from your own particular perspective; eye witness accounts of action; chance encounters with players... anything that tempts you into writing. At some point soon, we hope to increase the level of audience participation on the Rediff cricket pages, and this is as good a way of kicking it off as any.
The email is prem@us.rediff.com cc to prem.panicker@gmail.com

Automated quote generators?

There must be a good few tech guys out there, right? How about you do the rest of us a favor, and create an automated quote dispenser for times like this, when there is no real 'news' happening and us journos are forced to scramble for headlines?
Seems to me a black buck can't wander outside of its home these days without getting shot at. And no cricketer -- past, present, future -- can leave his home without being waylaid by a reporter who asks him whether he thinks Sachin Tendulkar's best days are over.
Welcome to the club, Kapil; good to see you here.
Let's see, there is still about a month and a half before India plays any serious cricket -- if we go at the rate of three a week, we should have just about managed to ask this question to everyone on our list of past players before serious action begins and we get something real to write about.
Sheesh!

Probable omissions

The big news of the day is the announcement of the probables list.
The good bit is the scheduling of the coaching camps -- from June 27 to July 22, the players are almost constantly under the eye of the coach, physio and the rest of the back room staff, unlike in the past where you had at best a 10-day camp to kick-start the new season.
Neat, too, that the exercise kicks off with a camp purely for physical conditionikng purposes. Years back, in course of a chat, then physio Andrew Kokinos said if he were to make a wish list, the item on top would be an exclusive camp for physical training, where he could work in a structured fashion on the players, without the 'distraction' of nets and such interfering.
I'd also assume the net has been cast so wide, when drawing up the list, so Greg Chappell can get an up close look at as much of the available talent as possible, which again is all to the good.
A couple of things puzzle me, though -- if the idea is to see as many players as possible before making the first cut of the season, why is Ambati Rayudu missing? Does anyone know if the lad is injured, or otherwise unable to attend for some reason? It's an omission that jumps out at you, if only because Chappell himself had picked him as one of the names to keep an eye on.
The other puzzling aspect is the spinners list -- is it true that there are just three spinners worth considering in a preliminary camp, in all of India?

Shame warning

The ACB caught on the horns of a dilemma here... (in passing, why "horns of a dilemma"? Where did this come from? Why do we instinctively reach for that phrase, without a clue what kind of animal 'dilemma' is, and whether its horns are straight and pointy or curved or what..?)
Shane Warne can't seem to keep his fly zipped and his cellphone turned off -- and Australian cricket could do without the resulting negative publicity (I hope like hell the stump microphones are working good, when the Ashes Tests begin -- would love to hear what the England players come up with on this).
Cricket Australia seems miffed; players association chief Tim May is clear this is a 'private matter' -- in other words, 'keep off'.
Warne himself has an interesting take on this -- if you read between the lines of his statement, the world is full of women waiting for the leggie to set foot in their country so's they can rush off to the nearest tabloid and go, hey, I slept with Warney, and guess what, it wasn't worth the while.
Meanwhile, the story of the Aussie team getting a pay rise is being invariably clubbed with the clause 'despite a bad start to the Ashes tour'. (SMH headlines the same story 'Good work boys, now here's a pay rise'; news24.com tags it 'Beaten Aussies win pay rise'.
A lesson in this for us, surely? Maybe teach us not to swing from one extreme -- deification -- to the other -- villification?
I mean, the moment we win a Test series, we are full of how India is poised to topple Aussies and become world number one; lose one, and the talk is all about how well paid the cricketers are, and how they earn millions in endorsements and don't care about the game, and so on.
The Aussies have spent what, 10 years at the top of the tree; they've put daylight between themselves and the rest of the cricketing world -- and yet, lose two games, and the impression created is they got more money 'despite losing'. Weird.

Corridor of certainty

I know I know -- said I was done for the day didn't I? Was just clearing mailbox, though, and a friend sent this link to a post on the Corridor of Uncertainty blog. Neat pic of Lord's, thought you guys might want to take a look. Cheerio, all

Round up

Oh wow, much debate on the captaincy issue I raised in the previous post -- will let it go on for a while, I think, before responding to some of the questions raised. Back here briefly, meanwhile, with a collection of links to stories of some interest:
1. An aspect of Australia's recent defeats is the speed with which the Aussie media has blown the whistle on its own team -- as for instance this editorial in The Age. Makes you wonder -- I'd thought it was an exclusively Indian tendency, to build the team up after every win, and tear it to bits after each defeat, but apparently no one is exempt.
2. Aussie coach John Buchanan, in conversation with Angus Fraser for the Independent, seems exempt from the general panic. A couple of comments worth noting:

"I have not experienced anything like this with this particular team," Buchanan admitted. "We are in a situation we have never been in before. In the past when we have had a loss, the team has rebounded pretty quickly. But we are now in new territory and, I say this tongue in cheek, England are in new territory, too. It will be interesting to see how they deal with that.

But more to the point is his take on the way forward:

"The first thing I have to do with everyone is keep what is taking place in perspective," he said. "There is always a danger that you can over-analyse when things are not going well, and this can potentially lead to players not wanting to back their skill or their decision-making.
"You don't want the players thinking, 'I'd better not do this in case it leads to an error'. I would rather they had a go, because at least then they have made a decision. If it then goes wrong it comes down to execution or poor decision-making. But at least then you have something to work with, which is not the case when you make no decision at all."

3. Briefly going off the Ashes topic, did you guys spot this story on Rod Marsh, who is all set to quit as the director of England's coaching academy?

Rod Marsh has removed himself from England's selection panel as part of his countdown to the end of his reign as the National Academy Director at the end of this summer.
The former Australian wicketkeeper announced his decision to end his post at the Academy and return home earlier this year, but has remained on the selection panel alongside chairman David Graveney, Geoff Miller and coach Duncan Fletcher.
But Marsh has announced he would no longer be an active member of the selection panel as he prepares to return home to Australia and will instead oversee the handover of the Academy to successor Peter Moores.

Raises a thought -- isn't it an idea, if and when the BCCI gets down to revamping the selection committee, to find on it a place for the head of the national academy? After all, theoretically it is the NCA head who should have the most in-depth information about emerging talent, yes?
4. Back to the Ashes, and Kevin Pietersen is the subject of a Matthew Pryor profile in the Times. To me, the standout excerpt is KP's take on being sledged by Graeme Smith of South Africa:

“He has no wit. He just made a load of ridiculous comments. I don’t think he’s too intelligent, actually. People like Pollock and Kallis were fine, it was just Smith. And I’d never even spoken to him before in my life. But I know a lot of people who have no time for him, including his players.”

5. Christopher Martin-Jenkins alone doesn't seem to have bought into KP-mania -- his take on whether England's newest star is ready for a Test berth draws parallels with the last South African import to make the British team -- a certain Graeme Hick. Even in his match report, Martin-Jenkins avoids the unadulterated euphoria of his peers
6. Derek Pringle in the Telegraph has been consistently making the case that this is England's year; here is his take on the PK blitz at Bristol.

Interestingly, one newspaper described him as surfing a monster wave of adrenalin as he seemingly cleared the boundary at will, though this surely applied more to those watching than to Pietersen. Certainly, those sportsmen best at coping with pressure tend to be those who keep their adrenalin rushes under control. Sunday's carnage was not the result of raging hormones but a cool and calculating mind that Australia will do anything to get inside.

7. Elsewhere, the Adam Hollioake hat trick appears to have taken the sheen off Rahul Dravid's 62 off 47 in the tsunami-benefit game; this report has a bit more detail.
Anyone saw the game? Any eyewitness accounts to share? Care to write it up for Rediff?
8. In the Statesman, RC Rajamani has a first person account of his meeting with Mushtaq Ali; Harish Pandya, who has done a lot of work for Rediff in the past, writes his obituary for the Guardian.
9. Sharad Dravid, in the Deccan Herald, on the joys of being the father of a cricketing superstar.
10. Sachin Tendulkar opens the India Room at the Oval -- any of you guys in England planning to visit? How about treating the rest of us to an eyewitness take -- and, what the hell, might as well ask for the moon, some pix -- on the place, the room, and such?
11. And finally, the judge gives the Nawab of Pataudi bail in the poaching case, despite allegedly receiving telephone threats promising mayhem if he let the Nawab out.
Postscript, before I log off for the day: The debate on the merits and demerits of Saurav Ganguly as national one day captain (one day, please note -- one of the posters has an elaborate argument on why he shouldn't lead in Tests, but it doesn't seem to fit) could tend to get sidetracked by the fact that Saurav Ganguly is as on date serving a six-game ban.
I need to mention that in writing what I did, I discounted that -- because last heard from, the BCCI was putting together a legal brief that seeks to overturn the ban, which will be presented before the ICC during the upcoming general body meeting in London. My take hasn't taken that ban into account because I figured the ICC will likely set the ban aside -- if it does not, then all bets are obviously off. The post needs, guys, to be read with an 'all else being equal' mindset, do note.
Good night all, see you back tomorrow.

The question of captaincy

It is, mercifully, a slow news day (I mean, how many stories in how many different newspapers, all much of a muchness really, can we read, about the Aus-England game?) -- so that gives me time to ignite a little debate on here, on the question of India's captaincy.
If I were sitting down to pick a captain, I'd scribble some think-points for myself, first. Broadly, these:
1. I have a new team management in place -- hence, a certain 'holding period' is desirable while the new coach, and his support staff, gain a degree of familiarity with the members of the team.
2. I do not, as on date, have to pick a captain for both forms -- India kicks off its season with a one-day series in Sri Lanka in August. Hence, I only need to pick a one-day captain for now. This gives the team management a buffer of time in which to observe form, and such intangibles as team spirit, dressing room atmosphere, leadership qualities and such.
Given this, I would only announce at this point the captain to lead India in Sri Lanka, with the captain for the tour of Zimbabwe to be announced August 15.
Before picking my captain for the August start of the season, I would spend some time thinking about who I would want leading India in, let's say, 2008.
It is eminently possible that one of the younger players -- Mohammad Kaif, Yuvraj Singh, maybe even Dinesh Mongia, who knows -- could in the interim put his hand up with some spectacular, and consistent, performances. But for now, given the existing personnel and their potential, I find it hard to look beyond Virender Sehwag for the long term role.
There is a body of thought that he is an instinctive player, that he does not think about the game -- both at an individual level, and in the collective. But in Sehwag today, you see what was obvious about Saurav Ganguly in the late 90s and around 2000: a very visible, very high-energy involvement in the field (keep an eye on the guy the next time India plays -- he is invariably a part of on-field discussions, often he is the one who initiates them, at times you see him off his own initiative adjusting field positions...), and an equally apparent hunger for the top job.
For all of these reasons, I'd earmark him for the future captaincy (obviously, continued form permitting). And I'd make clear to him now that this is his apprenticeship period -- an opportunity, as Ricky Ponting had under Steve Waugh, to grow into the job, to perfect his own style of leadership so that when the mantle came to him, he would be ready in all particulars.
Which then leaves the question of today's leader. I would, personally, leave the captain's armband with Saurav, for several reasons:
1. Lack of a valid reason for change: During the Indo-Pak Test series, I had the distinct impression that Saurav's lack of confidence in his own batting was translating into a certain defensiveness in the field.
Saurav acolytes will probably argue this with some heat, but I believe a team playing under a more confident Ganguly would have won the Mohali game, and likely the Bangalore game as well -- or at the very least, ended the tour with a 2-0 result.
When it came to the one-dayers, though, it was a different story -- the run of four defeats at the hands of Pakistan did not owe, as obviously, to the captaincy (keep in mind, too, that Saurav did not lead in all of them).
Key components malfunctioned, all at the same time -- the openers did not get off to the sort of starts the team is used to; the middle order was brittle; fielders went off the boil and, crucially, the bowling was, for the most part, lacking in aggression and imagination.
Changing the captain was not going to solve any of those ills -- in fact, we did change the captain, with Dravid leading once Ganguly was banned, but that change at the top did not bring any visible change to the way the team played.
2. The oft-cited TINA (there is no alternative) factor: Rahul Dravid seems the logical candidate -- but while I would be tempted to consider him for Tests, I am not too keen on his credentials as a one-day skipper. Rahul is just that touch too bookish, too much a creature of order and method and too little reliant on flair and instinct, to suit the short-form game. And outside of Rahul, there is no logical challenger for the job -- it is too early for Sehwag and probably too late for Anil Kumble.
3. Continuity: Off the field, the team in these coming weeks will have enough on its hands adjusting to a new coach, a new support staff, new methods; the last thing it probably needs is to have to adjust to a new captain and new on-field thinking as well.
The one question mark that remains is form. Had I been picking a captain in the immediate aftermath of the Pakistan series, it would have loomed large. That is the thing with the off season, though -- everyone starts afresh. There is some evidence that Saurav is getting to spend more time in the middle, on the English county circuit, and regaining a measure of his touch -- so the question of form, especially in the short-form version of the game, doesn't worry me too much just now.
Besides these key reasons, there are a couple of others. Firstly, Sachin Tendulkar will not be playing for India for at least four months -- and that leaves an immediate vacuum at the top. Conventional wisdom will probably indicate Mahendra Singh Dhoni as the likely pick -- a Dhoni-Sehwag pairing could in fact be devastating if it clicks, and Dhoni could gain immensely from the experience Sehwag brings at the other end.
The trouble, though, is Dhoni hasn't had time to try his hand at the job; if he fails, there is absolutely no backup. In Saurav, you have a player who has a very good record at the top of the order, which covers that base. Further, if you have Sehwag-Dhoni opening and the pairing clicks, then the only other base to cover is the middle order, where Yuvraj and Kaif appear to have gone off the boil a touch. The idea of an in-form Ganguly coming in to bat in the middle overs, to a softer ball and with spin predominating, is immensely attractive -- he can afford to take a little time to settle in; the ball is not likely to be seaming around quite as much nor will there be close catchers to take advantage of the odd edge, and once he is set, there are not too many players around who can explode the way he can.
There is one other reason -- and this goes back to what I said earlier, about a new management needing transition time, to seed its ideas. Ganguly has worked with Chappell before, the two share an obvious respect and rapport -- the coach will probably find it easier to get the team thinking his way, if he already has a champion in his captain.
Given all this, I'd pick Saurav to lead India to Sri Lanka. I would use that tour to assess his form, his on-field confidence, the synergy with his coach and back-up team, and all related matters. And on August 15 -- by when I have enough empirical evidence to go on -- I would announce India's captain for both Tests and one-dayers, for duration of the season.
Right, that's the promised take on the captaincy -- now to hear what you guys think. Have a busy day ahead, meanwhile, so not likely to come back in here the rest of the day.
Cheerio, all, see you tomorrow.

Open season on Aussies

So it's official, by media concensus -- Australia's cricket team has imploded; the team has lost its lustre; their reputations have been flushed down the toilet; they are struggling to make an impact and almost everything that can go wrong, has. That last story, from sportinglife.com, has Richard Gibson analysing each player and finding little if anything positive to say about most.
Even Ricky Ponting seems to be feeling the pressure, if his instinctive search for quickfix solutions -- bring back Brett Lee, bring back Andrew Symonds -- is any indication.
One thing this does is put matters in perspective for us -- remember the collective down when the Indian team went through its own bad patch last season? Batsmen and captain losing form, bowlers losing the plot, the fielders going off the boil? Happens to the best, we now find -- so maybe we can step back a tad, and let the national team find its feet again?

No comments

Appended to an earlier post, is a link to this opinion piece in the Telegraph.
Thanks for the link -- made interesting reading. Do I have comments? Um, no -- I am frankly at a loss for words on this one. :-)
Meanwhile, it is Monday -- much as I want to go trawling the web to see what various papers made of the England-Aus match yesterday, the first day of the week is about edit meetings, news budgets and suchlike stuff that cannot be postponed. Will be away for a couple of hours, will be back by three my time, and regular blogging resumes then.

The Pietersen effect

Even the Aussie press is beginning to view England's latest wunderkind as something more than a pretty face with freaky hair.
Yesterday was the first I got to watch him bat; something about his bottom-handed style of play got me curious. Check these wagonwheels out:
1. 91 not out off 65 versus Australia at Bristol June 19. 63 of his runs on the on side, 44 of those in the midwicket arc
2. 116 off 110 versus South Africa at Centurion February 13. 84 off those 116 runs on the on side -- 37 through midwicket, 40 through mid on.
3. 108 off 96 versus South Africa at Bloemfontein, February 2. 62 runs on the on, 42 of those in the midwicket arc.
Does it give you the sense, as it does me, of a predominantly bottom-handed player whose comfort zone is on the front foot to deliveries pitched up and on line of the stumps, swinging the bat through the arc onto the on side? Of the Aussie bowlers who bowled at him yesterday, only McGrath and Brad Hogg kept the ball outside off, and a tad short of driving length -- it could be coincidence that these were the two bowlers he didn't really get hold of.
Then again, it could also be that the Aus think tank didn't take him as seriously as it should have, didn't do the due diligence. For me, a major point of interest in the next match-up between these two sides is the line the Aussies bowl to him, and how Pietersen copes.

Deja view

You guys remember the 1999 World Cup? The one where Australia started off on the wrong foot, seemed down and out, and spurred Steve Waugh into making his now-famous war cry: All we have to do is win seven in a row?
Dean Jones was one of Rediff's columnists for that Cup; on my way to work this morning, I was remembering a column he wrote for us at the time.
Check out the problems enumerated here: Sloppy batting; bad fielding; rubbish bowling characterised by a lack of discipline; a weak fifth bowling option; an ageing team; off field problems centering around -- who else? -- Shane Warne...
Interesting column -- change the date and a couple of names, and this could have been written yesterday.
Deano wrote a sequel to this column, that is equally worth reading.
Why do I bring this up? Because the very first story I spotted this morning was one on Fox Sports, asking the question: Is the Aussie dynasty over?
Here's the funny part -- when the Aussies were steamrolling over everyone in sight, concensus in the cricketing world was that for the good of the game, the world champions needed to be pushed, to feel the pressure. That teams should emerge capable of challenging the Aussie hegemony. That without strong contenders emerging, interest in the game will ebb -- who wants to see one team winning everything, all the time?
So now that is happening. India in Australia showed that the champions could be tamed; England is now taking the fight to the Aussies. Cricket is not looking like a one-team game anymore. And all of this is to the good -- but surely, reports of the team's imminent demise is wildly exaggerated, surely?

The list

Collingwood's effort in the field today -- a real stunner it was, too -- prompts the Press Association to come up with its list of the five top catches, presumably of all time or at least, of relatively recent memory.
Similarly inspired, BBC Sport comes up with its own list -- with somewhat, but not entirely, similar results.
Your turn -- memorable catches, guys, that linger in your mind?
And from me for now, that is it. Heading out -- it is, after all, Sunday afternoon; see you in here Monday morning. Take care all, enjoy what remains of the weekend.

News briefs

Haven't been able to keep an eye on county action today; you guys have any insights, eye witness accounts etc, please post.
Meanwhile, Rahul Dravid, Viru Sehwag etc figuring in Twenty20 action tomorrow; be worth keeping an eye on this to see how they go?
In the West Indies, same old same old. Seems like each time they head into a fresh series, the contract disputes come to the fore again.
Elsewhere, the Dawood Ibrahim-Javed Miandad liaison seems to be confirmed, a day after it was vehemently denied. The Australian takes note of the happening, with this headline: Batter's Match with Bomber
Pakistan spent a good few years trying to persuade India to cross the border for cricket tours -- and the argument was, to play sport is good for releasing tensions, it is one of the possible confidence building measures. Apparently the theory only holds for cricket -- there's this story that Indian boxers have been denied visas for Pakistan. Time, you think, for the government and the BCCI to put its collective foot down and say hey, look, you can't pick and choose -- if cross border sports tours are good, then it has to apply to all sport, not only to those that make you money?

Links....

1. The English tabloids ripping into the Aussies following the Bangladesh defeat -- and this is nothing compared to what they will do after England's win today.
2. Inevitable question, I guess -- was the defeat against Bangladesh the worst moment in Aus sporting history?
3. It was not only the tabloids that tore Aus a new one, though. Vic Marks headlines his piece in the Guardian thus: Arrogant Aussies humbled.

The astonishing truth is that Australia, acknowledged as the best side in the world in all forms of the game - except perhaps Twenty20 - were clinically outplayed by the minnows of world cricket. Mashrafe Mortaza was the best bowler on view yesterday. Mohammad Ashraful, who sparkled in the evening sunshine, played the best innings, a brilliant century. Australia dropped more catches than Bangladesh, who, in contrast to their opponents, took all the right decisions - Ricky Ponting's preference to bat first was a mistake, based on the assumption that this match could not be lost.
The Australian bowlers could not bully the Bangladeshis as England's have this summer. The pitch was too slow for that and so is the Australian pace attack when Brett Lee is not playing.

4. Marks, in his preview of the Aus-Enggame, put his finger on the main chink in the Aus armor, when he pointed at the bowling:

They will score runs, probably rapidly. But so far their bowling has looked distinctly mortal and they will probably be hindered by the absence of Brett Lee today.

5. The bowling attack, again, the focus in the Scyld Berry of the Telegraph's review of the Aus-Bangla game:

Bangladesh, at the start of their reply, were as subdued as Australia but they perked up as soon as Australia's three pace bowlers had finished their opening spells. Brad Hogg has shortened his run-up a la Warne but not increased his control of length; Clarke cannot match his predecessor Darren Lehmann for wiliness, while Hussey would hit his own medium-pace a long way.
On a dried pitch against this motley change-bowling Mohammed Ashraful went to town. When McGrath came back, Ashraful smacked him over extra-cover twice, with scarcely a protest from the bowler, let alone a stomp.

6. Variations on the theme -- Michael Atherton, in his column in the Telegraph, says:

What are we to make of Australia's early wobbles? Is it mere rustiness or something more terminal? Undoubtedly they will improve, but there are areas that must be giving Ponting some concern. Their hegemony over the last decade has been largely based on better bowling and out cricket than their opponents. And it is precisely these two areas where they have looked most out-of-sorts.

And again:

As for the fielding, the two defeats last week simply reinforced the impression that this is an ageing Australian team whose best days in the field are long behind them. The number of fumbles, mis-fields and grasps at thin air brought to mind some England performances of the past that had Australian observers choking on their amber nectar.

7. I noticed, in the Telegraph, this take on Michael Kasprowicz by Steve James, the guy who roped in into the Glamorgan team in 2002. Kaspar -- as the man who took Brett Lee's place, and has to provide both support, and cover, for the two fronting bowlers, a very key component of the attack; his being taken for 68 in 9 today meant Ponting had problems with an off color Gillespie, and with the guy who should have covered for him.
8. Stephen Brenkley, in the Independent, on the Aus defeat to Bangladesh at Cardiff:

Two things stood out about Australia in the way they accepted their fate. When Ashraful was out with 23 still wanted, Adam Gilchrist shook his hand as he departed, a remarkable gesture in a tight match. When they had lost, their captain Ricky Ponting was calm but straight talking. "It was one of the biggest upsets in the history of the game," he said anticipating the public reaction at home. "We have got to be made aware of that and if it doesn't make us lift our game nothing will."

Brenkley's match report on the game, incidentally, has a fun headline: Ashraful turns Aussie swagger into a stagger.
9. Same author, with a take on Michael Vaughan; the significant bit in here is this take on the England skipper's working style:

He is at once different and not so different from his immediate predecessor Nasser Hussain. No player would be advised to mess with either of them. But Vaughan's door is more obviously ajar. If he had a policy in June 2003 it was on the importance of communication - to let players have their say.
"I think communication around the team is pretty good," he said. "We're open and we've got a good spirit which has come from being together and working together, doing a lot of things together. Of course winning helps your spirit. People believe in what you're doing and gain confidence."

10. The Aus press also pretty unsparing of their champion team:

Australia's world champion cricket team now has another place in history, and its Ashes tour a place in the doghouse.

The piece also has an update on Andrew Symonds -- whose drinking cost the side a big hitter in the middle order, and a support bowler for the big boys:

Symonds is understood to have been drinking early into yesterday morning and it was only revealed during the side's warm-up that he was in no fit state to play.

11. The SMH, again, quite caustic about the team's problems, both on the field and off it. In a piece titled Australia caught with its pants down, SMH says:

Disgraceful on the field. Disgrace off it. Australia's world champion cricketers - Andrew Symonds especially - are hanging their heads in shame after a five-wicket one-day loss to Bangladesh, the worst team in international cricket.
And if that wasn't enough, Shane Warne is in trouble again

12. While the focus is on Aus, quite a few stories on the celebrations in Bangladesh. and then there is this one by Chloe Sattlau, in the SMH, where one passage caught my eye:

Bangladesh coach Dav Whatmore admitted he had been frustrated over the years by Ashraful's habit of getting out cheaply despite his precocious talent, and was hopeful his young star would learn to protect his wicket like he did on Saturday.
"God, I hope so," the Australian said. "He won't get a hundred every innings, but just to make the bowler earn his wicket is all I want."

13. Of all the stories I saw today, though, perhaps the most significant is this one on the Australian fielding standards declining, which I spotted in The Age. The paper talks to Mike Young, the baseball coach who for a while was working with the Aus team on its fielding skills:

"There's no doubt in my mind that the last few years, there has been more and more focus on batting and bowling and less on fielding," Young said. "Especially with one-day cricket, there needs to be more focus on that part of the game. It's vital to any team's chances but sometimes tends to get overlooked.
"Ground fielding needs repetition and a lot of focus on proper techniques. I do feel that lacks in cricket. There's a lot of drill work, but not a lot of instruction. I thought we made strides in that area, and it's disappointing to hear (the Australians) aren't doing so well in that department. They're great athletes . . . but you need to keep working at it.

If that passage underlines the importance of rigorous, focussed practise even for a naturally athletic bunch like the Aussies, check this one out -- did the Aussies become so gung-ho about their batting and bowling skills, they took their eyes off the ball, literally, when it came to honing their fielding skills?

"I (Mike Young) wanted to stay . . . but I was basically forced out the door. After two or three years working with them, and with my background in coaching, I was getting frustrated and, quite frankly, somewhat insulted. I would love to work with the Australians again and my door is always open."

Interesting: Aus, you thought, always places importance on its support team, honors the back room boys and works with them. But here's the guy who taught them the finer points of outfielding, and throwing, saying he was forced out, that he was frustrated, occasionally even insulted. Strange.

Oh great shot!

Low full toss, man out in the deep, and this bloke Pietersen hits it straight as a string -- playing out of his skin here; and the follow up even better. One step forward, then one step back, ruins the length, then bang, over the long on fence, six to follow the four. 29 off 38 and England in control -- if this guy lasts

Hoo boy...

...what a finale. Pietersen -- a very bottom-handed late order hitter, by the looks of him -- going for broke; Kasprowicz, then Watson, under the hammer; Gilchrist against the run of play producing a spectacular run out... where is Ravi Shastri and his "It's all happening out there" when you need him?

Aussie nose in front

Run rate now up above 8... and at this point, all the pressure on England. This is getting really interesting... back here after the game is done

The Pietersen principle

Hmmm... required run rate, I notice, up to 7+ (103 needed in 14.4) -- and there goes Vaughan, who (I only saw him for a little over an over) seemed to have determined on playing anchor; that mindset causing him to play back to what really was a fuller length, on-drivable ball.
England now in strife -- and the key is the man with the big hitting credentials, Kevin Pietersen, while Geraint Jones hopefully anchors the other end and lets his partner grab the bulk of the strike.
Off to the live feed, to watch the last part of the action.

Back in time...

...to watch the end-game at Bristol, where the game seems to be nicely balanced just now.
Also gives me some time, before I have to go out again, to browse for stories of interest -- you should start seeing the results on here soon-ish.
Meanwhile, found this query in the Open Forum post, from PK:

I know you are busy with your conference and stuff but I thought B'desh's win over the Aussies was big enough to devot some of your time and thoughts to it. Should this win lay to rest all the talk about the test playing status of B'desh?

Actually, no -- I never did think form/results in one version of the game is an indicator of the other. To cite an off the top instance, India is at this point what, number 7 or 8 in ODIs? But in the long-form version, we are up there at three, behind only Australia and England (and even that has to be viewed in context of the fact that we haven't played England in a while).
Even without going into examples, it stands to reason that in the shorter form of the game, a small factor can have a much bigger impact than it would in the longer form: A Ricky Ponting, say, misreading the pitch and batting first in bowling conditions is one key factor for the Aussie loss, but in a Test match, the batsmen who came in after the early wickets have the time to dig down deep, settle in, and build innings.
The two forms are so different in what they require of a team, that I wouldn't use the one as a litmus test for your fitness for the other.

Open thread

Last lap of the SAJA conference -- a brunch to attend, soon's I get showered and dressed. Damn -- means I miss the second half of the Aus-England encounter. :-(
Open thread, guys, if you want to chat with one another; will go get this done, then come back in here later in my day -- likely in about two and a half hours from now -- with posts.

Leisure reading...

Was just sitting down to a leisurely scan of the world of cricket when I get this phone call: Why aren't you at the SAJA conference, was looking for you?
Better run, I guess -- will leave you with these two links:
1. To a Mark Waugh column, which is very unlike the Aussie triumphalism you generally see at the start of an Ashes tour. Sure, says all the right things about waking sleeping giants, but note that Waugh has, like others have in recent times, expressed concern about Australia's slipping standards in the field.
It really must be a huge concern -- the Aus pacemen are not express (barring Brett Lee, that is); which makes it all the more vital that their fielders convert the half chances into wickets.
2. To a Freddy Flintoff interview
3. To a Mike Selvey piece in the Guardian, that proclaims that the Aussie aura is slipping:

The significance of all this, though, lies not in the results themselves (as a guide to the Ashes they carry all the significance of, say, the par-three competition before the Masters golf), but in the fact that gradually the Australian side are being demystified. This was royalty on the toilet, pants around their ankles. Crikey, they are just like us.
We have revered them for their achievement, been insulted and patronised in turn by their media, and simply taken their pre-eminence for granted. We were not worthy, beaten before we began. Gradually that has changed.

Another passage in the piece that caught my eye relates to something I recently posted about McGrath.
Selvey writes:

McGrath for his part has done what he does with a ball in his hand and gone on to autopilot, uttering the usual pre-series drivel about "targeting" Andrew Strauss - he is an opening batsman for goodness sake: would McGrath have directed the new ball at Steve Harmison? - and generally writing England off. As if anyone cares what he thinks.

Oh good -- there are two statements Aussies invariably make before the start of a tour, that consistently irks me. One is McGrath 'targetting' someone or other in the opposition top order (of course you would, idjit) and the other is Shane Warne 'inventing' a new ball. Good to see someone ask the obvious question -- if you as a new ball bowler don't target the opposition top order, who in heck would you target anyways?
Right... need to shower, need to run; given there is an awards dinner tonight after the conference, given too that India Abroad has bagged two, not likely there will be any more action on this blog today. This is an open forum, discuss whatever catches your fancy, I'll try and download the comments when I get a chance so I know what the buzz is.
Take care, you guys, and have a good weekend.

Good show by Bangladesh

Been keeping an eye on two scoreboards -- in Cardiff, Bangladesh 90/3 into the 28th over; not a good enough platform to mount a winning bid from, but they are managing to keep Australia from running away with the game; they've seen off 19 overs of McGrath, Gillespie and Kasprowicz yielding only two wickets to the three lead seamers; they've tossed a few more worries into Ponting's lap.
And in Southgate, Middlesex taking up Glamorgan's challenge and going flat out for a win; Ed Smith fell just now for 145 but Owais Shah is still out there, and going strong -- be the heck of a win if they pull off the 111 runs still needed.

News briefs

The Nawab of Pataudi has surrendered to the police, who will now take him to the site of the hunt as part of their investigations.
Javed Miandad, meanwhile, has denied the story that his son will marry the daughter of Dawood Ibrahim. Then again, says here in this other story that the former Pak star has admitted close ties with Ibrahim. Wonder what the real story is here -- it is the second time a link between the two has been reported, and Miandad has denied it both times. Seems strange that a newspaper will make up an entire liaison out of thin air. Why? Wherefore?
Andrew Symonds appears to have fallen foul of the Aussie team management for reasons unspecified at the time of posting this. At the least, we don't have to speculate about this one -- a report has been promised after the formal enquiry later today.
Elsewhere, Greg Chappell appears to have picked up on the art -- so necessary if you are a celebrity of some sort in India -- of saying a lot without saying nothing much in particular. Not cribbing, mind -- I would have been very surprised if the coach began talking substantively, so early into his tenure, of individual players and such.

Mushtaq Ali RIP

Padma Shri Mushtaq Ali, India's oldest living cricketer, is dead; Cricinfo marks his passing with an obit by Boria Majumdar, whose book 22 Yards to Freedom, which I picked up while in India earlier this year, is next up on my to-read pile; an account from the archives of the India-England game of 1936 (when he became the first Indian to score an overseas century); and Ali's own random takes on life and cricket.
I find myself wishing that during my days as cricket correspondent, I'd spent time with the older players, soaked in their history and gained more perspective, through their eyes, on the events of the present.
So many players, so many experiences and stories -- it's a project someone out there in the Indian cricket space might want to sink his or her teeth into.
The Prime Minister, I notice in passing, has expressed 'deep shock and grief'. Not to crib, but I do wish our heads of state wouldn't put out these by rote press releases -- a fixed template that begins with the words 'The PM/President/CM has expressed deep shock and grief at the passing of *insert-name*, ask a minion who the heck this guy is, and insert as appropriate 'was a legend of music/dance/film/cricket..'
Someone needs to tell them that they don't *have* to mourn the death of someone just because he is dead; no statement at all is preferable, really, to a say-nothing statement the VVIP probably never even saw before it was released by a PIB minion.

Morning round up

In Cardiff, Australia will likely win its first game of the Natwest Trophy, but Bangladesh has given them more cause for worry -- 249/5 is not the kind of score the full-strength Aussies would have been looking to post against this opposition (and 9/2 inside the first six overs certainly not the start it needed).
In Southgate, Ganguly getting a bit of a workout -- an extended 7 over spell ahead of the tea break, after an unbeaten knock of 84/118 in the Glamorgan second innings. Glamorgan's bid to force a win seems at this point to be backfiring -- Ed Smith and Owais Shah both have unbeaten centuries, bringing the tally in this game to 7 including a double. What did they do, import an Indian pitch?
Elsewhere, Worcestershire (58 to win, six wickets in hand) likely to win its game against Leicestershire, for whom Dinesh Mongia top-scored in the first innings, and judging by reports was going well in the second before he played a rash swish.

And finally...

Time to leave, for production (India Abroad) and the convention. While on the latter, someone posted a query on here about journalists, and identity: a request, could you guys when asking an off-cricket query, email it to me please at prem@us.rediff.com; I'd rather not get into all that stuff here. Thanks.
On my way out the door, two more links you might find interesting. The first, an opinion page piece in the Telegraph (the Kolkotta one) about Tiger Pataudi; the other, a piece in the Economic Times about the launch of Zee Sports -- a 24x7 sports channel sans cricket programming, or even marquee soccer programming, of any kind.
Tomorrow morning, will be going for the convention early, so won't have time to come in here. Will, though, try to catch up during the afternoon, before heading back to the convention venue for the evening dinner.
PS: Thanks for the suggestion about audio blogging; will set it up but unfortunately, no time just now. You guys take care, adios

Ashes watch

1. In SMH, a Richard Hinds atmosphere piece on English fans, who oscillate between the hope their team will do well and the fear of voicing such Panglossian optimism out loud.
2. Also from the same site, a Chloe Sattlau piece on Brett Lee, who seems to be making more news by not playing than he did the last few times he played.
3. Consider, for a moment, how hard it must be to play for Australia. Here's Michael Kasprowicz -- many Indian fans will remember him as the guy who unwisely sledged Sachin Tendulkar in Sharjah, and paid a heavy price for it. The story of how he worked on his bowling and improved to the point where he was winning games for Australia and in the process, knocking the far more glamorous Brett Lee out of the lineup was datelined just yesterday, seems like. But one bad outing against Somerset the other day, and suddenly he is the one feeling the pressure and facing the wrath of his captain.
4. And while on that one day warm up game against Somerset at Taunton the other day, it's replacing the traditional tea leaves when it comes to predicting the immediate future of the Ashes contest.

Not since 1977's three-day festival match at Bath, at the very beginning of Somerset's glory days and with a young Ian Botham about to break into the England team, has the cider county beaten the touring Australians. It was not lost on the stunned onlookers at Taunton on Wednesday that England went on that year to win the Ashes series 3-0.

5. It's been whispered before. Very, very softly. After successive defeats -- in Twenty20 to England, and to Somerset in a one-day warm-up -- those whispers are getting just a touch louder.

As much as at any other time, the onus will be on Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne and Jason Gillespie. While the magnitude of their wicket tallies has frequently been highlighted of late, perhaps the aggregate of their ages will soon become the story. They are now 100. McGrath and Warne, the great champions, have between them clocked 70 of those years. One day soon, they will realise how old they are. More to the point, so will the batsmen facing them. Perhaps age will creep up; perhaps it will arrive with a thud.

6. Then again, it's all a matter of perspective -- 'age' is one way of looking at it; 'experience', says Gideon Haigh in The Guardian, is another.

In 128 years of Anglo-Australian cricket, only 55 Australian players have toured England as often as thrice. Six of them are in this team: Shane Warne on his fourth sojourn, Ricky Ponting, Justin Langer, Adam Gilchrist, Jason Gillespie and Glenn McGrath on their third.
If rain interruptions compel the screening of archival footage this season, it may be a little difficult to tell the difference. Australia's first-choice attack - Warne, McGrath, Gillespie and Michael Kasprowicz - is the same as the one with which they began the Ashes of 1997. Five of the team also helped heft the World Cup here six years ago.

7. Peter Roebuck, in The Independent, flips through the pages of history, and finds a leaf he thinks England might want to read from.
8. Roebuck, above, points to Steve Waugh's tactic of letting his fast bowlers slip their leash -- and this story in The Telegraph, again, suggests England may be planning to do just that, as part of a well thought out strategy.

There are not many bowlers who prefer taking medicine to handing it out, especially when those dishing up the pain pills are Stephen Harmison and Andrew Flintoff. But the tactic has wider aims than to force Glenn McGrath and Co into a bit of unseemly genuflection. Indeed, the bigger picture has England's batsmen also benefiting, as the Australians get dragged into a bouncer war in which most of their bowlers concede a serious speed disadvantage.

9. One thing's for sure -- this time round, Team England does not seem scared of taking the Aussies on in pre-Ashes hard talk. Thus, Michael Vaughan suggests, with the sort of cheek that was previously the prerogative of Aussie skippers, that the Aussies might not be as battle ready as they want to be.
10. And finally -- dated link this, but a fun read anyways -- Piers Morgan in the Guardian has the skinny on how England can win the battle.

Dil se... Bajji

On a day when Saurav Ganguly finally got to tuck in (56 not out off 82 balls)to the run feast that is the match between Middlesex and Glamorgan and Dinesh Mongia (36 off 47) blotted his copybook just a touch in the Leicestershire-Worcestershire game at Grace Road, Harbhajan appears to have cornered the kudos, in the British press, for a second straight day.
Reporting on Surrey's innings win over the Shane Warne-led Hampshire at the Rose Bowl, The Telegraph is particularly effusive:

Second time round, they were drummed out for 160 in 33.3 overs, the hot overcast conditions proving far more conducive to bowling than batting and Harbhajan Singh, who swept Hampshire away in the first innings once again proved a force majeure.
He coaxed John Crawley, who batted with a singular show of defiance for 67, into a reckless charge down the wicket then pulled off two brilliant diving catches at deep midwicket, which he said afterwards, with a touch of wryness, rated as two of the least impressive catches of his career.
His stranglehold over hapless batsmen gave Akram, bowling at the other end, a free rein to force errors and the opposition obliged, though Rikki Clarke's aircraft-carrier hands pouched another dazzling catch in the slips to send Greg Lamb packing, as the last rites were administered.
For sheer entertainment, there was little to beat Singh's all-round enthusiasm for his new club, which he says is a genuine response to the support Surrey showed while his doosra was being put through the mill by the International Cricket Council and more recently, when he was struggling with injury.

I'd have thought an analysis of 8-1-47-2 did not really qualify as 'stranglehold on hapless batsmen' -- but that's the thing, what you extrapolate from a scorecard could be vastly different from what a guy at ringside sees.
Bajji is winning hearts simply by being himself -- warm, genuine, and friendly almost to a fault. He has a knack for saying the right thing at the right time, and the Telegraph story has an exemplar:

"Surrey supported me all the way by waiting for me and that means a lot," he said. "All those bad times, they were very supportive so I am giving something back. I think it was worth the wait."

Even Woolmer nods

...approval of Indian coach Greg Chappell, that is.
In an unrelated post, I notice that one response to my query about starting a US cricket blog runs thus:

Prem...just stay away from US Cricket
Goto http://www.uscricket.com/idealbb And you can see all the ugliness. There are not too many +ves in US cricket. Don't waste your time.

Appreciate the heads up, friend, and I'll go check the site out, once my world returns to normal Sunday.
But sight unseen, maybe this is the best possible reason to start something? There's prolly politics and a whole heap of ugliness but dig down deep, and it's a bunch of us Indians -- okay, make that South Asians -- trying, in none too fertile soil, to keep our passion alive for a game we grew up with.
And maybe if we get together and start a platform, it could well be an antidote to some of the poison, who knows? What the heck, let's give it a start, and see where it goes -- will try and put together a 'concept note' (gives me something to do while I am 'conference-ing') and throw it up here Monday, let's see what happens.

Dusting off cobwebs

I've had reason to blast the BCCI in the past -- some say I've made an entire career out of it *L* -- but, on the applause-where-due principle, must point you to this story, of imminent change in how the board scores domestic games. The interesting bit is this:

(Professor Ratnakar) Shetty said efforts were being made to develop a system where all the scores could be fed live into a special website and scorecard of any domestic matches tracked at the click of the mouse.

If it happens, we finally have a way of following domestic competition, real time -- come the day, I'll fire off a 21-gun salute to the BCCI, on here.

Phew!

It's that kind of day -- sorry, blog posts will have to wait till about 6 pm my time. Been so rushed, haven't even managed to check the county scores, but from mails downloading, I notice you guys are talking about SG's latest knock. I notice, too, a question -- questions -- about whether SG should be captain, should be in the team, et al.
It's one I've meant to address -- at least, give my personal take on. Will, too, but a rushed post is no way to do it, and till this conference ends Sunday, rushed posts are all I will be able to find time for. So, Monday first thing, will take this up.
Meantime, a quick link to something that caught my eye a while back, but didn't have time to throw up till now: Javed Miandad's son will marry Dawood Ibrahim's daughter.
So. Cool.
This is the guy our investigators hold responsible for the Bombay bomb blasts; the guy we have a warrant out on; heck, the guy Interpol has a warrant out on. He lives in perfect security and comfort in Pakistan (while President Musharraf insists he does not know where the man is -- the last time he said that, my colleague Sheela Bhatt called Dawood in Pakistan, then published the interview, together with his address and telephone number there); he operates from Dubai; he is free from any fear of being brought to justice.
Meanwhile, any idea what the lives of those who survived the blasts -- but whose loved ones lost limbs, and lives, in it -- has been like?

Guys, need a break

Today is convention day, it is also, for us, production day when the India Abroad pages need to be put together and sent to press...busy on both fronts, which is not to say this blog will go into hibernation; it will, though, be inactive for the next three hours, before resuming.
In the meantime, would appreciate your thoughts on creating a common blog-based platform for all the clubs in the US.
See you in three

No bail for Pat

The court has turned down Pataudi's anticipatory bail plea.
Elsewhere, the Bishnois are threatening a stir if Pataudi and the others involved are not arrested.
A very simple tribe, the Bishnois, with the naive, rustic simplicity of those who live lives untouched by 'civilization' as we know it. I'd spent some time with them, covering the Rajasthan election one time.
My impression was that they prize their land, their village and its elders, and their deities; they ask nothing more than to be left to lead their lives their way; they don't come across as people who are easily stirred -- but they do revere the black buck, and hate poachers.
Given that, their threatened stir could well add a new dimension to the problems Pat and the others are facing now.

Chappell watch

The coach, this story says, is busy setting the wheels in motion, planning camps, discussing issues with the support staff.
Elsewhere -- and this will likely be a regular feature of his tenure -- past players are busy parsing his every statement, and dividing themselves into camps pro and con.
Thus, Chappell's take on captaincy -- that you select your team, first, and then pick the guy to lead it -- has Polly Umrigar pro, Chandu Borde con. (Why pick on Umrigar and Borde to comment? Donno -- maybe they happened to be easily available).
Borde, arguing against, comes up with this:

"It's something new to Indian cricket, but I don't know whether this is a good idea or how this would work out as during selection committee meetings both the captain and coach are present and their views are given weightage (by the selectors)," Borde said.
"How could you get the captain's views about the players who are to be chosen if he himself has not been chosen in the first place?" he queried.

Hmmm, let's see: How about we set the clock at zero? How about we say we don't have a national team just now? (For all practical purposes we don't, this being the off season). How about the national selection committee sits down and picks the national team for the coming season -- with the coach present, this time, merely as observer (he would be in no position to play a larger role just now -- he has just taken over, and would not yet be au courant with the form of current players and with the available bench strength)? How about the selectors, once they have picked the team -- for the triseries in Sri Lanka -- appoint the captain?
From there on it becomes easy, no? The captain, once appointed, is for the long term, form and fitness permitting. He automatically becomes, along with the coach, a member in good voice of the selection committee. Where's the problem?

Question for you

Today is day two of the SAJA conference, so again, for me, an in and out kind of day on this.
Had a question, though -- was just downloading my mail, and I notice several links being posted in comments, to cricket clubs here in the US. Puts me in mind of a project I have been vaguely mulling over for some time now -- this could be a good time to bounce it off you.
Does it make sense for us to bring all these clubs together on one platform, however informal? For instance, how about we start a group blog which will (1) link to all the club websites; (2) keep track of ongoing activities; (3) highlight visiting cricketers/events (for instance, I notice quite a few of the Windies cricketers tend to pop over to this part of the world and turn out, at times, for the local leagues?
Any thoughts on whether such a group blog is a good idea? Why? How we could go about it?

Just links

Never thought to read a piece suggesting that Australia's problem could be its fielding, did you?
Elsewhere comes news that Brett Lee does not have any significant injury -- this, after a period of speculation that his shoulder could be crock.
Shane Warne, in his column in the Times, downplays the euphoric aftermath of England's Twenty20 win.

SORRY, but I spent yesterday morning thinking that I’d missed something. Had England won the Ashes? That’s the way it seemed with all the headlines in the papers and the gibes I was getting from cricket fans. I’ve hardly been able to stop at a traffic light without somebody winding down a window and shouting: “79 all out.”

And back home, comes word that the Firozeshah Kotla is getting a brand new, fast, cricket pitch. Actually, it's an interesting development of the off season -- just the other day, I was reading of the KSCA's efforts, headed by a Kiwi pitch expert, to spruce up the Chinnaswamy wicket; now the Kotla's doing it too.
And while I am throwing up links that might interest you, check this one out, about cricket in New York.
That reminds me -- an old friend is due here this weekend. Starting 18th, Robin Singh wll conduct a two-week cricket coaching camp in New Jersey, and I'm hoping to go spend some time with him. Any of you have any questions you always wanted to ask Robin, send them to me (in email, please, to prem@us.rediff.com with Robin Singh as subject line -- will get answers and post them on here.
Been a less than full blogging day, but must run -- it is nearing midnight, and much work remains. See you guys again tomorrow... take care, meanwhile

Windies board presidency

Those of you keeping an eye on events in the Caribbean might want to read this story, on the impending choice of board president.
What strikes you most is the sense of futility that permeates the piece.

But better cocks have crowed.
Men of wisdom and vision, men with the very best intentions in the world, have been stymied and left frustrated by a system that nurtures a members' club syndrome of cliques and collective decisions.

I read this para and I thought bloody hell, this could be about India's cricket administration:

In essence, this is the dark side of democracy, when we conduct all the wheeling and dealing away from public scrutiny and then present a united front, having made the necessary compromises and dangled the requisite inducements to keep everyone in line.

But then, I read the para immediately following -- and I find myself thinking, heck, god really must love Indian cricket; we do well not because of, but despite, our own best efforts to foul our nest:

And where has this farcical unity brought us? Near the bottom of world cricket, financially bankrupt and bereft of the vision, or even the intention, to effect fundamental change that would at least arrest the slide before beginning to talk of the mythical turnaround.

There but for the grace of god...

Varsity cricket

Huw Richards, in the International Herald Tribune, does an interesting curtain raiser to the annual Oxford versus Cambridge cricket match. Wondering if those of you in England have any take on this?

Bajji hits the headlines

Right, done the conference -- for today, though tomorrow and day after are more of the same -- and back, with a good four hours or more of work ahead of me.
Wanted my cricket fix, though, so went trawling through the British papers to see what they had made of Harbhajan's six-for against Hampshire.
The most detail comes from The Guardian:

By the time Harbhajan came on in the 19th over Hampshire were holding out on a wicket that looked to be favouring seam, with Jimmy Ormond in particular getting bounce and movement.
The Indian spinner, however, playing his third championship match, was given an over before tea to test the wicket. The increase in danger was obvious. Two overs later he bagged John Crawley, a batsman with a reputation for liking spin - the edge flying to Richard Clinton at forward short square leg.
His second victim, Craig McMillan, chose to attack rather than defend, dancing down the wicket only to be stumped by Jonathan Batty for 17. Graham Lamb managed to bat-pad to Ormond at short gully and by then the benefit of spin had become so obvious that Ormond himself switched for a few overs of off-spin, but to little effect.
Watching from the other end was Chris Benham, making his debut at the Rose Bowl. He must have wondered at the change in a strip which the previous day had granted Warne a measly two wickets from 21 overs. However he had scrabbled his way to 41 before being deceived by the ball that has been under close inspection: Harbhajan's doosra turned away from his bat and into the hands of Ali Brown at slip.
Sean Ervine managed an even finer edge to give Batty his third victim before Warne got himself out twice in the same over - once caught in the covers off a no-ball then being bowled to give Harbhajan his sixth victim.

The Telegraph, too, gives Bajji big play:

Harbajhan Singh's brilliant display of spin bowling turned the pitch here into a nest of vipers for Hampshire, giving Surrey the opportunity to inflict a lethal sting by the close tonight.
The Rose Bowl groundstaff's 'zebra' special, shorn white at both ends and verdant green in the middle to maximise the potency of Shane Warne and Chris Tremlett over four days, proved especially helpful to the Indian finger-spinner. Playing in his third championship match for Surrey, who between tea and the close destroyed Hampshire, Singh took six for 36 and gave Surrey's captain, Graham Thorpe, the opportunity to make them follow on, which he is bound to do.
Few batsmen had any clue how to play Singh's infinite variety of offbreaks and Chris Benham, making his championship debut for Hampshire at the Rose Bowl, failed to spot his doosra and was caught by Alistair Brown in the slips having impressed with a worthy 41.
A few also played as if they had forgotten to pay their brain bills, including the experienced Craig McMillan, who charged down the wicket to Singh and was effortlessly stumped by Jonathan Batty.
John Crawley faced seven balls before he was caught off bat and pad at short leg and Warne became Singh's final victim, though it was Jimmy Ormond, coming off four paces, who brought Hampshire's sorry first effort to a close on 146, nine wickets falling in a little over 30 overs.

The Independent's resident poet must have been on headline duty; the match report comes titled Hampshire hit for six by Harbhajan's box of tricks. And unlike the other reports that focus on the bowling, this one gives a nod to Bajji's little cameo of 25 with the bat off 16 balls.

It took him a little while but Harbhajan Singh, known as the "Turbanator", finally got into the swing of things and left Hampshire in a right old spin yesterday.
Having done his bit with the bat, when he and Dominic Thornely ensured a fourth batting point for Surrey, Harbhajan achieved his first five-wicket haul for his new employers.

And if you still haven't had enough, there is the piece in The Times, which doesn't say too much you haven't read by now.

Pat is a no show

A day after Saif Ali Khan said his dad was not absconding, the Nawab of Pataudi failed to appear before the police.
Turns out there is much of interest, in the world of cricket, to blog about today -- but no can do; from now till 11 pm, am going to be at the conference. Will pick up the various threads once I am done, and back where I can blog.
In passing -- I do have the Verizon high speed card, thanks :-) Thing is, you can't, without being impossibly rude, sit in on a conference and do your own thing.
See you guys, much later in my night... take care meanwhile...

Going, going...

Anyone bidding for this?

Strictly without comment...

...I offer you this piece, from the Hindustan Times.
Why no comment? Because when you spot things like this in what purports to be a newspaper article...

He better not insult Tendulkar because neither does he have that stature nor any right.

...you take the charitable view, and presume that when the staff wasn't looking, someone's adolescent son fiddled with the comp.

County round up

Glamorgan declares, so no outing with the bat for Saurav Ganguly.
In the Surrey-Hampshire game, Shane Warne went 21-0-89-2 in Surrey's score of 361; Bajji, after whacking a quick 25 (16 balls, four fours, one six), doing a demolition job on Hampshire with six for 28 in 14.3 (his wickets including Warne, just by way of rubbing it in).
And for Leicestershire, Dinesh Mongia (no, wasn't ignoring him -- have, in fact, been posting on him before, as well) top scores with 66 (82 balls, 13 fours) and is now doing a decent job with the ball (4-1-6-0).
A touch early for the British papers to have weighed in on the day's play -- will keep an eye on it for descriptions of how the Indians did. Meanwhile, anyone watched the games? Appreciate eyewitness insight, if any.

Off for a bit

Like I said, folks -- the conference, and the fact that our CEO is making a presentation there, means I need to go off the map for a bit, get some things ready. Be back in a couple of hours, before going off the map again.

True to form

Today's apt to be one of those 'sporadic blogging' days, guys -- it is day one of the three-day South Asian Journalists' Association annual conference; I am expected to attend. Will be gone from about 1 pm, till 10 pm, my time -- and will get back to this blog later in my night.
But meanwhile -- you guys surely saw Ranbir Singh Mahindra's sudden spurt of concern over Saurav Ganguly's form?

"Well, the replacement of Sourav Ganguly is to be considered by the selection committee, but definitely as far as the performance... I tend to agree over the point that he has to improve... in the sense that he has to score."

Just yesterday, I'd posted my thoughts on journalists' need to ask questions, no matter how inane, then see how the answers can be twisted into a semblance of substance -- with, if possible, a dollop of sensationalism thrown in. Hey, don't blame us -- how would you like it if you came visiting ad found, on our home page, the announcement: 'Sorry, nothing to report, come back later?'
Here's the perfect example of what I was talking about. Karan Thapar 'gets' Mahindra, so what's he going to ask him? Lemme see... ah, captaincy, that old favorite. And what's Mahindra going to say? That it is a matter for the selectors -- which it is. And since you can't stop there -- you are, after all, the boss.
So you say I have spoken to them, told them only performance matters, blah blah.
Apparently, Ganguly has to score runs. Duh! We knew that. It's like those press conferences Azhar used to hold, after a defeat. Why did we lose? 'We batted badly, bowled badly, fielded badly'. How can we win the next game? 'We have to bat better, bowl better, field better.'
This is what has me pissed off. There is a new coach in place. We are paying him good money to produce results. He has among other things scheduled a day-long meeting with the national selectors -- surely team composition, individual form of the various players, etc will be discussed? Surely decisions will be taken?
Why then pre-empt it by taking the debate to the public forum? At the least, if you were going to do that, it would help if it was substantive debate -- but this one isn't. 'He has to improve... he has to score...' And the sun has to rise in the East, surely?
There were things he could, by virtue of his position, have talked substantively about. Take the key element: transparency.
A few years earlier, Rediff had done a series of stories based on the BCCI annual accounts. Outlook, too had done some stories on the theme. The annual accounts, on those occasions, were smuggled to us by a lower level functionary of the BCCI.
The upshot? The BCCI brass restricted access to just the president, secretary and a couple of others -- to ensure reporters wouldn't get bootleg copies.
Why is the BCCI not publishing its annual accounts? It is a question that has been asked ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Thapar asks it here. And what does the BCCI chief -- who can, mind you, take the decision in a day, if he wants to - say?

"This is a point that has also been raised by many others. We are seriously thinking about it also."

Really? Years ago, my colleague Faisal had asked this question of JY Lele, and a couple of the other board brass. The answer he got then was that the board was 'seriously thinking' about this.
So that in sum is the interview. No insight on the things that matter. And a moment of pure inspiration: 'He has to score runs.'

Speaking of Ganguly...

... his county stint seems to be a story of extremes. Either it is raining, and there is no batting time. Or the team is collapsing. Or, as today, everyone and his uncle is scoring runs, and he is in the pavilion, watching. Already a 50, a double century, a century, an unbeaten century -- which means Ganguly won't get much batting in this game. 19-4-66-0 meanwhile, for Irfan Pathan in the game.
In the Hampshire-Surrey game, meanwhile, Bajji whacked a 25 off 16 (four fours, one six) which must have been hugely entertaining; now the offie is at the bowling crease, with Hampshire 75/2 in response to Surrey's 361.
The game appears to have caused some heartburn for Warne, and a resulting tiff with umpires.

If reported, Warne, who received three disciplinary points after a clash with Somerset's Peter Bowler last season, could find himself in hot water. So in an effort to avoid his being reported to Lord's for his confrontation, he and Whitehead were believed to have been called together at the close of play to try to iron out their differences.

An advertisement for cricket

There was this fun moment during the recent Indo-Pak series: The bowler had barely released the sixth ball of his over, when an ad flashed on screen. Trouble was, he had earlier bowled a no-ball, so there was another regular ball to be bowled.
Someone at DD went uh oh, and switched, from mid-advertisement, back to the cricket -- by which time, the remaining ball had been delivered, and a wicket had fallen. What we saw was a batsman walking back.
Uh oh, goes the DD guy, no action, it's just a batsman walking back, so let's go back to the ad. So while replays were showing what happened, we had a visual of Sachin Tendulkar, in faux biker costume, asking Shah Rukh Khan, who seemed to have snot coming out of his nose: Kyun, haarna hai kya? (Note to advertisers: Please please don't cast Sachin in macho ads. If you must, at least please please
please don't give him any dialogue -- that adolescent treble of his doesn't jell with the implicit machismo of the words.)
Anyways. Us fans have been protesting DD's callous attitude towards cricket telecast for ages now; I understand some fans had, in sheer disgust, even faxed/mailed DD in protest.
So now comes the news that the BCCI is taking up the issue with DD.

BCCI President Ranbir Singh Mahendra told reporters here on Wednesday that the Board would take up the matter with Doordarshan asking it to take commercial breaks only when a full over has been completed and not disrupt the telecast "as they sometimes do even before the over has been completed."
"We will be writing to Doordarshan on this. In future we are going to have this clause while awarding the telecast rights that full overs should be shown," Mahendra said.

And that is as good a thought as any to leave you with. Will return, if possible, later tonight; else, see you in my morning.

Technology in cricket equipment

Greg Baum, writing in The Age, has an interesting take on modern cricket equipment and how it is changing the nature of the game.
Building on a platform of relevant stats, Baum writes:

Reasonably, (statistician Charles) Davis asks: "Is the increase in boundary-hitting a bad thing?" He answers: "Well, no one wants to return to the slow scoring and dull draws of the '50s and '60s. Boundaries are, after all, good to watch. On the other hand, the pendulum may have swung too far. If scoring levels change permanently, the game loses contact with its traditional standards, and that would be a real loss. The place in history of our leading players will become uncertain."
It might be that the prosecution of the case for a restraint on technology in cricket has been launched.

Feet to the fire

Faisal Shariff, with inputs from others, has been doing a great job on the series of articles (referred to in yesterday's post) examining various facets of our cricket administration.
The series continues, with a look at umpiring standards within the country. Consider this telling sidebar:

To figure out just how much priority the umpires get, consider this: The BCCI’s umpires committee has not a single umpire — junior or senior — on its panel. The same Board that named S. Venkatraghavan, one of the best international umpires in his time, on the committee to pick the national coach has no work for him on the umpires committee.
‘‘It wasn’t this bad, to be honest’’, says a former international umpire. ‘‘Some five years ago the committee had a special invitee, usually a senior umpire. But for some reason the board decided to scrap that rule.’’
‘‘Why do we need an umpire on the committee?’’ asks Gautam Das Gupta, the committee’s convenor. ‘‘The committee only resolves disputes and deviations on the umpiring circuit. We used to do it earlier but we saw that it was of no use. So we stopped it.’’

Also must-reads, from the same paper, are this piece on the underpaid ground staff who maintain our wickets, and this, on the state of club cricket in the country.

Wednesday's News, in Briefs

1. The BCCI plans to conduct a camp for fast bowlers that will focus solely on fitness. (Hmmm... I wonder. Chappell's first act on getting the job was to ask the BCCI for the confidential reports on each player's fitness level).
One good thing is, the BCCI seems, for now, to be willing to bend over backwards to do what Chappell wants.

Dasgupta also disclosed that the five national selectors, headed by chairman Kiran More, will have an intensive meeting with Chappell on June 21. “That will be the first time the selectors will get to sit with the new coach,” Dasgupta said.

He might have added that this is the first time the national selectors will convene for the sole purpose of meeting the coach.
2. Another bookie has been arrested in Ahmedabad. He was, we are told, 'allegedly involved in betting'. Errr... who isn't 'involved in betting', anyways? It's like the time the BCCI looked around for someone to chair the inquiry into betting and match-fixing -- and picked retired Chief Justice Y V Chandrachud, whose fondness for a flutter on just about anything (What are the odds the next car to cross that post will have an even-numbered license plate?) was legendary.
3. Clive Lloyd has thrown his hat into the ring, for presidency of the WI cricket board.
4. A master's tournament will be held in Bermuda next summer, featuring some of the great players who are no longer active. If at all possible, I want to go for this one -- I still have vivid memories of a similar exercise held at the Cricket Club of India in Mumbai some years back, which featured a clutch of legends from the Windies, Australia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan et al. For me, the icing was getting to watch, and talk to, South African legends like Graeme Pollock and Barry Richards. You would at the least have seen the greats from other sides in person, or on TV/video, but just sharing space with the likes of Richards and Pollock and Vincent van der Bijl was an incredible experience.
5. Saif Ali Khan says his father, the Nawab of Pataudi, is not hiding from the cops. Cool -- the next time the cops want to serve a warrant on the Nawab and can't seem to locate him, they know who to talk to.
6. Coach Duncan Fletcher of England joins the growing chorus of players (and coaches) protesting the excesses of the international cricket calendar. Be interesting to see if the issue is debated at all in the upcoming ICC meeting, and if yes, what the outcome is.
7. And for those who like cricket games on video/pc, news that a Brian Lara-branded game package will be released July 21. (Hey -- how many of you guys play pc/video cricket games? Any takes on the best ones in the market? Totally ignorant on this -- my preferred relaxation tool is either chess, or the Age of Empires).

Aftershocks

A report, just in, on Ricky Ponting's reaction to the loss to Somerset.

Ponting refused to blame a lack of cricket for his team's poor showing.
"Your brain isn't rusty - you still know what is right and what is wrong," he said. "I don't know if it was the execution or what exactly was wrong - but something was.

Chappell ain't Greg-arious? Awwwwwwwww!

There's an amusing undercurrent of pique to the reports of Greg Chappell landing in India to take up his assignment. And it is contained in this one line: He did not/refused to talk to the media.
Good for Greg!
As a journalist, I have had my share of editors telling me to 'get' whoever the headline maker of the moment is; as an editor, I've done my share of asking journos to 'get' quotes (You guys know that in newsroom parlance, landing an interview with a celeb is called a 'get'?).
That's one of the nice things, I find, about blogging -- I can step away from those two roles, and say what I think. And what I think is, it's daft to go pestering the man.
Assuming Chappell was willing to talk, what would we ask? Let's see: (1) Do you think Saurav Ganguly will get his form back/should lead the national side? (2) Do you think Sachin Tendulkar is a legend? (3) Do you think India can win WC 2007? (4) Do you think India can become the number one Test nation?
That, or variants thereof, is what -- all -- we would ask. And no matter what Chappell had said in reply, we would have twisted things around to create some form of sensational headline (as happened the other day, when he said we would not any more see the Tendulkar of old).
It's like Jay Leno's quip, once, on the Tonight show. He was talking of the media's tendency to sensationalize (a subject Rajaraman touched on in his latest Outlook column, btw), and he said the other day, a truck carrying a consignment of dinnerware crashed on the highway. This is what the media made of it: 'China in ruins; watch exclusive video of devastation tonight'.
The guy hasn't even signed in for his first day at work; what the heck was he supposed to talk to us about, anyways? Reminds me, I once was in Bangalore, reporting on a national training camp. Reached there in the early afternoon, checked in, dumped my bags, went to the ground. Spent some time watching the nets, and was back in the pavilion waiting for one of the team members, who had said he would come out in a few, and would talk to me then.
The then coach left the ground and was heading off to the canteen, when he spotted me and changed direction. 'Hiiiiii', he goes, 'when did you get in? If you want an interview, be right out in 10 minutes.'
He was, too. Thing being, I hadn't asked for one; didn't have to -- you never do, with Indian coaches. Good to see Greg Chappell is not too keen on pandering to the media.

Kirmani on selection committees

On the South African website Independent Online, I spotted this story by Ananthanaryanan on, what else, Greg Chappell's appointment as India's national coach. The bit that made me sit up?

Chappell may also have to contend with the thorny issue of not being a selector, something which rankled his predecessor.
Borde and Kirmani defended India's five-man selection panel which only consults the coach and captain.
"The selection panel is supreme. If the coach and captain select the team why have a selection committee?," Kirmani said.

Nice bit of sophistry -- I mean, whoever said anything about the coach and captain selecting the national team? What they are seeking -- more accurately, what is being sought on their behalf -- is a voice.
By framing the argument as one of either-or choices, Kirmani neatly avoids a substantive answer to the central question: Since the responsibility of wins and loses rests with the captain and coach, why should they not have a seat, a voice, a vote in team selection?
To turn the argument on its head, if the selection committee picks the squad without reference to the captain and coach; if said committee even picks the playing XI (as has been done on some occasions) and occasionally even dictates where a particular batsman should bat (again, as was done during the turbulent years of Tendulkar's captaincy) then why have a coach and captain anyway?

Ashes watch

Wow... just got back after a few hours, and Somerset has actually pulled it off against the Aussies.
I notice Rahul Kulkarni, commenting below the Aus in trouble post, beats me to the obvious thought -- there are shades, here, of the Mumbai-Australia curtain-raiser to the 1998 home series.
Amol Mozumdar told us, at the time, that the team had a chat the evening before the game; Sachin Tendulkar apparently told the guys that he did not care if they won or lost, the real job was to demolish Shane Warne. Because, he argued, Warne was the main weapon the Aussies had -- dent his confidence, and the national team's work was half done.
Everyone -- even normally sedate players like Amol -- went after Warne; the outcome was history. This defeat, in a sense, is a bigger blow (even considering the absence of Gilchrist and Gillespie, and the presence of Grame Smith and Sanath Jayasuriya at the top of the opposition batting) -- Somerset, as Saurabh Wahi points out, is in sixth place in the second division of the county championship; to lose to them by such a convincing margin has to come as a shock.
It's set everything up nicely: Ponting's lot haven't found themselves on the receiving end in a long while (actually, not since India last toured Aus under Saurav).
The pressure is now on Australia while England, already on a confidence high after its recent successes, gets another boost thanks to Somerset's heroics.
Makes the Ashes series a must-watch. For me, it's simple enough: Australia is number one, England is number two -- and India is number three. What fun -- numbers one and two can beat up on each other, while number three sits in the sidelines, watches, and hopefully, learns where each is vulnerable.
Derek Pringle, in The Telegraph, has much to say about the aggressive attitude of this England team (a recurring theme of media commentary these last few days).

Great teams retort, and as this Australian team have touched some of the highest peaks in cricket, their riposte is awaited with a mixture of anticipation and dread. Yet judging by the bouncer barrage against Australia's fast bowlers at the Rose Bowl, that saw Brett Lee and Glenn McGrath struck about the body, England are getting their retaliation in first.
The view that Michael Vaughan's team will have to beat Australia in the serious cricket rather than rely on them donating the game, as they did on Monday, has clearly struck a chord with the England captain. You certainly get the impression that he and his team will not die wondering and with former Australian players like Mark Waugh questioning the temperament of McGrath and Shane Warne when ruffled, the roughing-up process has clearly begun.

Hold on, says Mike Marquesee in the Guardian, is it really as simple as that?

Sadly, but predictably, much of the sports media has decided to frame the summer's fun in macho stereotypes. The cricket has yet to get under way, but already we've been treated to a season's worth of platitudes about "toughness", "competitive zeal", the abysmally named "killer instinct", and how the Aussies' traditional willingness to "win ugly" is now matched by England's. Here the unspoken assumption seems to be that England have gone down to defeat in the past because English cricketers were too timid, too gentlemanly, too friendly, too wedded to outdated higher principles - historically preposterous, but carrying a message suitable to the devil-take-the-hindmost ethic of neoliberal economics.

And from that premise, he moves to a conclusion you find yourself nodding agreement with:

The real excitement of the cricket this summer - at least for those of us whose addiction to the game is unconnected to the fortunes of the England team - lies in the chance to enjoy a close-fought seesaw contest showcasing skill, sweat and inspiration. Like an ample 19th-century novel, the 12-week Australia-England showdown promises plot and subplot, major and minor characters, a wealth of incident and (if we're lucky) a result that is unpredictable yet somehow just, and in genuine doubt until stumps are drawn on the last day of the final Test at the Oval in September.

Off the map for a bit

The thing about blogging, I guess, is regularity -- but for once, have to plead inability. You guys know about the Nasdaq thing yesterday; a related development means I have to be away from office for the next three hours. It's now 12 -- should be back by 3, and will then pick up where I left off; in the meantime, 'scusi, pl.

The bald truth

One eye on the Aus-Somerset game, one eye on my boss -- for whom I have some work to complete -- and one eye on the papers... I know I know, that is one eye more than I should have :-)
Was browsing Sydney Morning Herald just now, and there's this piece that stood out on two counts -- one, the humorous twist in the headline; the other, this concluding paragraph:

Ponting will hope that a more circumspect London publication, The Daily Telegraph, was on the money. Above a headline declaring "Australia 79 all out" was the warning: "Readers are advised to enjoy this headline to the full as it is unlikely to be repeated this summer."

The other story from that paper that caught my eye relates to Shane Warne's attempts to grow some crops on his head, and the jibes he is facing as a result. Comes as a twist -- this is the first time in my memory that Warne is in the news ahead of the games for something other than the newest ball he has 'invented' to torment the Brits with. I used to think, in Ashes past, that this was the biggest cricketing con of all time -- he would talk of having spent months perfecting a mystery ball; the batsmen would eye everything he sent down with suspicion, and get out to a straight delivery on middle, more often than not.

Aus in trouble

Seems a slow news day -- was reading the comments appended below some of yesterday's posts; wanted to reply to a few, but for now, quite rivetted by action in the Aus v Somerset game where Graeme Smith is rocketing towards a century and Jayasuriya is moving up the gears as well.
Not sure Somerset can keep this up if one of these two players goes -- but it's value for money while it lasts. Anyone watching the game?
Will get to other news, and comments, a little later in the program -- for now, wanna keep an eye on this game.

County watch

After yesterday's slap-and-tickle at the Rose Bowl, serious action on the English county circuit -- including a couple of marquee games for Indian fans.
The Taunton game pitting the Aussies against Somerset an early indication that the usual suspects are in good form with the bat -- and that Brett Lee, thus far, is posing no terrors with the ball. Graeme Smith and Sanath Jayasuriya keeping Somerset in the game with a neat opening partnership -- and McGrath going 5.4-0-30-0 as I write this.
Meanwhile Warne, who is not in action at Taunton, taking his own share of punishment at the Rose Bowl, where Surrey, with Harbhajan in its ranks, takes on Hampshire.
And in Southgate, Glamorgan off to a good start in the game against Middlesex, which will see Irfan Pathan and Saurav Ganguly on opposite sides.
As always, guys, appreciate any eyewitness reports you can provide, on these and other games of interest.

Now now, children! Behave!

Been watching, with interest and some amusement, the flood of comments on here. Couple of points I thought needed making: Someone asked, can I stop the 'anonymous' postings. Sure I can -- Blogger lets me chose who I can permit and who not.
Thing though is, I don't want to put any checks on your voice. The best part of cricket writing for me has always been the feedback -- instantaneous, vocal, varied, most often insightful, and always passionate. Which is why I would much rather rely on you guys exercising self-discipline, and where needed some self-censorship, than play schoolmaster myself.
Argue all you want, guys -- try not to get personal, though, please?
On another note, I noticed the segue into what is nepotism -- and the remark made by someone that maybe arguing the subject constitutes 'hijacking' of this platform. Nope, it doesn't -- that's the fun of cricket, you can start discussing it as a game, and find yourself beguiled into all sorts of side arguments about regionalism, or politics, or differing cultures, whatever. Feel free to digress -- within reason, though; for instance, if you find an irresistible urge to discuss Jayalalitha Jayaram's politics or Laloo Yadav's personality, desist! :-)
By way of aside, some of the comments on here about bias reminded me of an incident from when I was doing regular cricket reporting. All I had to do was mention Sachin Tendulkar in a report, and sure enough, one of the first mails I got would be from this bloke -- a long-winded mail suggesting the only reason I was 'supporting' Tendulkar was because I was a fellow Maharashtrian.
It was, always, the same note (I suspect he had saved it as a word document, and was sending it fresh each time).
This, mind, was at a time when Sachin was almost the only batsman in the side doing anything of note -- so initially, I sent off a polite note, suggesting that when a player does well, to say so is not bias, but merely reportage.
Didn't make a difference. Next good knock, next report, and in came that mail, the contents of which by then I knew by rote. So for a while, I let them go outside off. One day, though, I sent back a teasing note, saying let's see, your premise is, I am a Maharashtrian, Tendulkar is a Maharashtrian, ergo I am biased in his favor. Problem is, my surname ends in 'ker' not 'kar'; I am a Keralite -- ergo, your premise of regionalism-based favoritism falls flat.
Next time Sachin did something good on the field, I remember thinking, geez, at least this time, the guy won't mail me. Put up report, checked mail later, and first crack out of the box, there it was again -- the same long-winded diatribe against my 'bias'.
Same mail, word for word, that I had gotten till then -- with one difference. He had put a period after 'you are biased' and erased the 'because you are a Maharashtrian', which followed.
When I saw that, I laughed out loud, honest.

Continuing confusion

John Wright had suggested in an interview with Rahul Bhattacharya of Cricinfo the need for radical changes in the composition of the national selection committee.
His single biggest grouse with the existing system? Not corruption, not bias, but the absence of continuity.
Keep that in mind, while you read this Faisal Shariff story on the National Cricket Academy or, as he re-christens it, the No Continuity Academy.
And then read this one, and weep.
The thing with this second story, on the BCCI's talent spotting initiative, is this: I've long been arguing that Indian cricket's single biggest need is professionalism. So now, here's a 'professional' organization, with little to show. So where's the catch?
Perhaps it lies in how we define 'professional' -- thus, a guy doesn't become one merely because he is paid for the job he is doing; the trick lies at the recruiting stage itself. Are you hiring someone who is qualified for the job, and has the will, and the inclination, to see it through?
Hiring a former cricketer is not in itself the answer. In its second year, for instance, the NCA was headed by Sunil Gavaskar. This, you will remember, was when the Jaggu Dalmiya faction won the contentious election in Chennai that saw the end of Dr A C Muthaiah's regime as BCCI president.
The election concluded one evening. The first announcement, the next morning, was that Raj Singh Dungarpur had been sacked, and Gavaskar appointed in his place to head the academy. Perfect, you would think -- who better to head India's coaching academy than arguably one of the best batsmen we have ever produced?
Some six months passed -- and then came the news that Gavaskar had quit, saying he had too many committments on his time, and couldn't fulfil his duties.
He was the right person for the job, in the sense of having the know-how; the wrong person, however, in the sense of having too many other, more lucrative irons in the fire to really care about this job.
Same difference here with the Colonel -- Vengsarkar has his hands full with the Elf-Vengsarkar Academy in Mumbai; that leaves him hardly any time to get his hands deep down dirty doing what the head of a talent-scout initiative needs to do.
And at the other end of the spectrum, you have say a TA Shekhar -- right man, right job, right time. He works at his job of heading the MRF Pace Academy 24/7x365; he travels the country, holding talent hunts at various venues, hand picks promising youngsters, brings them to the academy, monitors every stage of their process, and continues to work with them even after they make the national team.

News briefs

We continue our list of those who do *not* know Shobhan Mehta, with the latest entry: Azhar. Now please will someone ask Ajay Jadeja, so he too can deny it, and we can have a full house?
Elsewhere, the BCCI says it will take up the issue of the ban served on Saurav Ganguly at the ICC meeting later this month, in London. I tried googling this just now, on a whim, and 'bcci, ganguly, ban' threw up a tick over 14,000 entries.
Point being, my dear BCCI, you've been saying 'We will take up the ban' enough times for us to get the point -- you will take up the ban. Good on you; we are convinced. Now how about shut the heck up, do it, and tell us the results, as and when? And when the urge comes to repeat yourself, try 'Polly wants a cracker'. Or the Gayatri Mantra. Anything -- just, not 'BCCI will take up Ganguly ban'.
A post of yesterday spoke of the seven ODIs Sri Lanka will play in India; said post spoke too soon. Turns out though the Lankan board would like to play seven, the BCCI is undecided, and will wait on South Africa's decision to tour India before committing. Tell you what, though -- five ODIs is about all I can take, between any two countries. Seven?! In a row?! Immediately after we play them a minimum of twice, a maximum of thrice, in the tri-series in Sri Lanka?
The Nawab of Pataudi has been denied anticipatory bail. Good! This blog has been rooting for the authorities on this one.
And finally, the news that the national coach is landing in Bangalore this week, and that the first coaching camp under his aegis will be held in July. His first order of business reportedly is to study the confidential reports submitted by John Gloster to the board, on the fitness of individual players, and the reports submitted by Sandy Gordon on their mental fitness. He will then sit, we are told, with Gloster to plot goals for individual players -- all of this leading up to the camp.

Time-pass stuff

Got to go do some work -- figured I would, on my way out the door, toss up this piece I found in the Sydney Morning Herald, on the fun side of sledging.
What's your favorite? Mine is the one involving Dessie Haynes and Ravi Shastri, which I had posted on here during one of my early blog-posts (damn, I have to start perma-linking and indexing this thing, and add a site search).
Actually, Ravi was perhaps the one Indian who consistently gave back better than he got. Like the time Mike Whitney, on the field as substitute, fielded one of his trademark glances, made to throw down the stumps and yelled at Ravi, 'If you don't get back in that **^@*^@ crease I'll knock your %&%@&%&^@ head off!'. To which Ravi goes, 'Mike, if you could play as well as you can curse, you would be in the ^*^@*^&@ team.
Open forum, guys, while I go do an hour's worth of work -- favorite sledges, favorite comments, favorite quotes...? (Favorite quotes reminds me, remember the stories the other day about our physio Gloster saying yes Sachin should play with a lighter bat and then next day, turns out he didn't say any such thing? Puts me in mind of a comment Dennis Compton reportedly once made, while advocating lighter bats: Isn't it easier to swat a fly with a rolled up newspaper, than with a telephone directory?)
Right, back in a bit, let me go earn my keep.

Tell me more...

Waqar Younis says -- listen up, peoples -- Sachin is still a legend. So now you guys can all heave a huge, collective sigh of relief, and get back to whatever you were doing.
I mean, surely it's time for such nonsensical reporting to end (and yes, I know, Rediff is not immune; no one is. Doesn't mean I have to like it, though).
Reminds me of this bloke who asked this other bloke, Do you know who I am? To which the second bloke said, 'If you have to tell me who you are, you aren't.'
When I used to do the regular press rounds, there were a few things that bugged heck out of me. One was when someone or other won an award, and reporters would go, first crack out of the box: 'You have won this Blah-Blah award, tell us, how do you feel?' Inside of me, I'd go, what the hell sort of question is that? What is the respondent supposed to say -- Oh, it feels horrible, excuse me while I throw up?
They teach you in journalism school (not that I have ever been to one) never to ask obvious questions -- and 'how does it feel to win an award' is the most obvious one in the book.
On similar lines, there is this question that is always thrown up, every single time any international player visits India for any purpose whatsoever: 'What do you think of Sachin Tendulkar?'
What, someone is going to grab the mike and go, 'Sachin who? Oh, that bloke plays for India? Sucks big time, man!'? Obviously, he will say he is a good/great player, legend in his lifetime, and lots more in similar vein.
So why bother? The oft-repeated question and its as-predictable response (already this year, Viv Richards has said Sachin is a legend; John Wright has said ditto; Shane Warne has added his identical two bits; now it's Waqar's turn -- who is it supposed to reassure? Sachin? He doesn't need it. Us fans? We don't need it either -- he's brought joy to some, moved others to anger; he will probably continue to do both till he hangs up his cricketing boots.
Oh, and? I used to be overfond of the use of the word legend -- till one guy, to whose name I appended that word, asked me son, ever looked up the meaning of the word?
Legend = An unverified story handed down from earlier times; A romanticized or popularized myth of modern times.
Um. :-)

Tremors of apprehension

Good afternoon all -- just got in after the Nasdaq do (of which more anon, even though it is not in any way connected with cricket) to find that tremors rocked Bombay (I know, I know, Mumbai, but heck, it's always been Bombay for me); mercifully, no loss of life reported in what is my adopted home-town; just checked with Rediff staffers still in office and barring an initial sense of panic, all is well, they say.
Notice all is well on here, too -- actually, this is fun, instead of taking trouble digging up links and keying in comments, I think I'll every once in a while come in here, put up an 'Open Forum' type head, and let you guys do all the hard work, what say? :-)
So the Tsunami match was just a slap-and-tickle affair, with the only point of note being the six wickets to the Indian spin twins and, as someone pointed out on here, Laxman being Laxman against the spinners, particularly Warne? Cool -- in any case, no one goes to a benefit match for the quality of the cricket.
Seems a bit of a pity that some dork pulled a hoax that cancelled part of the proceedings, and caused a certain amount of loss.
Right, back in office, and regular updates will happen, in between spells of work.

Last post

The things we do! Why the devil would I waste time counting how many posts there were today?
Donno -- but figured 13 posts on the 13th was a bit, um, much; so this, just to change the math :-)
Actually, this is an open forum; I'll be late to work tomorrow, likely only get there around 1 pm or so; blog therefore opens for business by 2 pm NY time. In the interim, appreciate any links you can send me, and any eyewitness updates on the course of the Tsunami game.
Good night all, catch you tomorrow.

What, me worry?

Ricky Ponting heard from, on why the Twenty20 defeat is no big deal.

Pat excuse

Appropos an earlier post today about Tiger Pataudi and the black buck -- I just spotted this nifty little story.

In the bail application moved in Punjab and Haryana High Court, the former cricket captain said he is 65 years old and “inflicted with several diseases” and “his body has gone weak”

'Scuse me for asking, but why would you, poor ageing man 'inflicted with several diseases' and a body ravaged by combination of said age and illnesses, have gone hunting?
Someone needs to do research (give it a shot, you'll probably qualify for a grant of some obscene amount) into this link between wrongdoing and illness. Catch a guy off base -- Laloo Yadav scamming cattle fodder, Shobhan Mehta making trillions in illicit betting, Tiger Pat taking potshots at black buck, whatever -- and the next thing you know, they are clutching their chest and going oooh, need to go to hospital, can I have a private ward with a 100" TV and a pretty night nurse, preferably female, please?
Duh!

Rule Brittania

England's Twenty20 win appears to have inspired a paradigm shift from cautious optimism to downright cockiness about the upcoming Ashes battle -- check out this piece, by Andrew Miller, as an exemplar. Increasingly, I get the feeling I'm alone in thinking the Brits are due a hiding to nothing -- the good bit is, we will know soon enough, and this is one series I intend to watch every ball of (and blog about); after all, the chance to scope out the second best team in the world and see who we have to beat to become heir apparent is not to be missed, yes?

Bajji, too...?

At this rate they could just as well call it the India XI -- Bajji joins Saurav, VVS Laxman and Anil Kumble in the MCC XI lineup for tomorrow; Viru Sehwag and Rahul Dravid are on the opposite side of the fence...
Says here, Saurav will likely open for MCC -- I wish I wish they were telecasting this game on Willow!
While on the tsunami game -- tomorrow we are supposed to land up at Nasdaq (at the unholy hour of 8 am) for a bell-ringing ceremony and such to commemorate five years since Rediff went public; ergo, be late coming in to work -- and blog.
Appreciate it if those of you who have access to the live coverage of the tsnunami game could keep a thread of information/insight going -- how the game is shaping, how our guys in particular are doing... you know, all of the good stuff.

Pathan Vs Ganguly

An interesting game coming up in the English county circuit is the Middlesex-Glamorgan match-up, which features Irfan Pathan on one side, and Saurav Ganguly on the other. There was some doubt centering on Pathan's reported injury, but apparently the seamer's fine, and ready to go. Been meaning to keep an eye on Glamorgan games anyways, since a whole lot depends on Saurav returning to form at the earliest -- this merely adds an edge of spice to the game.
Right, need to head off for some work... see you guys on here, much later.

Bring on Twenty20

Jonathan Agnew, on BBC Sport, makes an interesting suggestion:

I would move that the Champions Trophy - which is only a meaningless, money-making exercise on behalf of the ICC - would be the perfect vehicle for a proper Twenty20 international tournamant.
Just imagine it - three matches per day producing a real festival for the supporters, and a competition that could be done and dusted over a long weekend.

What say? Do we really need the ICC Trophy, which given its structure is halfway to being a lottery anyways?
I suspect Twenty20 is here to stay -- why not, then, formalize it, the sooner the better? (Personally, I still love the cut and thrust of Test cricket over all these hybrid forms, but who said various versions can't co-exist?)

Good reads

A selection of good reading, culled from the net:
1) Rahul Bhatia on the ball manufacturers of Meerut. If you like good travel writing, keep your eye on his blog -- there is, for instance, a piece on Meerut there that provides texture and context to the story on the ball-makers.
2) Andrew Miller, on England skipper Michael Vaughan's reformatted attitude to winning
3)Rabeed Imam's well written plea for treating Bangladesh cricket with a touch more understanding and sympathy
4) Martin Johnson's trademark humor on view, in a Telegraph piece on how the modern generation wants instant gratification
5) Tanya Aldred in The Guardian, on the making of Damien Martyn. While on this, I remember some time ago, picking up a bunch of really old issues of an Aussie cricket magazine, from a second hand bookshop in Mumbai. One story caught my eye: it talked of Martyn's debut trip to England, where in the warm-up games, he apparently couldn't stop scoring. His runs, though, didn't win him a place for the first Test, so he scored some more in the warm-up game between the first Test and the second. Still no place -- at which point, the story went, he kind of lost the plot, and slipped into a certain wildness. The Aussie management immediately stepped in; Martyn was made to room with David Boon, and the senior cricketer was told to take the talented lad under his wing, teach him the virtue of patience, and ensure he didn't go off the rails. Made me think -- if the BCCI were similarly alive to the needs of fostering young talent, would the careers of the likes of Maninder Singh, Sadanand Vishwananth, Laxman Sivaramakrishnan and so many others not have followed a different trajectory?
6) Stephen Brenkley chats up Brett Lee, the Aussie quick who for all his flamboyance finds himself out of the Ashes party
7) In The Times, Tim de Lisle argues the case (made earlier, in various fora, including on this blog) for Kevin Pietersen finding a place in the England team to take on the Aussies.
Right, there you go -- plenty to read, while I go off and get some work done :-) And in passing, whenever you spot a link worth sharing, do mail them, to prem@us.rediff.com

The News in Briefs

The number of people who do not know Shobhan Mehta went up by one -- Mark Waugh joins Nayan Mongia in going 'Shobhan who?' Does one thing strike you about this whole match-fixing thing? Pakistan and India took action (not total, not comprehensive, no, but the two boards did act). The South African cricket board was forced into taking action. But till date, the best that the boards of Australia and England have come up with is 'We have conducted internal inquiries, we are satisfied the players are clean'. Cool -- we believe you; believe, too, that Shane Warne and Mark Waugh were merely interning for alternate careers as weathermen.
Sri Lanka will play seven ODIs in India. You, of course, saw the news item -- and did not miss the irony? It's only the other day that Marvan Atapattu -- one of the newer entrants to the list of cricket's walking wounded, with a back problem -- was complaining of the frenetic schedule ahead for his team. They must have been listening to him very carefully because what do you know, they've added two more games to the originally scheduled five. Seriously, guys, do you really want to see the same two teams go through the same motions over a seven-game series? I mean, really really? Surely it is time some sort of sense, and sanity, was brought to the whole question of cricket schedules?
Anil Kumble, in London for the Tsunami match, talks of his narrow escape; the game meanwhile seems set to be played before a full house.
It's good to see that India's support staff is earning its salary. Earlier, the only times you saw our 'physio' Dr Ali Irani was when the team was playing, and he was sitting in the dressing room chatting up whoever was handy. As opposed to which, I notice John Gloster is going around the country, working with the various players -- the latest news puts him in Chennai, where he has gone to check up on Zaheer, Balaji and others.
Shoaib Akthar's debut for Worcestershire appears to have been a bit of a damp squib -- expectation was that he would come out all fired up and intent on proving the Pak selectors wrong, but Bangladesh seems to have coped with his bowling well enough, while registering a win in the warm up game ahead of the tri-series.
And finally, what fun, England appears to have done a number on the Aussies in the Twenty20 game that officially kicks off the Aussie tour. It's been fun following it on the cricinfo scoreboard, and checking back with you guys for your on the fly updates.

Jaggu-Inder Bhai-Bhai?

You guys remember Thursday's Open Forum, where I asked for your list of the top ten turning points in Indian cricket? (The responses thus far are interesting, hope there's more to come).
For me, one significant point (not suggesting it is in the top 10, but close) is the period 1993-1996, when IS Bindra was board president, and Jagmohan Dalmiya was its secretary.
In course of random conversations over the years, many -- past players, administrators past and current, even the assorted politico -- identified this as the best phase, from an administration point of view, for Indian cricket.
The concensus was, these two made the perfect team: Bindra was the visionary, the ideas man, and Dalmiya the implementor, the man who would put his head down, attend to the details, and make the grand ideas work. One administrator recalled how he would get calls from Dalmiya in the middle of the night, asking if this or the other detail had been attended to. (The two tended, I was told, to be pretty autocratic -- but against that, they were focussed on developing the game in the country, so it was at best a benevolent dictatorship).
The story of how they fell out -- and how it impacted negatively on cricket administration in India -- is now part of cricket history (there is some background on that, among other things, here if you need it). The news of the day is that there are signs of rapprochment -- it's a huge step, really, for Bindra to get a seat on the powerful marketing committee, when you consider that in recent times, the only way Bindra formed part of any committee was when he was appearing before it in response to some showcause notice or other.
On the flip side of this news item, consider the indication that nothing really changes: the BCCI continues to stifle dissent any which way it can. Thus N Srinivasan, who till the other day headed the marketing committee and the TV rights committee, has been unceremoniously axed. For why? Because he is president of the TNCA, and a club affiliated to it sought to challenge the BCCI in court.
If you recall, this was a big issue during the recent BCCI working committee meeting, with Dalmiya making a two-hour presentation on why the TNCA should be hanged by the neck. A day later, they announced that there was no problem after all; compromise had been reached, the story said.
Sure it had -- for the time being. Now, first chance the BCCI got, out went Srinivasan. There -- that should teach the rest of you pesky state associations who's boss (not to mention who is boss of bosses).

Break in play...

...due to overcast conditions -- overcast with meetings, that is :-)
Service resumes in, let me see, it's a quarter to 2 my time just now -- blog resumes activities from 4 pm on.
Meanwhile, anyone watching the Twenty20, live? Could you please use this thread to provide the rest of us eyewitness insight into the action? Thanks much, be back soon

Waste not, want not?

Oh good, the Pakistan cricket board has finally decided to tap into the expertise of Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis, to help develop bowling talent in the country. About time, too -- the two Ws have been hinting, for long enough, that they would like to put their considerable knowledge and expertise to use.
It's something our own board should have considered, even implemented, ages ago. I mean, we have arguably four of the greatest spinners of all time. As far as we are concerned, their use ended the day they retired -- but isn't that really just the beginning?
During their respective careers, they acquired more than wickets -- there is a wealth of experience, of knowledge, that they have acquired during their playing career. Surely it is a logical part of product development to bring them together, under an official umbrella (for want of a better word, a spin school), so promising young spinners get an opportunity, maybe twice, thrice a year, to work with them, to learn, to refine their craft?
On similar lines, what of our seamers? Our master batsmen of earlier days? What say of an Eknath Solkar, who made close-in fielding sexy way before Jonty Rhodes came along?

The Tiger and the Buck

I know this was the subject of an earlier post, but still merits an update: Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi has sought anticipatory bail in the black-buck case. A couple of NGOs are seeking to block it.
I am no fan of the tendency on the part of NGOs tend to climb onto any promising bandwagon, but I must confess on this, I am with them.
It’s a simple issue, really – if you break a law, you are arrested; you have, when produced in court, the right to seek bail.
That is how it works for all of us – except if you are a celebrity in which case (1) you try to seek anticipatory bail (Why? Committing a crime is okay, doesn’t impact on your social standing, but being arrested does?) or (2) you suddenly develop an illness that requires immediate hospitalization.
It is not as if Pataudi did not know it was illegal to gun down the chinkara; his own son was embroiled in police proceedings for just that. So if he did it knowing it was an offense, he to my mind loses any claim on public sympathy.
What the hell, you want time, you want anticipatory bail, you want to be above the laws of the land -- how much time did you give the black buck, though?

Update on updates

Good morning in my Monday. The problem for a blogger is finding time in between regular -- and just now, that is a *huge* problem, with a stream of meetings on the anvil. Updates will happen, only, today, it could be a bit later than normal. Check back here in a couple of hours, guys, by then I should have cleared some elbow room, and be where I can get back to chatting cricket. Till then...

And finally...

It's 5.30 in the evening on Saturday, and fun though it is to browse the net, looking for interesting stuff on cricket and all else, there's a bustling world out there, the weather is good, and much fun to be had. A couple of things before I go put on the glad rags and go party, though:
One 'Faisalbhai' seems to have triggered much concern about this blog, my financial state, my position in/with Rediff, and related matters through his comments (see the comments appended to the post titled Over and Out, I Think..., my last for Friday).
I won't speculate on the intent behind these posts. But since others have bought into the premise (thanks, 'n1r3n', for suggesting some kind of dinner but the concern, touching though it is, is misplaced, believe me -- I am, though, intrigued by your mention of playing professionally; mail me? prem@us.rediff.com), do note, I do this blog because (1) I am among other things interested in cricket, and it seemed a natural extension, since I browse regularly for cricket related stories, to parlay that browsing into a blog; (2) I am not desperate enough to want to parse everything I do in terms of money earned or not earned and to money and (3) those bits about 'ditching rediff', 'starting something', being 'desperate' and all the rest of it? Tie a can to it, friend -- you probably have your private reasons for these 'loaded' comments, but they are misplaced.
On a non-related theme, good friend Sreenath Srinivasan -- professor of journalism at Columbia University here in New York, and soon to be Dean of Students at that institution -- had dropped by Friday. Always brings something new and interesting to the table, and this time it was a link I loved -- as, I suspect, will anyone else who likes chess.
Check this out -- when the board opens up, make a move, then watch the graphical display as the computer 'thinks' through its response. Endlessly fascinating, this gadget. Enjoy it, and your Sunday; adios for now.

Surfboard

Michael Atherton, in the Telegraph, weighs in with a good piece on Shane Warne, player and human being.
Simon Barnes, in The Times, sums up David Shepherd -- who still, if I remember right, has about four ODI internationals to stand in before he finally hangs up his floppy hat, and gets to stand on both legs.
And Derek Pringle occasions some amusement when he suggests that the new Aussie nice-guy act could give England a chance to turn the tables. Pringle's premise has been based on a statement by Ponting that the Aussies might tone down their chatter -- thing though is, Ponting has made noises earlier, as has Steve Waugh in his time, about keeping things done, not allowing chatter to get out of bounds, and so on. Let battle commence, though, and those pious resolutions fly out the window. Surely there is more than a touch of naivete in Pringle expecting the Aussies, this time, to come out onto the field like a bunch of choir-boys?

Ganguly in England

The Telegraph report on the Glamorgan-Kent game, and this is what The Guardian made of it.
The line that caught my eye was from the latter report:

Ganguly, though, had spent part of the lunch break reviewing his first-innings 69 with Glamorgan's video analyst and berating himself for the slightest technical hitch...

The Times, in its report, also touches on the same theme.

Ganguly had played well for his first-innings 69, after which he had told the Glamorgan video analyst to expect more in the second innings. He was true to his word, even if his blistering assault on the Kent attack was made in a lost cause. Driving with great power through extra cover, he hit 15 fours. The first of his five sixes came when he memorably flat-batted a startled Khan back over his head. Ganguly struck two sixes off both James Tredwell and Stevens, although the former had him dropped badly on 74 at long-off by Khan.

Good for him. Glamorgan's cause, as far as avoiding relegation from division one, seems lost; Ganguly, however, has a great opportunity to play himself back into peak form, away from the pressures of home. And judging by that line above, that seems to be exactly what he is focussing on.
In passing, he will probably be in action again Tuesday, when he turns out for the MCC XI in the Tsunami benefit game at Lord's.

Agenda for Chappell

Former colleague and friend Faisal Shariff heard from, in the Indian Express, on what confronts Greg Chappell as he readies to take up his coaching stint in India.
The current article is structured as a platform on which the paper will construct a four-part series that should be worth keeping an eye on. What interested me most in this first part is the reason Greg Chappell turned down an offer to coach the West Indies:

"Chappell says he declined the West Indies job because of their short-term approach to a long-term problem. His preference was for a system that was involved with the whole development process from U-17, U-19, first-class cricket and the ’A’ team through to the Test team. The WICB, apparently, weren’t interested."

If the corollary is that in India, Chappell hopes, as Faisal puts it, to focus on the national team but keep his "peripheral vision on the entire cricketing structure", that will be a first. John Wright had similar ambitions when he first took over -- to be able to devote time and energies to revamping Indian cricket from the ground up; he found though that moving the BCCI in any developmental direction was easier conceived, than done. Worth watching how Chappell -- who has a stronger, more influential voice than Wright -- does on this front.

L'affaire Shobhan Mehta

Mohd Azharuddin, Ajay Jadeja, Nayan Mongia, Mark Waugh, Hansie Cronje as providers of information -- the Shobhan Mehta interrogation makes nice grist for news sites/papers.
But thus far, despite reporters' suggestions that the betting scandal has broken out afresh, has thrown up nothing we didn't know before (same story, with minor variations, on NDTV, Express, Indiainfo, Rediff etc).
The Indian Express in fact makes that point -- this, says seems to be an editorial, is same wine, same bottle.
One aspect of the revelations results of the interrogation should come as relief: that he hasn't suggested any current player is involved.
For those needing aide memoires, here's the betting scandal comprehensive coverage page on Rediff; from the same site, a brief biography of the man of the moment.
The aftermath thus far is predictable: Nayan Mongia has denied knowing the man or even having heard his name; expect similar statements from the other names on the list in the coming hours/days.

Over and out, I think....

Right, guys, been a loooong day; started sometime yesterday morning, and I need bed. Will try and pop in for a few over the weekend, but regular 'news on the hour' style blogging resumes Monday. You guys have a good weekend... :-)

Volunteers, please?

Anyone out there broadcasting the Glamorgan-Kent game? If yes, anyone out there watching? If yes, anyone out there who could give us all a report, please, of how the Ganguly innings shaped, against the wider context of the game? Appreciate it, muchly.

Saurav does a Horatio

First, it was will he get a 100; next, will Glamorgan avoid an innings defeat... now, it's get it while the getting's good.

Ganguly in control...

2 fours in his first 30, 5 fours and two sixes in his next 43 -- he's paced this just right, taking his time, settling in, ignoring the chaos (4-23, 5-34, 6-78 while he watched) at the other end and once he had settled, opening out. Batting 73 off 81 at the time of writing this, and single-handedly hauling Glamorgan away from an innings defeat.

Can't bat, can't bowl... can write

The last time England won an Ashes series on Aussie soil marked a memorable debut. A debutant reporter for, if I remember right, The Telegraph started his series preview with this damning indictment of his team: Can't bat, can't bowl, can't field.
As it happened, England was all over the Aussies that time. Cue Martin Johnson's classic end of series wrap: Can't bat, can't bowl, can't field -- right line, wrong team.
If you like your Ashes diluted with some humor, here's Johnson's take on what is to come. Sample line:

If the old adage about sport going in cycles is correct, then England have spent the last 20 years on the type of cycle employed for circus clown entrances. "Parp! Parp!", and all the wheels fall off.

Saurav -- the sequel

Anyone been keeping an eye on the Glamorgan-Kent game? Much fun -- the second half of the batting lineup didn't do too badly, the last five wickets adding 153. Kent asked them to follow on anyways, and they are already five down, just 52 on the board, and Saurav Ganguly is back at bat, currently 22 off 28 (just a couple of fours in that score, so SG seems to be focussing on working the ball around more).

Adult portrait

Alright, this story about Warne's portrait, unveiled recently at Lord's, comes without sniggers, giggles, or comment of any form/type/description.
Warne must be pretty miffed -- all that free advertising he could have got, if only some prudes hadn't cut him down to size...

Shoaib for Sri Lanka?

If he wants to play for Tom Moody, that is. Apparently Moody was the reason Akthar joined Worcestershire in the first place.

County watch

At Cardiff, Glamorgan properly up against it, 205/5 at the time of writing this; Saurav Ganguly gone for 69 off 96 with nine fours and one six. Extrapolating from the scorecard, run-making seems to have been tougher for Glamorgan early in the morning session -- Saurav added 8 runs in 26 deliveries; his partner managed 12 in 18. The Hemp-Ganguly partnership did give Glamorgan respectability, adding 121 for the fourth wicket. Both batsmen are now back in the hut, though -- and Glamorgan, with the lower half of the batting order, is chasing 162 just to make Kent bat again.
In the Middlesex-Surrey game, Surrey properly up against it: 192/4 chasing 437, with Richardson taking out all four wickets (two today to add to his two yesterday). Pathan's figures are tidy -- 15-3-33-0 -- but against that, there's nothing for him in the last column, yet.

The feline is out of the bag

The famous dressing room spat -- which escalated out of proportion largely because Inzamam decided to take up for Afridi, which in turn was because Inzy didn't like the idea of Younis as his deputy -- is now being blamed offered up as the reason for the defeat in the first Test against the West Indies, ergo the levelling of a series Pak went in hoping to win.
What stands out is this bit, where Inzy is quoted giving reasons why Younis Khan is bad news:

"Even in the final ODI, Younis faced problems with Abdul Razzaq who showed his displeasure when he was told that Rao Iftikhar would bowl the death overs,"-The News quoted.
"Razzaq wanted to bowl in the final overs but Younis told him that he would like Iftikhar to do this and that left the all-rounder unhappy and in a bad mood."

Ex-cuse me? For the first time, I'm beginning to develop some real sympathy for Younis. A bowler wants to bowl, the captain wants someone else to bowl, so the bowler gets in a "bad mood", and that is an example of bad captaincy?
Is that how it is in the Pak team, then? A captain for the record, and 10 players deciding what they will do when where and how, not to question why? Afridi decides to bat down the order, and sulks when told to open; Razzaq decides to bowl and sulks when told not to...?

Twenty20: Tale of the tape

BBC Sport does a nifty little number on the upcoming Twenty20 match-up between Australia and England, doing a mano a mano comparison -- and concluding, surprise, surprise, that Australia comes out way ahead.
Love the bit about Geraint Jones vis a vis Adam Gilchrist. 'Both men have much to prove'. Indeed?!

Thumbs up for Twenty20

Been keeping an eye on the for-and-against column on the subject of the short-short game. Spotted an entry in the 'for' column just now: Mathew Hayden weighs in.

Hayden had time afterwards to add his personal thumbs-up for the shortest form of the professional game.
"I would like to be part of Twenty20. All shorter forms of the game do place a great emphasis on the quality of athleticism in cricketers, and that works in the favour of the spectators," he said.
"The ultimate judge will be that people will turn up to pay and watch - and you only have to look around here to see that is happening."

Pak deadlocked in ICC rankings

The ICC Test rankings make a pretty sight: Pakistan, Sri Lanka and South Africa all deadlocked on 100 points apiece, behind India in third at 107. Pak had the chance to move ahead of India but blew it when it squared the two-Test series against the Windies, instead of winning it.

County roundup in Brit press

Sean Ingle in the Guardian, on the Middlesex versus Surrey game. On Bajji and Pathan, this:

"Irfan Pathan led the charge, utterly dominating Martin Bicknell and Jimmy Ormond and hitting 11 boundaries as he raced past his highest first class score of 61.
Indeed, Pathan looked set fair for a century until he was tied up by Harbhajan's suffocating spin. Not long afterwards he lashed out at a straight delivery that went dead on contact with the pitch, rolled under his bat and -- almost apologetically -- hit the stumps."

Lawrence Booth, in the same paper, on the Glamorgan-Kent game -- or, more accurately, on Martin van Jaarsveld. And a passing mention of the game itself. And in the last line, a nod to Saurav:

"David Hemp and Saurav Ganguly hit fifties, but a sixth defeat in seven looms."

Edward Bevan is more informative, in the Telegraph.

His dismissal brought Sourav Ganguly to the crease, the Indian captain having spent most of the time during his first two games watching the opposition rack up scores of 497 for five and 568.
He was soon into his stride with a couple of boundaries, one a rasping cut backward of square, and once he grew accustomed to the pace of the pitch - not unlike a typical Indian strip - he settled in comfortably.
Hemp and Ganguly reached their half-centuries shortly before the close, with Glamorgan needing a further 244 runs to avoid following on.

Christopher Lyles, at Lord's for the Telegraph, doesn't provide much on how Bajji and Pathan performed, though.

After starting cautiously against excellent opening spells by Alan Richardson and Irfan Pathan, Clinton emerged from his shell and played with particular fluency through the covers off the back foot.

Wish I could mine the Times for more -- but that site, even with fast connectivity, shows no sign of loading.

Lots in a name

Thanks, Bruno -- took your suggestion for the name. Almost went with Neutral Umpire, then figured, may not be able to live up to it -- heck, when India plays, I don't *want* to be neutral!

Youhana attacked in Lahore

That's what it says, here, in this Indian Express story.
The curious part is that line about the complainant -- Youhana, that is -- being the one who sought the compromise; you would think normally, if I beat you up and then I go uh-oh, I am in trouble, I'd be the one looking to patch things up, no? Makes you wonder what the provocation was.

More Chappell

Suresh Menon on what the Aussie coach's appointment holds in store for the side. Boils down, he says, to one of two options:

There are two possibilities here – either the Indian team plays the Chappell way or Chappell plays the Indian way. If it is the former, then all the money and hype focused on Chappell would have been worthwhile. If it is the latter, however, Chappell will turn out to be another John Wright following the path of least resistance, and we would have slipped further back as a cricketing nation.

Interesting, that last line -- because at least for the last six months of his tenure, I get the feeling that is what happened with Wright. He figured he wasn't getting the team, and the Board, to see things his way; decided he was going to quit; so threw up his hands and went ah, the heck with it...
Not suggesting he shirked during that period; merely, that he prolly followed the path of least resistance, as Suresh calls it, by doing what he could do, as opposed to what he should.

Hat-trick for Clarke

Like Shane Warne wasn't enough, now the Aussies are letting loose another demon bowler at the Brits? Michael Clarke, in the Ashes tour-opening Twenty20, claims a hat-trick -- what is really interesting in what can otherwise be dismissed as an oddity in a pajama thrash is that one of his victims is Kevin Pietersen, the bloke England look to, to provide Sehwag-style pyrotechnics to their batting.
PS: Yes, I know it is 3 am in New York and no, this is not about to become a 24-hour blog -- it's just that I need to sit up all night tonight, so figured I'd drop in occasionally and keep you guys amused :-)

Open Forum

Right guys, outside of Aussies starting off with a Twenty20 win, nothing much happening, so will shut this down for the day.
Before I do, though -- if you want your daily dose of pre-Ashes hype -- much of which centers on how this England side is better, more talented, more confident, more all-round, than its predecessors -- there's this one, from Reuters via the Hindustan Times; seems the build-up to Ashes past saw players drop out with 'injury'. But this time -- it's all about confidence, see? -- even injured players are recovering at warp speed.
Reminds me of a classic from Steve Waugh. When Nasser Hussain's England landed in Australia, there was a lot of stuff about how that England team was better, more talented, more confident... et cetera.
At a pre-series press conference, a journalist pointed out to Waugh that Hussain had waxed confident about England's chances. Deadpanned Steve: 'Isn't that what they always say?'
Before I do that, though, there's this: 19 years ago today, India won it's first ever Test at Lord's. Indian Express has a small quote or two from Dilip Vengsarkar on the game.
Which puts me in mind of a question for you guys: If you were writing the capsule history of Indian cricket; if you decided it would contain ten chapters, each detailing one seminal moment Indian cricket, which ten moments would you pick? Triumphs, disasters, off-the-ball events -- whatever; the only criterion being, the ten moments you pick must be the ones that in your mind changed the way we play/watch/approach/administer the game in this country.
Go for it. Good night, all, stay safe.

What's in a name?

Just had a mail from a long-lost friend of mine, who stumbled onto me through this blog. Which is the good news. He is coming down to Manhattan and wondered if I would have time for a drink (yesssss!)... and that is the even better news. He also pointed me to his own blog, which I was unaware of, and which, it turns out, is also called Fourth Umpire!
What can I say? Hopefully, when someone compiles a list of the Top 100 Blogs Called Fourth Umpire, mine will make that list, too :-)
Never mind, got to change the name -- within a week, tops -- since my friend has prior claim to it. Tempted to go with Panix Station, which is what that radio thingy I do on Rediff is called -- any better suggestions, anyone?
Oh, and? This 'What's in a name' business reminds me of this joke I chanced on when watching a Tamil film the other day. One guy says 'what's in a name?'. The other goes, do you even know who said that? Tagore, goes the first guy. No, says the second triumphantly, it was Shakespeare.
'If there is nothing in a name,' argues the first guy, 'then what is the difference if I call him Tagore?' :-)

Privatise sports...

...is the leitmotif of Harsha Bhogle's latest column.

Indian sport needs the accountability and thrust of India's private sector and that can only be achieved if it is handed over to the private sector.I can foresee, maybe I dream but that is where all progress starts, vibrant domestic leagues, fine coaches, high quality television and the injection of pride and accountability. If we can go prospecting for oil, why can't we prospect for hockey players at a laughable fraction of the cost? Wouldn't the Tatas do what they can to see an Indian team ascend the victory podium at the World Cup?

Harsha talks here primarily of non-cricket sport, but much of it would be applicable to cricket, too. You could argue that cricket is already privatised -- in fact, is run pretty much on the lines of an old family-centric concern, but that is not the sort of privatisation I had in mind. Bring the corporates into the mix, let them run teams and manage stadia and see what happens (you already have an example, in the private pace academy founded by MRF, to which the world now flocks).
But to do this, the entrenched powers have to be ready to relinquish their grip on the game -- or at the least, give up some part of it. Do I see that happen? Um, no -- no more than I see anything short of imminent demise prompt Priyaranjan Das Munshi to give up his control fo the AIFF.

The News in Briefs

Mahendra Singh Dhoni, a couple of days after his double hundred, is back doing what he does best: clobbering the ball into kingdom come. In the P Sen Trophy club-class tournament now on at the Eden Gardens, the national keeper thumped 13 fours and 7 sixes in a 42-ball century.

The match may have been insignificant, but Dhoni disagrees. Speaking to this website�s newspaper the stumper said: "Well, these two knocks are quite important for me. That's because my focus right now is on the tri-series in Sri Lanka.''

Kapil Dev's fondness for Ajay Jadeja is no secret; the former all-rounder has run a tireless campaign for his protege's rehabilitation. Here, he waxes eloquent on Jadeja's golfing skills.
And finally, bookie Shobhan Mehta is arrested in Bombay, he falls ill, he is admitted to hospital, he is discharged, he has now been arrested in Ahmedabad. That's the news -- follow the link only if you are a fan of four-para stories being split into five pages, in ToI's patented fashion.

Wanted: Eyewitnesses

Any of you guys in the UK in a position to have watched the Glamorgan-Kent game? Any takes on how Saurav did? At stumps, he is batting 61 off 73 with eight fours and a six, which seems a lot like how he bats when he is feeling his oats.
Extrapolating purely from the scorecard, Saurav had to have come in to bat at 3/79. That's an unbeaten 96-run stand for the fourth wicket -- of which his contribution is 61 at as near a run a ball as makes no difference.
Cool -- this game is worth keeping an eye on tomorrow, from the start; the earliest indication we are getting, into the sort of touch SG will be in when he gets back to national duty.

Of selection committees

A problem for journalists during the off season is finding things to write about -- so you are apt to see, at least till the team gets into a coaching camp, or something else of note happens -- the same interviews, repurposed and repackaged in a dozen different ways (what the heck, we journos are still not comfortable with greeting visitors to our site with a factual statement on the lines of 'Nothing happening in our world today; we have shut shop and are off to play' -- by way of an aside within an aside, why is it I never could rhyme when I wanted to, and find I do when I had no intent to?).
Instances of this abound -- Greg Chappell opened his mouth once or twice, and has spawned a good score or more of stories, each picking up a different point and highlighting that. News agencies are particularly adept at this -- vide the various ways PTI has repurposed Chappell's original interview, to give it a semblance of freshness each time.
We've also heard the John Wright comment on selection committees before, but this story on Cricinfo provides a touch more depth (it would, since the interview was given to Rahul Bhattacharya for Cricinfo's print big brother, Wisden -- read the full thing, it's worth your while and more).
The argument for a revamp of the selection committee has generally centered on zonal bias. Wright, though, puts an equally compelling argument on the table: continuity.

"Every year, generally, you have a new convenor and a different make-up on your panel, so the continuity is difficult. Sanjay Jagdale has been an outstanding selector and because his time is up he is no longer in that position. That to me just doesn't make sense.
"I feel that the system of picking your national selection panel may have done its course," he continued, "and I would urge the BCCI to study the situation. I have a personal opinion that it should be a professional position, the way it is in a number of countries. You can have the best coaching system and your best coaches, but if you don't get your selections right, you're making it very difficult for yourselves."

It's a telling argument. A cricket team today is a product, like any other -- when it performs, and achieves results, people buy into it; if not, not (Sachin Tendulkar, for instance, was at one time the observed of all observers -- today, thanks to age, injury, diminishing marginal returns, he no longer is, and that in turn has meant people no longer buy into him, and the products he endorses, as heavily).
So if you think of a cricket team as a car, imagine this: What if the car manufacturing company changed its research and development team (the selection committee, in cricket) every 12 months? What you would have is short term vision -- the successive R&D teams would tinker with the shape of the grille and the headlamps, because it has to do something to justify its existence; it would not however touch larger structural changes, because such take longer than 12 months to conceive and execute.
Same difference -- our committees with their limited life spans think series to series, where a professional committee, with an assured longer life-span, would think and plan for the longer term.
The calls for change have been constant; even, in recent years, strident. Do you suppose these calls will provoke change, though? Even that perennial optimist, Dr Pangloss, would be hard put to say yes -- the thing is, selection committee postings are one of the ways the BCCI keeps the member zones and key voters happy; if you want votes, you have to hand out goodies as the spoils of your triumph.

Ganguly at bat

...in Cardiff, where he is currently on 9 off 15 with two fours, in a Glamorgan score of 97/3 in response to Kent's massive 568.
Elsewhere, Pathan appears on the back of his batting heroics to have managed a tidy, if wicketless, spell of 12-3-25-0 for Middlesex, as Surrey moves to 157/2 in response to Middlesex' first innings score of 437.

Pathan makes 50

Irfan Pathan bowled Harbhajan Singh 68 (93 balls, 11 fours). Pathan -- about whose play there was a neat little eye-witness report by Rahul yesterday (see the County Update post), appears to have played up a gear today; he added 35 to his overnight score, in 34 deliveries. Bajji meanwhile ends with figures of 35-10-87-2 (his victims being the top two scorers in the Middlesex innings of 437 all out.
In the Glamorgan v Kent game, Saurav Ganguly is yet to get his turn at bat.

Pak seamers, made in India

The Pak cricket board plans to send some promising seamers to the MRF Academy to hone their skills. Good, now it's almost unanimous -- Australia had sent the likes of Jason Gillespie to practise there; Lance Klusener and Shaun Pollock among others have come down from South Africa; almost the entire Sri Lankan lineup of seamers have trained there; for Pakistan, which seems to produce quicks off some endless assembly line, to consider the academy as the ideal finishing school is I guess the ultimate accolade.
It's a great place, actually (for some reason, the page in Rediff refuses to open up, but I found this cached copy of an earlier report I had done, the accompanying interview with Lillee, and one with TA Shekhar, on the hows and whys of the academy) -- structured with a lot of thought, and very well managed and run; in every way a contrast, come to think of it, to the national cricket academy run under the BCCI's aegis.
One aspect of this has always stuck in my craw -- while the boards of other countries have played an official part in sending promising quicks to the academy for training, the BCCI has done nothing, on similar lines, to nurture our own seam talent. The academy exists because of the vision of Ravi and Vinu Mammen of MRF; it runs well because it has full-time, professional management structures headed by Shekhar and a dedicated coach in Lillee -- and the likes of Srinath, Prasad, Zaheer, Balaji, Pathan and others have benefitted, because they have on their own initiative gone down to the academy for training.
That's the story of Indian cricket -- we produce talent often despite of, not because of, the official body.

Waugh declared?

God, I really have to refrain from 'puns'. Anyways -- an amusing sidelight to the enormous amount of newsprint that goes into Ashes coverage is Shane Warne's miffed reaction to something former team-mate Mark Waugh wrote earlier in the Sunday Age, about the declining skills of the leggie. Just FYI/A.

Testing times

Asim Butt, a Scottish seamer, has reportedly tested positive for Ecstasy, and been banned for a year. In unrelated news, Diego Maradona -- the man who made recreational drugs and sport almost synonymous -- was mobbed by adoring fans in Naples, a city he has not set foot in for like 10 years.
More to the point, Shabbir Ahmed the Pakistan opening bowler will be next up on the testing block after his action was reported (for the third time in a career spanning just nine Tests) at the end of the first Test of the ongoing Pak-Windies series; this, shortly after Bajji just came through his own test with a no-problem, can-bowl report.
Maybe it's time for all these guys -- Shabbir, Bajji, Shoaib, Brett Lee, Rajesh Chauhan, Muthaiah Muralitharan... -- to form a 'usual suspects' club? They could pass on to one another tips and tricks to come through the tests; what questions will be asked, where the electrodes will be placed, how to make sure everything is kosher -- sort of like the cheat notes that helped me get through school?

Handle with care

How do porcupines make love? C-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y. Very much like how ZeeTV says it will deal with the BCCI.
The crux of a story that is getting wide play (in Express, Outlook, NDTV to name just three) is

Zee Sports said it would be "extra careful" while dealing with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) in future even though it was still undecided whether to make fresh bids to acquire TV rights from BCCI.

The silver lining in all this is that television channels that find themselves at the receiving end of the BCCI's idiosyncratic ways of running things are beginning to look beyond cricket, for programming.

"Cricket is not everything. It's just another sport. There are so many other sports -- hockey, football, tennis," he (Executive Vice-President of Zee Sports Himanshu Mody) said. He said the channel has bid for telecast and marketing rights from All India Football Federation.

In not entirely related news, the BCCI's finance committee is finally meeting, after a gap of almost a year, in Kolkatta. 'Just routine,' says secretary SK Nair, which in itself is an inadvertent pointer to how the body is run -- do you know of any corporation, industry or business that tops over Rs 100 crore in annual profits, and where it does not matter if the finance department/committee meets, or does not meet, for months at a time?

Eyewitness update on Pathan

Rahul, again, weighs in on the morning action in the Middlesex-Surrey game:

Caught a little bit more county action this afernoon. Pathan bowling a good tight line, steady pace (77-78) with not too much assistance from the conditions(8-2-10-0). His opening partner, Alan Richardson on the other hand extracted far more from the pitch and was rewarded with a wicket and a dropped catch.
Pathan will obviously benefit from the experience but he does need to work on adding that yard or two of pace to make him a bit more effective in unhelpful conditions. Overall doing well and seems to be enjoying it too.

County update

Rahul, commenting below the post titled News in Briefs, has an eyewitness report from the Middlesex-Surrey game -- given it fleshes out the scoreboard-based news, quoting it here in full:

Caught the final session of the surrey middlessex game on Sky just as Ifran walked in. Initially looked all at sea, playing and missing everything that Ormond & later bicknell were bowling to him, the low point being 3 balls in one over that all pitched on middle stump and all missed the off stump by varying degrees. There was also a definite strategy to bowl short chest high with a bunch of slips and a leg gully leading to one commentator to comment that it was a change from the flat beds of Bombay.(Mumbai he corrected himself..they all seem to do that).
Anyway.
To his credit Irfan didn't look flustered or intimidated and kept practising rhearsing his pull shots everytime he missed until he finally got one in the zone and unleashed a fabulous cover drive drawing immediate comparison with Sourav of old.
And a few more followed in the following overs. So he definitely appears to have the temperament, may need to tighten technique a bit. (Bat coming down at an angle and so on..but that's my view).
Bajji on the other hand was just OK and helped a lot by some really good support in the field. Looked a bit rusty but overalle seemed to be gradually getting in to a groove. His wicket came from some tight overs before (thanks to the fielding)..and also generated some interesting conversation between charles colville and nasser hussain about the whole throwing controversy. Charles kept prodding nasser into giving his view on the doosra since the wicket ball appeared to have been the doosra and nasser interestingly said he couldnt see any problem and that it was good for the game that offspinners had come up with this sort of delivery and essentially he couldnt really be bothered about the degree that his arm was bent or whatever the mechanics were about the throwing controversy...he couldnt tell with the naked eye and that was that. Refreshing to say the very least.

Thanks much, Rahul. Will get to some of the other questions posted, in my tomorrow morning -- it;s 11.15, dinner, a must-read book, and sleep call, in that order.

Credit where due

Now this is fun -- a post that had nothing to do directly with Saurav appears to have become a handle to discuss the objectivity of this blog. Vide this comment that popped up in my mailbox just now, and which I find on that blog entry:

Chatura said:
interesting - backing Bajji was one of the few things Ganguly was consistently given credit for - now he has to share it with Wright and some anonymous "seniors" - bah! i know, it is not the point of the article but then, hard to ignore such "objectivity" :P

But who ever said the credit does not go to Ganguly? Here's the thing -- in my time as cricket reporter, I've seen three captains -- Azhar, Sachin and Saurav. Neither Azhar nor Sachin ever managed to make a case for a player, and make it stick (Sachin on a couple of occasions did fight -- for the wrong player, and the wrong reasons).
Saurav, whenever he took up the cudgels, got his way -- and equally, had Saurav not picked those fights, spearheaded them, those instances would have gone per the will of the selection committee.
The thing is, if the national captain does not back a player the selection committee has a down on, then the committee will invariably prevail. (You want a contrary instance? Wright believed that Sadagopan Ramesh, post-rehabilitation, would make the ideal pairing with Virender Sehwag in Tests and argued SR's case strenuously before the selection committee; Saurav was not with him on that one; Ramesh remained out in the cold).
Why just Bajji? Saurav consistently backed Sehwag, in the teeth of a selection committee who thought he was too harum-scarum to make for a consistent player.
When the selection committee thought Yuvraj Singh was finished, Saurav backed him, and brought about his rehabilitation.
Twice, when the tenure of John Wright was coming to an end and various former Indian legends politicked to get him out and replace him with an Indian coach, Saurav again fought for Wright's retention (on one occasion, while the board was preparing for Wright's exit, calling Jaggu Dalmiya and others from Australia, where he was playing at the time, to demand that Wright's tenure be extended).
You want more instances? The Indian players have contracts today. The idea for the contracts was first mooted by Rahul Dravid, Javagal Srinath and Anil Kumble; they were the ones who put together presentations, went to the Board, advanced the arguments on behalf of the players. Nothing happened.
Then Sachin Tendulkar threw his weight behind the exercise. Still nothing substantive -- the Board said it would discuss, consider, appoint committees, whatever.
And then Saurav joined the fight -- and when the lot of them collectively faced the board, with the national captain in the vanguard, was when the BCCI quit stalling and acted (took them the deuce of a long time to implement it, yes, but at least they did, and it would not have been possible without this combined fight, and with the special clout that Ganguly brings to the table). So hey, there you go, one more to add to the 'few things' for which he is given credit.
On some of these occasions he fought solo; on some, he was backed by others.
On all, he deserves credit, and it is certainly not my objective to deprive him of it; never have, never will.
Why would you think bracketing his name with that of someone else robs him of the credit (unless, of course, that bracketing were contrary to facts)?
Over, for the day, and out.

News in briefs

First the Shane Warne portrait in the Lord's Gallery -- there are pix all over the web, including on Rediff's cricket site -- donno about you, but this pic makes him look like his own evil twin :-) -- and now, an India room at the Oval that Sachin will inaugurate.
Rahul Dravid, Bajji, Kaif and Pathan will get a taste of Twenty20 action, June 20, when an Asia XI takes on an International XI.
And Ranbir Singh Mahindra will chair the committee that will decide TV rights and sponsorship issues.
In county action, Saurav Ganguly and Glamorgan on the receiving end, as Kent piles up 357/7 on the first day of the three-day game; Saurav 3-0-8-0 and will in all probability be seen with the bat tomorrow.
Elsewhere, Bajji and Irfan Pathan in action on the same stage: Pathan 33 off 59 not out in Middlesex score of 319/7 against Surrey (the guy's doing good with the bat, out there); Bajji for the bowling side 24-8-57-1, that one wicket being Dalyrymple the Middlesex top-scorer.

Time out

Is it just me missing things, or is it an unusually slow day today? There's a ton of Ashes-related stories in the Brit and Aussie papers, but they are all of a muchness -- a hint of optimism regarding England's chances, laced with much talk of how invincible the Aussies are. In other words, not really worth throwing up, for comment or even for amusement.
I think I'll go off and do some tweaking -- been meaning to structure this so that your discussions (and I noticed some quite frenetic ones going on) can be threaded by topic, and thrown back up for further comment etc. Will tinker around with various software and stuff... and happen something catches my eye, be back in here. Meanwhile, you guys take care...

4-Venue Cup?

Sequel to earlier post (Cup of Joy). When The Telegraph speaks on issues that Jaggu Dalmiya is in the know of/spearheading, I tend to listen, because the paper has limitless access to the gent (Disclaimer: I don't, haven't had for a long time; Dalmiya is on record as saying Rediff criticises him way too much and therefore he is not interested in speaking to us). Says here, a joint bid is certain -- and considering this is Lokendra Sahi talking of something within Dalmiya's purview, you can take it as given that the 2011 WC will be hosted by India-Pakistan-Sri Lanka-Bangladesh. By way of aside, I plan on retiring from journalism in 2008, 2009 tops, and setting up a travel agency -- this Cup's going to be a goldmine.

An Aussie decline?

Found something that should intrigue you, in this story in the Hindu, about Greg Chappell. General perception is that the Aussie cricket academy ranks in the top three reasons why that country and its cricket team is unbeatable, yes? So listen to Chappell's take:

Apprehensive about the change from backyard cricket to a structured system of net practice in Australia — an academic one — Chappell said, "We've taken a path that no one's really thought through. The old system was very good. Backyard cricket was competitive - kids were under pressure. They had to make decisions in real time. We've replaced it with a highly controlled system based on batting in the nets. It's a totally different mental environment from playing in a game - a very academic approach.''
Describing Ricky Ponting's men as the last of their kind, he said, "The guys we see playing for Australia today are probably the last of their kind. They learned to play the game before this academic system was introduced.
"Australian cricket has blindly accepted the new system. It's not been tested over the long term, and I think it's got serious shortcomings. We'll know one way or another within a generation,'' he added.

If I understand him right, he is suggesting that structured academy-style talent-honing is more of a problem than a blessing; the logical corollary seems to be that the more unstructured system we have here, where maidan/gully cricket is the game's cradle, nursery and, in some instances, finishing school all rolled into one, has huge advantages.
Must confess this is, for me, a totally new spin -- one that deserves some thought. Meanwhile, lunch, gentlemen; then work. Back here later.

The news in briefs

Sachin Tendulkar will coach at Lord's, as part of the tsunami relief efforts. John Wright heard from, on Tendulkar and other members of the Indian team. John weighs in, too, on the need for more a professional selection commitee.
The first story is PR; the second is more of the same. It is the third that is worth focussing on -- Wright has been harping on this theme with good reason. Time and again, he has found his recommendations, and that of the captain, over-ruled or ignored by selectors who presume they know best. It has been, for him, a four-year battle to get Indian selectors to do the right thing.
Thus, it is no secret that the selectors did not want Harbhajan Singh in the Test side to face the Aussies under Steve Waugh; in fact, they did not want Bajji in the side, period.
The reason why? When the offie was in the National Cricket Academy, he once -- along with Murali Kartik -- protested the diet on offer which, he said with very good reason, was clearly inadequate for a sportsperson; he and Kartik at Javagal Srinath's invitation played a charity game on a Sunday, which in any case was his off day.
All this was enough reason to earn him the 'indisciplined' tag, and for the selectors to want to blackball him. It was Wright, in tandem with Ganguly and a couple of the other seniors, who put their foot down on the issue and got Bajji in the side. Similar battles have been fought over others, including Virender Sehwag -- the selectors at one point thought he was too chancy to be worth a Test team.
Does having a professional selection committee alone ensure against stupidity? Not really -- but the corollary of 'professional' is 'accountable'. And that is the real problem with the existing selection structure -- the national selectors are not accountable, period.
They make their mistakes, the team suffers, the public loses interest, players find their careers in ruins... but at no time do the five wise men ever have to face questioning (in fact, when the selectors found they couldn't face the media's questions, they came up with a new rule -- no more press conferences when teams were picked; the secretary would announce the names, and that was that).
When India seeks professionalism in all other aspects -- contracted players, contracted coach and physio and physical trainer (with a couple more back-room boys to come) -- why not in this? Why not a three-member panel of professional, contracted selectors, with the captain and coach making up the remaining two voting members?

Cup of joy

June 5: BCCI to discuss joint Indo-Pak bid for World Cup
June 8: BCCI to independently bid for World Cup
*pause for an instant of maniacal laughter*
But seriously, the BCCI decision to bid independently makes sense, no? India has the infrastructure to host the Cup -- stadia with tremendous capacity; road, rail and air links; high class hotels; enormous corporate interest; an event-friendly tax policy; everything you need, in fact. What is more, Pakistan recognizes this.

Shaharyar (PCB chairman Shaharyar Khan) was realistic while saying that only India was the only Asian country that had the infrastructure, facilities and capabilities to single-handedly host the 2011 World Cup.

He left out one all-important element: money. Even when South Africa hosted the World Cup, the majority of the top sponsors were India-based corporates; imagine then the interest if the Cup were to be held in India. 99 per cent of all sponsorship would be generated within the country itself -- which is something no other nation can ever hope to match.
So why share? What does a jointly-hosted Cup bring but chaos and confusion (remember the last time India-Pak-SL hosted the Cup? And now there is a proposal to rope in Bangladesh as well!)
The only reason I can think of for the BCCI to even consider a jointly-hosted Cup is politics. To win the bid, you need votes -- and a joint bid gets you four, first ball. Considering the financial success India can make of the Cup, it is in a position to offer the sort of prize monies that will ensure it the votes of the less cash-rich countries (Zimbabwe, say; or the West Indies).
Then again, assume India makes an independent bid for the Cup -- how many of these countries are going to vote against us anyways?

Flat screen

The BCCI has decided not to go in for its own TV channel. Ranbir Singh Mahindra says there was never any proposal for the BCCI to get into the broadcast business --which is a touch strange; he probably did not attend the working committee meeting at which former president Inderjit Singh Bindra and RCA chief Lalit Modi raised the issue.
Makes me wonder whether the decision to not consider a TV channel of its own has more to do with politics, than with any practical considerations -- remember, TV is one of Modi's businesses; he is the one with the plan and the expertise, and Modi is not exactly persona grata with the BCCI honchos after his upset win over the Rungtas in Rajasthan, and the threat he poses to the ruling Dalmiya-led faction.
Be a pity, if that is the case -- a dedicated channel for cricket makes enormous sense. Financially, because the cricket administration gets to keep television revenues for itself, rather that share with the broadcasters of each particular series. Cricket-wise, because a dedicated cricket channel, flush with funds, can afford during downtime to screen Ranji and Duleep matches and even, as Modi points out, inner-city games; this equals more exposure (more? there is *no* exposure right now) for the up and coming players.
What amused me was this comment of Mahindra's:

I am not in favour of any such channel. Our purpose is cricket and not to run a commercial enterprise

You could have fooled me -- this is a body who milks cricket to the tune of 100-plus crore profits each year, and its purpose is 'not to run a commercial enterprise'?
Well, guess what, chief, maybe it's time to rewrite the BCCI charter -- it should be about running a commercial enterprise, because once you decide you are an industry, perhaps you will perforce pay attention to some aspects of running an industry: product development (that means quality stadia, planned talent search, structured coaching academies and oh yes, a professional administration).

Alright already...

...will revise the black backdrop... unfortunately, will have to wait till tomorrow, since I need to rush -- places to go, things to do, living to be made...
You guys stay safe, and smiling, see you in here tomorrow

And a question...

Mike Selvey, in the Guardian, weighed in a while back on the Rest of the World SuperTest team to play Australia in Sydney in November -- which leads me to ask, have you guys picked your team yet?

News update

An earlier post spoke of the presence in Bangalore of Tobin Martin, a sports psychologist 'cricket coach specialising in putting ‘applied sports psychology’ into practice'.
Bangalore, apparently, has also imported an agronomist and pitch-preparation specialist to work on the Chinnaswamy Stadium pitch.

News update

On the platform of his blitz that brought him 207 off 106 the other day at the Eden Gardens, Mahendra Singh Dhoni says he is busy recalibrating his game, with the goal of playing through the middle overs. And it is not just batting he is focussing on -- apparently, he has asked ex-stumper Nayan Mongia for tips on glove work as well.
Interesting bit is, it is the younger guys who are talking of redrafting their game, of adding to their skill sets, etc -- Pathan, who went to England promising to recover missing weapons from his arsenal; Zaheer, who is in Chennai in search of fitness and a finer edge on his ability; Dhoni, who says he is rethinking his game... Wonder what the older guys are doing, meanwhile.

David is my Shepherd...

When he was active, we kept our eye on the scoreboard, waiting for it to turn 111... 222... 333 and so on, if only for the fun of watching the portly umpire do his damndest to get both feet off the ground without falling flat on his face.
Shep's finally called it a day -- but apparently believes he still has something, he doesn't know what yet, to contribute to the game.
You guys remember what Imran Khan said, while advocating neutral umpires, in his All Round View?

The modern umpire is caught between two opposing forces -- the domestic pressures which encourage error, and the technology that reveals them

Very succinct, that definition of the problem of modern umpiring. The ICC, for its part, is in a mood to increase the use of technology (read, decrease the use of umpires), and will use the upcoming Super Tests between Australia and the Rest of the World, this October, to broaden the scope of the video umpire.
This could well be the best use for the likes of Shepherd and other umpires who have come to the end of active duty (not to mention some, like Bucknor, who need to be superannuated asap) -- wouldn't it be a plan for the ICC to bring these men, who between them have a tremendous amount of experience to call upon, and get them to rework the role of the umpires?

Cricket -- and other -- writing

My Mumbai trip -- Feb 13-April 10 -- was about work, at frenetic pace; the Indo-Pak series live ball-by-ball, plus a couple of projects for Rediff, meant there was precious little time to breathe, let alone enjoy my first visit to my adopted home city in two years-plus.
I did find time, though, to meet with two people I had corresponded with, sporadically, till then, and who I had read, avidly, all along -- Rahul Bhatia and Amit Varma, both of Cricinfo.
The good bit about the launch of Cricinfo's been the quality of writing -- Rahul, Amit, Dileep Premachandran, Chandrahas, Sambit, Kamran Abbasi, Osman Samiuddin... it's a dazzling array of talent the site has lined up.
To my mind, the best part of Cricinfo's roster of writers is that they have interests over and above cricket; interests they nurture in their own time, and which infuse their cricket writing.
That's one of the things I am grateful to cricket for, actually -- the fact that through it, I've managed to make many friends, every one of whom has widened my own interests, brought to the table things I didn't know, and which I have profited from.
So I figured, when putting favorite links on here, could do a lot worse than start with Amit and Rahul. Enjoy -- they are well worth your while.

Hayden heard from...

...in the Sydney Morning Herald, where he doesn't just shrug off the pressure of his own poor form; he turns the blowtorch on England instead.

Black!

Alright, before you guys ask -- a few changes/additions/incorporations happening on this blog over the next few days. This shift, to the current template, is so I can, over time, link to websites I like. Many thanks to Arjun Swarup, who's been helping me with this on his own time.

Tiger hunt

First, it was Salman Khan and Saif Ali Khan, now it is Tiger Pataudi, Saif's father. The victim is the same -- the black buck, the gentlest creatures imaginable (while covering elections in Rajasthan, I once had an opportunity to meet these creatures vis a vis).
Latest reports indicate that Pataudi and others seek to circumvent prosecution -- or at least, questioning -- by the simple expedient of not showing up.
Not that they need to worry, not really -- judging by precedent, the police will initially milk the incident for all the publicity it's worth (promotion pukki, boss), and then the matter will land up in the courts, and there it will die a natural death.
I mean, the incident involving Salman and others happened way back in 1998 -- it is now 7 years down the line, and per this log on Salman's own site, the last time the matter was in court was in June of 2004, when they were still arguing about the granting of bail.

Bangladesh bashes back

Finally, Bangladesh hits back -- in the form of this impassioned piece in the Financial Express, by Enayat Rasul, that argues a case for the nation to retain its Test status.
It's good to get the other side involved in this ongoing debate -- though I am not sure the argument showcased is the one to go with.
Rasul's main point seems to be that cricket has helped Bangladesh gain international recognition, and brought tourists, and their dollars, into the local economy. Trouble with this line of thought is, the ICC's charter is to develop the game -- and not to help under-developed countries jump start their economies.

Walking wounded

Yousuf Youhana had to skip the Windies tour because of his ailing father; but apparently he has now discovered he needs shoulder surgery.
I wonder if we are seeing the fallout of the almost continuous cricket most international sides play these days? You have an injury, you are less than 100 per cent, but you play on regardless -- at least in part because you don't have enough downtime to go visiting specialists to check whether that little niggle is just that, a niggle, or the symptom of something more serious?
Sachin Tendulkar recently was in that position -- an elbow injury he was playing around, and when he got some downtime and visited a specialist, he was told operate, or else. Now Youhana. Makes you wonder how many other cricketers there are out there, carrying similar injuries -- and whether it is not time for the ICC to seriously rethink the international calendar?

All rounders -- the sequel

Reverting to the subject of a previous post, Arjuna Ranatunga once put this all-rounder business in perspective. During the 1996 Cup campaign, I remember asking him what he thought the secret of Sri Lanka's success was, and he attributed it to two factors more than any other (and neither was the batting prowess of Aravinda and Jayasuriya).
First, he said, the team was playing in conditions it knew to a T, so it had a perfect map of strategy. And from that, he argued, led the second -- the decision to pack the side with all rounders.
He pointed out that the team had two kinds -- batsmen of high quality, who could fill in a few overs (Arjuna himself, Aravinda, Jayasuriya and the like), and bowlers of caliber, who could contribute runs with the bat (Chaminda Vaas, for instance). Besides, he pointed out, they had one other all rounder -- Kaluwitharana, who held down his job as wicket-keeper, but was equally handy with the bat.
Think about it -- it is not as if SL had all-rounders in the Kapil/Botham/Hadlee mould, match winners with either bat or ball. It was more like, every member of the side had a day job, but he also contribute a mite to the opposite department.
Think of the Indian ODI team in that light. Sehwag, Saurav, Sachin, Yuvraj (Mongia, when he plays) all bowl. Dhoni holds down his wicket-keeping day job, but is also handy with the bat. Pathan and Zaheer can both weigh in with the bat; Bajji is capable of whacking the ball around in disruptive cameos and even Ashish Nehra has been known to clout the odd six off Shoaib Akthar.
Perhaps the real trick is not to go looking for all-rounders, but to consistently use the skill sets the above players have? If you glance through scoreboards, you will find say a Sehwag bowling in the first game of a series, and then not bowling at all. A Sachin or a Saurav will bowl in one game, then not at all. And no one really pushes the bowlers to excel with the bat -- so much so, even in the practise nets, by the time bowlers get their turn at bat there is often no one barring a few young children around to bowl to them.
I'd think India needs to stop hunting for a non-existent unicorn; instead, to understand that this all-rounder business is merely a matter of maximising the output of each member of the side. And hey, if an all-rounder of genuine ability comes along, great, we can all sing hosannas... but why the dirge while we are waiting?

Pressing matters

Interesting take, meanwhile, by Lawrence Booth in the Guardian about the way the Aussie press acts as the team's unofficial twelfth man, and why the same treatment is not meted out to the Aussies when they go travelling.
India has had its fair share of this tactic; as these two stories among many others (The Disinformation Drive and The Other Side of the Coin) illustrate.
But is it only because, as Booth suggests, Australia are invincible, and therefore have no chinks to exploit with a well chosen barb or three? Or is it at least in part because when the Aussies come visiting, the home media tends to bend over backwards to treat them with difference, even when they do not deserve such treatment? Because the home media does not bother to take on the Aussie media when it blatantly exaggerates facts, as in this example?
It is not, for instance, that the British media has no chinks to exploit; it is perhaps that they are too over-awed to take the visitors on. Did anyone ask Ricky, for instance, 'Hey, Ricky, how does Mathew Hayden's dramatic loss of form affect the team's opening balance?'
Why not a question, with just the right touch of the needle in it, about Warne's propensity to spend his down time sending SMS messages to random nurses?
Could it be that the Aussies are invincible at least in part because we let them be?

Where are the all rounders?

That's the theme, of Siddhartha Vaidhyanathan's piece on Cricinfo. Makes for interesting reading. Makes me also recall something Kapil Dev once said, way back in 1998, when I asked him how come India hadn't produced all-rounders of any quality since his exit and that of Manoj Prabhakar:

I mean (a touch of exasperation here) that if you want to do something, achieve something, you can't be thinking all the time of what you don't have... I don't have an opening batsman, I don't have a fast bowler, I don't have an all-rounder... You think like this and you are telling yourself you can't win. You have to see what you have, and then plan how to use it the best way you can, that is how to win games. Not this business of 'we don't have an all-rounder so we are not a balanced team!

His argument was not that India does not need an all-rounder -- the essence of what he was saying was, if you have one, great; if you don't, accept it, as opposed to catching hold of some bloke who can maybe bat a little, bowl a little, and elevating him to all-rounder status.
Have to run back to work, but will pick up this all-rounder thread in just a while. In the interim, you've got homework -- that piece to read. :-)

Is cricket dying?

While I head off to do some work, thought I'd leave you with this essay from Rediff's own Deepti Patwardhan -- the thrust of which seems to be that cricket is dying, around the world.
I am ambivalent, really -- for one thing, I don't believe the lack of interest in Bangladesh is by itself a yardstick to measure interest in the game itself (be a bit like India playing Brazil at soccer, no one turning up, and from that, we positing that soccer is dying).
Yet, in India this time, I saw more kids wearing T-shirts celebrating Schumacher and Ronaldo, than Tendulkar and Saurav; in the sports bars, the biggest crowds were around the TV set screening Formula I live; in train stations and bus stops, you tended to overhear the younger kids argue heatedly about the previous night's game of the Premier League or Serie A...
Would it be right to say that while reports of cricket's impending demise is exaggerated, recent years have seen a dilution of interest; that youngsters these days do not follow cricket to the exclusion of all else?

Changing times -- the sequel

Another story worth your while is the one relating to the presence, in Bangalore, of a mental fitness expert working with junior players. For now, it is just a two-week program -- a small step, but a giant leap for the BCCI which is not known to buy easily into modern methods, more especially when it comes to the players in the junior ranks.
It's taken a long while for us to get here, to this point where Indian cricket moves out of its antediluvian mindset ('Laptop? What laptop? I have a lap' -- thus, our coach-who-almost-was, Jimmy Amarnath); but on this one, the BCCI deserves a round of unstinted applause.

New broom

Good morning all -- first up in the morning, I take back all I said about preferring Tom Moody over Greg Chappell.
Not because the big news of the day is that Chappell has asked for a biomechanics expert and an expert in kinesiology as part of the national team's back-room staff, or because he seems to want a more hands-on involvement of a sports psychologist, but because the BCCI has actually taken the request on board and seems set to give Chappell what he wants.
Perhaps this is where Chappell scores over Moody -- he is too big a name, and a voice, for the BCCI to ignore; a younger, less high-profile coach like Moody would not have been able to get support staff just for the asking. And if you think that is just part of my routine board-bashing, think back to the era of John Wright, and remember how the BCCI treated him.
I remember when Wright, during his early days with the side, asked that the team be provided a tech support person, whose job would be to store on laptop the live feeds of all games, and to analyze them, break them down, and in general provide the team with the video-analysis capabilities Wright believed the players needed.
The request was made, and greeted with official silence. I happened to run into then board secretary JY Lele, and asked him about it. His response? 'Arre yaar, yeh kya tamasha hai -- why do cricketers want a laptop? Bat hai, ball hai -- ask the coach to teach them to play with that, woh kya laptop leke computer game kelega?'
How times have changed! Now a Chappell asks for a kinesiology expert -- and it's an odds-on bet no one in the current administration has a clue what that is -- and within hours of asking, the BCCI goes yes sir, sure sir, give us the details sir and we will do it sir.
While reading this news story, I found myself unconsciously crossing my fingers, muttering 'God, hope the honeymoon lasts'.
And then, towards the end of the story, I found this:

The BCCI also reached an agreement on Chappell's media commitments, which was the lone unresolved issue. Nair said he could "express his thoughts and expressions" through newspaper columns or news channels. However, he added that Chappell will "not be permitted to leak out any team secret".

Fingers duly uncrossed -- no worries, guys, the honeymoon will last. Because Chappell is shrewd enough to use his media column as a weapon of last resort, if he ever needs to take issue with the administration -- and that possibility alone is enough to ensure that the BCCI gives Chappell what he wants, as long as he delivers on the results.
it last

Dubious record

The Windies are done, and almost dusted -- remarkably, the home side managed to lose six wickets for just 114; they need 166 more to win or, more accurately Pakistan -- in a strong position now, thanks at least in part to David Shepherd who seems to be afflicted by last-game nerves -- need four more wickets to seal the game, and draw the series.
Lara, just the other day, was talking of his feelings on levelling Bradman's record of Test centuries; I wonder if he is aware of a dubious distinction headed his way when the inevitable happens and the Windies lose this one?
If my memory serves, one more Test defeat will mean that Lara will join Alec Stewart of England as the player featuring in the most Test defeats, of those who have played 100 Tests or more. Wanted to spend some time digging through the stats, to see if memory is right, but it's 8 in the evening and I must run.
Take care all, see you tomorrow morning...

Twist in the tale

It's amazing how a cricket match can turn -- for reasons you didn't see coming -- in the blink of an eye. When the umpires offered light in the 15th over, the Windies seemed to be sitting pretty. They had lost Chris Gayle, yes -- but Smith looked in good touch, there was Brian Lara to come, and plenty more batting left in the hut.
Play resumed; Danish Kaneria -- who thus far on this tour has shown no sign of running through the opposition -- came into the attack, and in the 17th over, things happened. First, Sarwan got what to my mind was a distinct edge, but David Shepherd in his final game decided otherwise. Two deliveries later, Sarwan was walking back, having disturbed the stumps going too far back to try and sweep one on leg. In came Lara -- and in the 19th over, out went Lara, getting the edge to one just outside off, turning in.
One more over bowled, and the players have trooped off again, for bad light. Just five overs of play between two hold ups for bad light, and the whole game has turned on its axis -- Pakistan now commands the field, with Windies needing 224 runs and Pakistan needing 7 more wickets to wrap the game up and square the series. And the smart money at this point would be on Pak, I'd think.

The blog manifesto

Okay, guys, this is the first -- and last -- time I plan to bring this subject up, on this forum. Said subject being my presumed 'hatred' of Saurav Ganguly. And I am prompted to bring the subject up after finding the comment below, attached to the blog post 'Saurav for skipper':

I don't think it's true that you made up your mind duing Pakistan series. The fact is YOU and REDIFF never really liked Sourav Ganguly. The readers who frequent Rediff know this very well. I for one is not going to read any of your blogs on Sourav. Your comments on other subjects are worth reading though.

It's an anonymous posting, so I don't know who I am addressing. Doesn't matter, actually -- more than one person has said this, sometimes in language I cannot reproduce in a family forum :-)
So, this: In February of 2000, the captaincy of the Indian team was being hotly debated. Sachin had given up on the job; sections within the Board were trying to give it back to Azhar; there was a sub-section of opinion favoring Rahul Dravid, and another, smaller, body of opinion that wanted Anil Kumble to get the arm-band (Incidentally, both are friends of mine).
I had written a piece on the issue at the time; in it, I proposed a name that till that point in time had not been brought up -- by the selectors, the board, or even the media. Guess who?
In December 2002, the big debate was who should lead India to the World Cup. Ganguly, the thinking of the time went, had reached his use-by date and should be axed; the only question was whether the job should go to Tendulkar, or Dravid. At the time, I had written a column that went against prevailing wisdom, and suggested who, to my mind, should lead the side. Guess who?
How come, when I wrote those pieces, no one suggested it was because I 'liked' Ganguly? You need to understand this -- what I say is my opinion; I don't suggest it is the thing to do, as an absolute, but merely that it is what I think should be done.
Others have other views; they express them. We can debate, we can argue, we can discuss -- such debate after all is where much of the fun lies, for cricket fans. But when you dismiss a statement as stemming from personal bias for or against a particular player, you shut the door on debate. And that is a disservice.
It is a tragedy of the times, this tendency to browbeat others, to stifle honest opinion, by tainting it with bias. Did someone write an article criticizing a policy of the BJP? Oh, he is a pseudo-secularist Hindu-hater, we know it. Did someone suggest George Bush was wrong to go to war in Iraq? Must be because he is an unpatriotic Muslim-loving terrorist-supporter.
Really? Could it be because the writer is honest enough to voice his genuine opinions, even if they happen to be counter to the voice of the crowd?
'Bias' is a funny word, folks. Look at it this way -- assume I write a negative piece about a player. Assume you then turn around and say that is because I am biased. Is it not equally valid for me to assume that your anger stems from the fact that you are biased in favor of that player? And if both of us dismiss the other's opinion as stemming from bias, then what price discussion, whither debate?
In any case, I intend to write what I honestly think. I thought, though, that I would at the outset address this oft-asked question, and spell out my response; make of it what you will.

Women can wait

One of these days, the BCCI should publish its playbook -- I'd think it will be a bigger seller than SunTzu's Art of War.
The cornerstone of its operation revolves around two principles/weapons: (1) Divide and rule and (2) Delay is deadlier than denial. And we got to see both in operation during the working committee meeting in Thiruvananthapuram last week -- the first, in the way the honchos handled an incipient rebellion headed by the TNCA and the second, in the way the issue of the women's cricket body merging with the men's has been handled.
If you recall, the BCCI first said all was set for the two bodies to merge (an announcement that prompted hosannas from the likes of Subhangi Kulkarni, who, poor lady, was unaware of how the BCCI works); it then said the matter would be discussed in the near future; a couple of days later it said the matter would be discussed during the working committee meeting, but a decision would be deferred to a later date.
So, guess what -- the working committee did not discuss the matter; it merely decided to postpone the discussion to the next working committee meeting. Because, says SK Nair, the Kovalam meeting could not 'fit in everything'. The BCCI will "allow itself" to take a decision on this soon, Board secretary Nair is quoted as saying. But then, there's this:

For all Nair’s positive spin, the feeling within the BCCI is that the merger is unlikely to happen in the near future, if ever. ‘‘The BCCI has enough on its plate as it is’’, said one senior official. ‘‘Women’s cricket can wait, currently that’s not the priority.’’

Delay is the deadliest form of denial, remember? The women are World Cup runners-up; they have improved (with no patronage, no big money sponsors, no attention) dramatically over the last couple of years... but for the BCCI, that is "not the priority" just now.
And it will never be -- until, and unless, they figure a way of making money out of the women.

Saurav for skipper?

A question I've been asked repeatedly, ever since I started this blog, is what I thought of the Indian captaincy; specifically, whether Saurav should continue, or make way for a successor and if so, who.
I've do have some thoughts, but I wanted to throw it open to the floor, first.
GR Madhusudhan provided some fooder for thought with these two entries in his own blog, the first analysing Saurav's captaincy in Tests, the other doing the same for ODIs.
How about we let this topic simmer for a day or two -- and take it up Wednesday; in the interim, if any of you guys have done similar analytical exercises, do send me the links and I'll post them on here.
NB: The two links above are not offered as guides to my thinking on this; I had, frankly, made up my mind during the home series against Pakistan.

Happy hookers

Rajesh of Cricinfo has come up with the latest in his series on strokes and the batsmen who excel in them, and I must say the one on hookers and pullers contains some surprises. I'd have thought, off hand, that Aussies would top any such list, with Ponting, Gilchrist and Hayden, in that order, dominating the rankings.
Not -- Shivnaraine Chanderpaul at number 2 was probably, for me, the most eye-opening part of this presentation; another was to see Sachin Tendulkar head the Indian list (this, not because Sachin can't hook, but because he has tended to pretty much cut the shot out in recent times). What did you guys make of this exercise?

Help wanted

Guys, quite a few of you have suggested additions/improvements to this blog; donno how much of that I can fulfill, but I'd like to give it a shot. Here's the thing, though -- I'd appreciate some help with the template, structure et al.
Any of you guys out there who are heavily into html/css/and the rest of the alphabet soup that goes into the making of a web page, and care to lend a hand?
Give me an email ID where I can get in touch, if yes.

Two to tango

Isn't it unfortunate -- in an amusing sort of way -- that each time Bangladesh suffers a ritual thrashing, columnists question its presence in the Test ranks and invariably bring Jaggu Dalmiya's name into it?
In a piece that attempts to bring some perspective to the Bangladesh-bashing, David Hopps inter alia says

England's real target is not Bangladesh's poor put-upon cricketers but the machinations that brought them Test status five years ago. Their elevation to Test status strengthened India's power base in the ICC and is viewed as a machiavellian plot because Jagmohan Dalmiya, the Indian president who brokered the deal, is a machiavellian kind of guy.
To give Bangladesh Test status before a proper infrastructure was in place, and before they had undergone enough developmental tours, was clearly a mistake driven by political ambition. But those mistakes are being remedied and the enthusiasm within Bangladesh for cricket is undeniable.

Makes me wonder -- you suppose there will ever be a formal inquiry into how Bangladesh got
Test status? You suppose the ICC will ever publish minutes of the meeting where the decision was taken, so the rest of us will know what sort of arguments were put forward, pro and con?
When players make mistakes, we pillory them. When administrators err, we say, ah, what can we expect from such people, we shrug, we move on.
Fact, though, is that the mistakes administrators make hurt the game far more than those of the players. And the corollary is, said administrators never ever have to pay for it.

Spot on

Found this comment appended to an earlier post:

While on this topic, shouldn't news-site headline writers learn a bit of discipline ? The headline in Rediff proclaims "Harbhajan called for throwing", and gives a very different impression from what really happened.

Absolutely spot on. I logged on to Rediff this morning, saw the headline, thought oh geez what now, read the story, and learnt to breathe again.
We can't clean up the media, but we can for damn sure pick up these hints you guys throw at us, and clean up our own act. Am forwarding the comment to the guys in Bombay for their info and action, thanks much.
Lots more comments in there I need to highlight, but between the cricket and regular work, damnably busy... be back here in a bit.