A Common Fan’s Sports Diary

Expected a lot better from Mahendra Singh Dhoni.

And I am not just talking about his captaincy, his batting or his wicket-keeping. Will come back to that sometime later, though. Let me also mention here that he was my junior at school and I am a huge fan.

I am talking about his candid, straight talking approach. This has been the most endearing thing about him. We don’t mind someone who loses, as long as he gives in his best, accepts his follies and shortcomings and is gracious in defeat.

MSD is known to do that, although in his case, his win-loss record has ensured that he has rarely been under the cosh.

Now with a second T-20 World Cup debacle behind him, he has let us all down by abandoning his candour and adopting evasiveness – blaming the IPL parties for his team’s lack of energy and vigour. He didn’t blame the matches – probably hoping that he could fool us into believing that the parties were attended by the Indian players only.

Unfortunately for him, this ploy has not worked and the heat is well and truly on him right now. Everyone, including the highly erudite and highly tainted Mohd Azharuddin, has lashed out at him for his lame-duck justification and many have called for his ouster as well.

I am sure the Indian selectors will do better than that but it is disturbing to discover that Dhoni’s forthrightness was probably a veneer – his successful record as captain affording him the freedom to talk straight. And now it’s worn off as soon as the tide turned against him.

And yet, that is not even half the reason why his justification has pissed me off.

It is because it has completely taken the attention away from the real issues. While everyone is talking about the IPL parties, people have simply forgotten about the real reasons why we were unceremoniously knocked out.

Most of them pertain to our inability to have the right squad for the tournament, pick the best eleven, score quickly against short-pitched bowling and make the right decisions on the field. MS Dhoni surely deservers part of the blame but atleast in his defence you can say that his tactics have often done the trick for India and CSK in the past. The teams have benefitted from Dhoni’s willingness to back certain players and his rigid belief in his tactics.

The other guilty party is the BCCI and in their case, the reasons for the dismal showing are off-shoots of a long standing malaise. They have been common knowledge for the longest time but hardly anything has been done about it. Most of us have already stopped pointing them out. And that is why we have taken greater relish in lambasting Dhoni for the ‘IPL parties’ justification rather than go through the fruitless exercise of pointing out the larger issues with Indian cricket.

I will repeat the issues one more time.

We don’t have sporting pitches in the country and hence most of batsmen are unable to score quickly against short pitched bowling (they don’t have a problem playing them. Otherwise we would have never won text matches abroad). BCCI fully responsible.

We select certain players on form and certain players on reputation, depending on what is convenient and often ignore the playing conditions. Still haven’t understood the selection of Piyush Chawla for instance. Also why Murli Vijay was selected and Ambati Rayudu was not. Dhoni will have to take part of the blame but largely it’s the BCCI’s fault.

Dhoni is largely responsible for the playing eleven and the decisions on the field. Especially for playing with atleast one bowler short. But he cannot be blamed for the lack of all-rounders in Indian cricket. You have no choice but to play the likes of Yusuf Pathan and Ravinder Jadeja when they are the closest thing Indian cricket has to an all-rounder. His penchant for all-rounders is well known (His highly successful CSK side is packed with them).

Luckily for the BCCI mandarins, MS Dhoni has ensured that everyone has stopped talking about the faulty squad selection or short-pitched bowling or lack of all-rounders. In fact the ‘IPL parties’ statement has given people a chance to take another swipe at the man who was responsible for starting them – Lalit Modi.

MSD had a bad tournament (Do we realize that his innings against Sri Lanka – 23 not out off 19 balls does a world of good for his average and strike rate but in the circumstances it was a BAD performance). He could have easily done what he always does – own up to the performance and talk about the real issues – and moved on. We would have still continued to love him. Instead he has shocked us with a laughable excuse, sullying a reputation he had so painstakingly built. And even worse is the favour he has done to the BCCI.

It was amusing when he called a red traffic light a red light area and we had all laughed. This time the only people laughing are the big bosses of the BCCI.

Wonder if these guys ever talk about improving the Ranji Trophy?

The BCCI wants India to play as many international fixtures to possible because these matches net them a lot of money. Subsequently the heavy international calendar ensures that the tired Indian internationals rarely play in the domestic tournaments like the Ranji trophy, unless they have been dropped and are looking to prove a point. This reduces the star quotient of the domestic circuit and dilutes the quality of the cricketing fare and the intensity of the competition. A combination of these reasons ensures that the fans stay away and as a result the state associations and the BCCI make very little money from these games. As a result these bodies take very little active interest in these games. No effort is made to improve the state of these domestic tournaments.

The players who play in these tournaments have a million reasons to feel dispirited. They play in front of nonexistent crowds. They get paid poorly. And realistically speaking they don’t have a great opportunity to make a case for themselves, thanks to the poor quality of the pitches and the lack of quality competition. Runs scored and wickets taken are always taken with a pinch of salt. Players are rarely put in situations which test their mental fortitude and help them mature as cricketers. Most of the players who shine and get a chance to play at the next level are not well prepared to handle the rarefied air of international cricket. And not because they didn’t have the ability but because they have no experience or practise of having played on sporting pitches or against quality opposition or having been in tough situations. 99% of people reading this will not be able to name the top scorer and the top wicket- taker in last season’s Ranji trophy . If you can then may god bless you.

So is it wrong if players are ready to give an arm and a leg to play in the IPL?

The money is important but there are many other reasons why domestic players would be ready to forego the entire Ranji Trophy season to play a couple of IPL games

Prof Ratnakar Shetty and the BCCI are worried about the charms of the IPL but are they doing anything to make the Ranji Trophy exciting.

The Ranji format is flawed and fundamentally prone to produce defensive boring cricket. Borrowing a few ideas from Australia and South Africa will address that problem. But Mr Shetty and gang either find high scoring draws exciting or they schedule their discussions on domestic cricket during the IPL’s 10 minute strategic timeouts.

Seriously , is it absolutely impossible to market the Ranji Trophy in a cricket crazy country like ours?

Will it be difficult to draw crowds and attract sponsors if UP’s pace battery of RP Singh, Pravin Kumar and Sudeep Tyagi took on the might of Gambhir and Sehwag on a bouncy track with both sides playing to win. A few foreign players could be thrown in to add to the competitive intensity and the star power.

Will this lead to revenue generation from the Ranji Trophy and a better lot of players coming out of domestic cricket.

Yes

Is that in the best interests of the BCCI, the state associations, future India aspirants as well as Indian cricket in general

Yes

Does the BCCI control all the variables that are required to make this happen?

Yes, unless they are being blackmailed by someone from another cricketing nation who has a video of the entire board involved in a gay orgy in the middle of the Wankhede

Playing at home is a huge advantage in sport. Having the crowd behind you and possessing a far superior knowledge of the playing conditions as compared to your opponent, gives the home player a competitive edge.

But is it really an edge when Indian sportspersons play in home conditions?

At the ongoing World Badminton Championships, Indian players failed to cause a single upset. Most of them including Chetan Anand and Aditi Mutatkar lost to players they have beaten recently. Saina Nehwal matched up well against her second seeded Chinese opponent and had home advantage but fell tamely.

Playing in her hometown didn't help Dipika Pallikal

Before this, there was the World Junior Squash Championships. Dipika Pallikal had the top billing but was knocked out of the semi-finals and the second -seeded girls team was beaten by lower ranked Hong Kong. Most of the boys failed to justify their seeding losing to lower ranked opponents.

But are these just isolated examples or do they happen to be the latest chapter of a grim tale – one where we have either failed to create the right home conditions or our players have failed to capitalise on them.

First let’s look at more examples from various sports to see if there is enough proof to validate our hypothesis – that we don’t really make the home conditions count.

We will compare the results achieved at home and overseas and see if there is a significant difference in the two.

Let’s start with tennis. The biggest Davis cup wins have both come abroad – over Australia in 1987 and against France in 1994. We have beaten Switzerland and Yugoslavia at home but there is no reason to believe that our players have thrived in home conditions.

In singles, we don’t have enough data, because we didn’t have any tournaments in India during our glory years. Somdev Dev Varman reached the final at the Chennai Open and Sania Mirza won at Hyderabad but both players have achieved similar success abroad as well.

A partisan crowd saw the home team getting thumped 1-7 in the 1982 Asian Games Final

In Hockey, we have never won a major tournament at home. We have hosted the Asian Games and the World Cup but both times we failed to meet pre-tournament expectations. The last major tournament in India was the Champions Trophy and once again the home advantage hadn’t counted for much. Neighbours Pakistan on the other hand have always raised their game when playing at home winning both the World Cup and the Champions Trophy on home soil.

Cricket is one sport where our home record is significantly better than our overseas record, especially in the five day version. But that has everything to do with the nature of the pitch. We perform better when we get a favourable pitch abroad and struggle on pacy and bouncy wickets at home. We fare better in places like Adelaide, Sydney and Guyana as compared to Mohali and Ahmedabad.

We have won the World Cup in England, the T-20 World Cup in South Africa, the Champions Trophy in Sri Lanka and the Champion of Champions tournament in Australia. In the same period, the Hero Cup and the Titan Cup have been our biggest triumphs at home. India has hosted two World Cups and both times the national side was quite strong but we always came up short.

Crowd support and home conditions count for a lot in football especially at the club level. Even the weakest sides prove quite a handful when playing in front of their fans. The Indian national side have largely failed to raise their game while playing at home but they did make an exception in the AFC Challenge Cup. The club sides have fared better but foreign clubs have not been daunted by the challenge of playing an Indian club in India. All in all we have largely failed to drive home the home advantage.

The only other sport in which we regularly host international tournaments is golf. This is a sport where familiarity with the course is a massive advantage and Indian players have made it count. Foreign players held a stranglehold over the Indian Open for a long time. Then Ali Sher broke their monopoly and local players have dominated the tournament ever since. SSP Chowrasia continued the home domination by winning the inaugural Indian Masters.

Having looked at these various sports, we can say with some measure of confidence that the home conditions or home advantage haven’t been enough of factor in Indian sport.

So the next questions is why

Have we failed to create the right home advantage or is it because our players don’t know how to make it count?

I think it’s a little bit of both.

We are a country steeped in the tradition of ‘Attithi Devo Bhava’, meaning the guest is like god. We have never tried to intimidate the visiting players or indulged in planned psychological warfare like most other countries do. We have often seen how the foreign media gets behind a player’s back. Our media on the other hand pays visiting players to write columns where they criticize the home team and their tactics. Players are often advised not to read the local papers; but visiting don’t need to take such precautions in India.

This is the kind of crowd we need to be

Then there is the role of the fans. Our crowds cheer for our players for sure as we saw during the recent badminton championships and the squash tournament. But there is a long way to go before they can start getting into the heads of the foreign players. We mostly fail to create a charged atmosphere which makes the visiting player feel almost threatened; as if he is surrounded by a vicious enemy from all sides. The same energy drives the adrenalin level of the home player and he or she just takes their game to another level. We need more incessant flag waving, drum beating, wild cheering, singing and booing.

And what about the players themselves – are they able to thrive in the home conditions or do they crumble in the face of heightened expectation?

Most of the evidence points to the latter.

We have a long history of losing close encounters; of failing to give our best in pressure cooker situations. And playing at home definitely creates additional pressure. This additional pressure can get cancelled out if the impact of the other home factors is strong enough. Sadly, that doesn’t seem to be the case in India.

While the negative impact of home conditions gets enhanced in the case of an Indian player because they aren’t good at handling pressure, the favourable conditions are not exploited sufficiently enough.

Together they have ensured that Indian sport in general has failed to make the most of the home advantage.

ALSO CHECK OUT THE SPORTS QUOTIENT

An entirely differnet kettle of fish

This exercise of previewing the teams will focus largely on analyzing the composition of the teams. Based on that we will try to predict which of the teams might make the semi-finals of the competition.

This analysis will have two parts. In part one; we will first look at the composition of the players category-wise. There are broadly three categories – Foreign players, Indian Internationals and finally Indian domestic and junior players. We will break down each team category-wise and see how well each category of players stacks up for a particular team.

Having done that, we will look at the overall composition of the sides – how balanced they are, their strengths and weaknesses, chemistry, leadership, form and their suitability for South African conditions.

This overall exercise will throw interesting light on which teams are best equipped, atleast on paper; to make the semi-finals of the second edition of the competition.

To understand part one, we need to first appreciate the dynamic of each category and the unique challenges they pose for the teams.

Foreign Players

The first one was the limit of 4 foreign players in the playing eleven. This was further complicated by the partial availability of various players. The good thing about this limit is that there is endless choice as highlighted by the fact that many top players missed out in the player bidding. This gives the franchisee an opportunity to pick up some bargains. But at the same time, the franchisee also needs to pick up the match-winners who come for top-dollar. And as is the case with any big investment, all possible angles need to be studied.

Angle one is that, ideally, a franchisee should try to pick up the kind of players who are in short supply in the other categories – the Indian Internationals and the domestic and junior players.

This item happens to be the genuine all-rounder. And there is another argument in favour of picking foreign players who are allrounders. This type of player happens to be the best value for money as they fulfil multiple roles. It’s almost like getting two for one. The format of the T-20 game makes even a lesser all-rounder a genuine and match-winning one– the short duration of the game and its slam bang nature doesn’t call for an all-rounder to be in the class of Botham or Imran – guys who could walk into a test side on the basis of just their batting or bowling ability. Rather it calls for the Lance Klusener variety – ones who can bowl their quota of overs regularly and make a significant contribution with the bat. And in this form of the game, scores of 25+ are also considered to be significant contributions.

It is also noteworthy that similar to one-day specialists, there also exist T-20 specialists, many of them allrounders, who fly low under the radar of the international audiences. A smart franchise could pick up a stud T-20 all-rounder, with little international experience in the other forms of the game, from one of the foreign leagues for a basement bargain price. Just like European football clubs have talent scouts in South America to pick up precocious youngsters for next to nothing; this will require a franchise to develop an international scouting network. The added advantage of such players is that they are unaffected by the international cricketing calendar and can play the full schedule of games.

Alternately, if a franchisee goes for a specialist, they should pick out a practitioner of the highest class. The only justifiable reason for picking up a lesser player is if you are getting a major bargain for a player who fills a major hole in the team.

This is similar to how successful clubs in European football filled their quota of foreign players, in the days when there was a limit on that number.

Indian Internationals

The good thing about this category is that there is no limit on the number of such players that you can have in the playing eleven. This category is also very important because the quality of these players is significantly higher than that of the domestic and junior lot and more or less at par with the foreigners. Additionally, the availability of these players for the entire tournament is guaranteed. In the case of IPL 2009, their experience of having played in overseas conditions also becomes an advantage.

The many good things about this category created a higher demand for them and consequently their prices were highly inflated as compared to the price of a foreigner of similar ability.

The challenge, thus, was two-fold. First you needed to have Indian match-winners and there was a mad rush for the few who qualified as one. Secondly, you needed to find as many fringe internationals as possible so that you could limit the number of players in the playing eleven who belonged to the third category. With budgetary constraints, it was again imperative to find the bargains.

There was also the added twist of the Icon Players. A few of the franchisees were forced to shell out an astronomical amount for players who could have been obtained for far less otherwise. The fact that some of the franchises didn’t have Icon players actually gave them a salary cap edge.

Domestic and Junior Players

This is the category of lesser players but it is important for the simple reason that the last few slots in the playing elevens, after the bidding for foreign and Indian internationals was over, were filled in by players belonging to this category. So if a team didn’t find a decent bunch from this lot to fill the last few places, they were almost playing with a reduced side – a severe handicap.

In the first edition, each franchisee was allocated a feeder zone – they had the first choice to pick players from these states. While it was a reasonable and just method, it impacted two of the franchisees dearly – Kolkata and Hyderabad, for the simple reason that most of the Ranji players from these two cricket associations had joined the ICL. Later all such restrictions were lifted, allowing for free trade to prevail.

Other than grabbing the established domestic stars, the challenge for a franchisee in this category is to scout for and unearth little known domestic players who might have the necessary skills to make an impact in the T-20 game. In India, domestic cricket is largely limited to four-day and one day cricket and therefore, it is difficult to identify players who might be mediocre in these formats but better in the Twenty-20 version. This challenge can be addressed by talent scouting through a network of domestic coaches and scouts. A good example of this was pacer Goni who was recommended to VB Chandrasekhar of Chennai by coach from Punjab.

We will now use our understanding of each category, to preview the teams by analyzing their composition category –wise. That will be followed by looking at their overall strength in terms of the regular cricketing parameters. This will be done in two posts that will follow soon.

The two most explosive guns in the Indian batting arsenal

India’s batting line-up is currently the toast of the cricketing world. There has been no shortage of superlatives heaped on it, none bigger than Sachin Tendulkar calling it the best batting side that he’s been part of. That set off a chain reaction with various attempts being made to put the feats of this side in perspective.

Comparing this team with most of the older sides is a very difficult task – for the simple reason that the one-day game has drastically shifted in favour of the batsmen – thus enhancing the potency of a powerful batting line-up like this one. Comparing them with any of the older sides is like comparing the serve of a player with a wooden racquet on a clay court in the 70’s with that of a modern day player on a super fast indoor court with a graphite bazooka.

And that is why it will be unfair to compare the mighty batting sides of the 70’s and 80’s with this Indian side, or for that matter with any of the modern day sides whose effectiveness was amplified by smaller cricket grounds, easy paced wickets, better cricket bats and multiple restrictions on the fielders and the bowlers.

Not that I am trying to take anything away from the current Indian side. I am just saying that it is harsh to call them better than, say the West Indian side with Greenidge, Haynes, Richardson and Richards – because there is no way of knowing what they could have done today. Those guys gave us a glimpse of their ability in rattling up 360 against the Lankans in the 1987 World Cup.

Legends yes but never part of an all conquering batting side

The other thing which doesn’t make sense is to compare two sides by matching up the career batting records of the individual players in each side.

What really defines how good a batting line-up is at any point in time is the current form of the players and how well they perform the roles that they are allotted – a great batting side is one where each actor is playing his part exceptionally well.

Once you take that into account it is easy to see why Sachin Tendulkar is right – because although the line-up of Rahul Dravid, Mohd Azharuddin, Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly is in a different league statistically, they never quite gelled like the way the current unit has – they never overwhelmed opposition sides with sheer batting might like the way the current team does.

In fact forget just Indian batting line-ups; few sides in the modern era (the period when 300 run scores became a regular feature) have had all the critical elements required to cook up the perfect batting storm.

The Australian and South African sides have dominated the one day game for long stretches but they have never done it on the back of an explosive all conquering batting unit. Their bowling and fielding units have made an equal and often more significant contribution in getting the victories.

The Indian bowling has also come up in leaps and bounds but few will argue that it is their batting which has made them such an imperious juggernaut.

But they are still not the best batting side in the modern one-day game.

Mad Max and the Matara Mauler - aptly named

That distinction still lies with the Sri Lankan side of the period around the 1996 World Cup.

That team opened with Sanath Jayasuriya and Romesh Kaluwitharana and they were followed by Asanka Gurusinghe, Aravinda De Silva, Arjuna Ranatunga, Roshan Mahanama and Hashan Tillekratne for most part.
Like the current Indian side, most of the players in that Lankan side reached a major crest in their batting lives almost at the same time, creating a batting machine which for a period of around 3 years mowed down everything that came in their way.

They also happened to be a flexible unit where each batter was performing a certain role which seemed tailor-made for their abilities. The Lankans have had great batsmen before and after but never have all the pieces fitted in so perfectly. They were so good in the one-day game that they had started harbouring hopes of becoming the best test side by 2000.

The height of their achievement was obviously the 1996 World Cup where they romped to the title without breaking sweat. Other than setting the then highest one-day score against the Kenyans, they also achieved the unique distinction of becoming the first side to successfully chase down a target in a World Cup final.

Like in the case of the current Indian side, critics will argue that this side did most of the damage on flat tracks against mediocre bowling sides. But every one day side in the last 15 odd years has had similar opportunities – very few one matches have been played on difficult wickets in this period and everyone gets to play everyone – yet no other side has demoralized opposition bowling attacks with such amazing regularity.

So what does the current Indian side need to do before they can stake a claim to being the best batting side of this generation?

They will have to do what the Lankan side did and more.

The Lankans stretched their hot batting form for more than 2 years and won the World Cup in the sub –continent.

The Indians can emulate their feat by riding this rich vein of form into the World Cup and then going all the way. Incidentally the next World Cup will also be held in the sub-continent and that will give the Indians a fair chance of matching the Lankans.

Till they manage to do that, the title of the best batting side in the post modern one-day game will continue to rest with Arjuna Ranatunga’s Sri Lankan side.

Its important to make the teams try to win it and not just try not to lose it

Sachin Tendulkar made an extremely valid point about neutral venues for the knock-out fixtures in the Ranji Trophy. He rightly opined that it takes away the ‘home advantage’ factor which is such an important aspect of cricket. While that will surely increase the excitement level in the moribund Ranji Trophy, there are other changes that the BCCI needs to look at.

But, before I suggest the changes and provide an argument in favour of them, let’s look at the format of the domestic game in Australia, England and South Africa, which without a doubt serve up a more engrossing fare and hence are eminently more watchable. The quality of the pitches has a role to play in it, but fundamentally the format is designed to encourage more aggressive cricket.

Australia

In Australia, teams play a home and away round-robin format. These are 4 day games. The top two teams contest a 5 day final. The top team gets to host the final and wins the trophy in case the match ends in a draw/tie.

Points System

Result     Points
A win (irrespective of the first innings result – 6
A tie (irrespective of the first innings result – 3
A first innings lead in a drawn or lost match – 2
A first innings tie in a drawn or lost match – 1
A loss on the first innings – 0
An outright loss after being behind on the first innings – 0
Abandoned or drawn matches with no first innings result – 0

It is important to note that even in the case that a team loses the match after gaining the first innings lead , they still get 2 points, which is the same number they would have got, had the match ended in a draw. Obviously teams will be encouraged to go for a win and six points without fear of losing the 2 points. Also a win get you thrice as many points a draw. There is no semi-final round so teams have to finish in the top 2. There is no reward for playing safe. Teams have to go for the jugular.

England

In England, there is a two-tiered system with promotion and relegation. Matches are all 4 day games. Teams player each other once and the winner is the team with maximum points.

Points System

Result                       Points
Win -                14 + bonus points
Tie –                    7 + bonus points
Draw -                4 + bonus points
Loss -                  Bonus points

Bonus points are collected for batting and bowling. These points can only be obtained from the first 130 overs of each team’s first innings. The bonus points are retained regardless of the outcome of the match
Again as in Australia, teams don’t lose bonus points if they take a risk to go for a win instead of settling for a draw. A win is worth 3 and half times a draw so the rewards for aggressive cricket are very high. County teams have often been known to make outrageous declarations and sometime forfeit an innings each by mutual consent to get a result. Nobody gains by a draw. And again, as there is no play-off, there is no reward for finishing second. There is no room for safety tactics. Even the bonus points can only be garnered in the first 130 overs – so teams have to bat or bowl aggressively in the first innings – and that sets an attacking tone for the rest of the match.

South Africa

In South Africa, a franchisee system was adopted for the domestic competition, the SuperSport Series, in 2004-05, with an aim of creating stronger teams for a higher standard of competition. The teams play 4 day games in a round-robin format and the one with the highest points emerges the winner.

Points System

Teams get 10 points for a win and zero if they draw or lose. Bonus points are awarded for batting and bowling in the first 100 overs of each team’s first innings of the match. The first batting point is awarded when the team reaches 150 and then 0.02 points for each further run made within 100 overs. Bowling points are awarded at 3,5,7 and 9 wickets within 100 overs (a maximum of 4).As in England, these points are retained irrespective if the final result of the match.

In the South African model, there is absolutely no reward for safe cricket. Teams have to attack from ball one to garner as many bonus points, which can add up to 10 or 11 in a single game, which is as much as you would get for a win. And drawing a game will really push you down the table, where only the top position counts for something.

Now for the Indian model.

We have eight teams qualifying for a knock-out round. And then knock-out games are played in neutral venues. In the knock-out round, if there is no result, the team with the first innings lead is declared the winner. If teams haven’t completed at least one inning, then the team with the better net scoring rate is declared winner.

Points System

Result               Points
Win Outright – 5
1st Innings Lead – 3*
No Result – 1
1st Innings Deficit – 1*
Lost Outright – 0
Note – * Only if match ends in a draw.
Bonus Point (for innings and 10 wicket wins) -1
See the difference

In the Ranji Trophy

What is the risk of playing aggressive cricket and trying for a win – you could lose 3 points or 1 point and left with 0 depending on whether you had the first innings lead or not. Which is lot when you are just trying to finish in the top 4

What is the reward for playing aggressive cricket and scoring at a fast rate or setting aggressive fields to take more wickets – nothing

How much more rewarding is a win as compared to a draw with a first innings lead – 5 points against 3. Not even twice as worth

Are teams really going all out for maximum points – No. Because they are just trying to finish in the top 4.

Is there any advantage gained by finishing first in the group – No. Because you don’t get home field advantage. And unlike Australia, having more points in the previous stage doesn’t offer any extra benefits in the case of a draw.

What is the best a team can expect from a game – Most of the times its 3 points because pitches are flat and no result comes out in 4 days.

What is the best way to ensure you make the quarterfinal round – Get as many three pointers as possible. Which means as many first innings leads as possible. You will have enough to be in the top 4 because anyways nobody else is trying to win.

What is the best way to win knock-out games – Get the first innings lead and then play for a draw. Again this strategy is helped by lifeless pitches.

So what needs to be done?

Bonus points for batting and bowling performance in the first innings. And these should be substantial enough to force teams to play aggressively. And these points can be earned irrespective of the match result. Do away with the fear of losing

Do away with at least one level of the knockout stage if not two levels. This will necessitate teams to become more aggressive and go for more points in every game as third and fourth won’t be good enough. This rule combined with the next one, (more points for wins) will completely change the outlook of teams. The group matches will become more important and competition for places will heat up

More points for a win as compared to what teams get for a draw. One win should be more than two draws. So, if you try to win twice and end up doing it even once, you get more than what you would have got, had you not tried.

At least the knock –out games should be five days. That ways you ensure that there is always enough time for a result. And as we are doing away with one round of games, there will be enough time to do that.

Do away with the first innings lead rule. Have the Australian system where the team with more points in the preliminary round is declared winner in case of a draw or tie. This will further increase the importance of group games. As there is enough time (5 days) for a result, the team with more points cannot afford to play for a draw. Also award notional points (including bonus ones) for the knock-out games, which will be taken into consideration if the final ends in a draw or a tie. That way teams will be motivated to play attacking cricket in the semis also and not take a defensive approach.

The case for home advantage has already been made by Sachin Tendulkar. It will be a self –fulfilling win-win for attacking sides. The more they win, the more points they will get and the more chances they will have of getting home conditions. Also if they have home conditions, the more likely they are to use it to their advantage to get more points and more wins.

It is important that we realize that these suggestions need to looked at as a complete package and not just standalone.  The full impact will only be realized if at least most of them, if not all, are implemented

It will also help if the quality of pitches was improved and we could get more participation from the international stars. But even without that, these changes in the structure of the Ranji Trophy will completely change the way the game is played at the domestic level. There will no longer be a fear of losing. Instead there will just be extra motivation to win. It will spawn a culture of playing aggressively to win the game and not defensively in trying not to lose it. The changed mindset will soon manifest itself at the international stage and change the approach of the national side as well. Indian cricket has everything to gain from these changes. Hope the BCCI is listening?

We were part of the celebrating group at the closing ceremony of the Olympics !!!

Poll – What was the most significant sporting moment for India in 2008?

Results – India winning three medals at the Beijing Olympics – 45%
Vishwanathan Anand winning the World Chess title in the classical format -31%
The super success of the IPL – 10%
India’s cricket team winning the one -day tri-series in Australia – 7%
India’s cricket team beating Australia 2-0 in the test series at home -3%
India’s football team winning the AFC Challenge Cup -3%,

In an obvious testimony to the fact that the few people who do visit this website take more than a passing interest in different sports other than cricket, the voters of the latest Commonfan Poll have decided, that no cricketing moment was good enough to the most important one in what has a been a great year for Indian sports. And that in spite of the fact there were three major achievements for cricket in 2008. So did the presence of 3 nominations divide the cricket vote, ensuring that some other sport slipped through? not quite. Even the combined cricket vote couldn’t have been enough. And there are two reasons for that.

One is that the cricket moments weren’t just good enough- even by the sports’ own standards. We did win the tri-series for the first time in Australia but is that even in the top five of India’s greatest one-day performances. Is it bigger than the two appearances in the World Cup finals or the win in the World Championship of Cricket in 1985? Our voters don’t think so.

We beat Australia in t

More fireworks and more champagne but not monumental enough

he home test series but does that even qualify as one of our greatest wins against Australia, forget it being in the all time test victory list. This Australian side wasn’t one of their better ones and hence the win didn’t taste as good as say the comeback victory in 2001 or the triumph in Adelaide in 2003

Coming to the IPL, it did make a huge impression in 2008. But this wasn’t about the Twenty-20 format of the game, which was already quite popular. Rather it was about the first full blown and ICC endorsed International cricket League. As things stand today the league form of the game is still a poor cousin of international cricket. Some years from today, if this format really explodes, and the ICC has to find a window in the IPL calendar to accommodate international matches, like they have to do in football, than yes – we will definitely look back on 2008 as a far more significant moment in the history of cricket and Indian sport. Till that happens, cricket will play second or rather third fiddle to what were the most significant moments for Indian sport in 2008.

Now we come to the second reason – India’s performance at the Olympics and Vishwanathan Anand’s win against Vladimir Kramnik are right up there because they are watershed events – something which the cricket moments were not.

Anand’s win is a monumental landmark in the annals of Chess. He became only the second non-Russian to win it in the classical format after Bobby Fischer. But Fischer’s win is remembered more because an American beat the Russians at their own game at the height of the cold war hostilities. In purely chess terms, Anand beat a far tougher opponent in Kramnik, the only man to beat Garry Kasparov in the classical format. And we all know that Kasparov is the greatest chess player of all time. Fischer beat Boris Spassky who is definitely not remembered as one of the great champions and refused to play Anatoly Karpov for reasons unknown. The win also secured Anand’s legacy. He is now a complete champion and ready to take his place alongside the celebrated masters of the sport.

And now for the most significant moment – India’s feat at the Olympics -Is there even a debate about its position as number one. Enough has been written and said about its significance and long lasting impact and I will not go into repeating it. I will just say that for the first time in my living memory, we Indians were enjoying the closing ceremony of the Olympics and feeling a part of the celebrations. And that, as the voters have already decided, was significant enough.

India-England and SA- Australia have recently played two of the most amazing test matches ever – they have once again reminded us that there is no greater cricketing pleasure than watching a gripping test match.

And now, there has been an encore in our very own Ranji Trophy. Actually two of them – Both Saurashtra (over Karnataka) and Tamil Nadu(over Bengal) have completed remarkable comeback victories that had many cricket fans switching to NEO cricket and Cricinfo.com for regular score updates.

Can’t remember the last time domestic cricket had my undivided attention for so long – and that too bereft of any big name international stars

Truly this has been a great year for Indian cricket as a whole.

WISH ALL THE READERS A VERY HAPPY AND PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR. LETS HAVE A YEAR FULL OF GREAT SPORTING MOMENTS

India Today has come up with a list of the 10 biggest controversies in Indian sports. I agree with most of them but there are a few that we don’t find worthy of this list. I think somewhere there was a predisposition towards the controversies that had been well covered by the magazine. Never mind. We decided to come up with a list of 10 other important controversies from Indian sports, some of which were worthy of being in the first list itself.

Here goes in no particular order.

What gender did it bring more shame to?

The girl who was a guy

This was completely bizarre – so much so that it found a mention on ESPN’s US website. Santhi Sounderajan won a silver medal at the 2006 Doha Asian Games and then failed a gender test. She was found to be missing the sexual characteristics of a woman. The medal had to be returned and this incident brought us shame and disrepute. Things like this were common in the 1930’s and 40’s but there is excuse for something like this happening in today’s times. The government in the athlete’s home state of Tamil Nadu added to the controversy by refusing to recognize the verdict and felicitating the athlete in the same manner as the other medal-winners.

Kerry Packer revisited -The ICL controversy

This one has a strong case to be in the India Today list. Subhash Chandra emulated Kerry Packer by setting up his own cricket league after losing out on the broadcast rights, in spite of having the highest bid. The broadcast bidding is quite a controversy in itself. The BCCI wasn’t ready to play along –they banned the League and all its stakeholders and then upped the ante by starting a far bigger league of their own. Since then the BCCI and the Zee group have been at war and have sucked the entire cricket world into their dispute. The controversy looks like dragging on forever with both parties engaged in a war of attrition and there being no resolution to the matter in sight.

The monkey and the ugly Australians

This one surely had to be in the India Today list. It almost caused India to withdraw from the series and led to a public outcry against the Australian cricket team. The events leading up to it were truly inflammable – first the Aussies took gamesmanship to a new level and then rubbed salt into India’s wounds by accusing Harbhajan Singh of racism. It almost became a case of the white man’s word against the brown man’s. Insults were traded between the two sides and matters had almost come to a point of no return. Thankfully India was captained by an honourable man in Anil Kumble who got together with Ponting to iron out the issues between the two sides.

There is blood on their hands

The sportsman’s widow and her lover

Almost 20 years ago, one of India’s best badminton players, Syed Modi was shot dead by unknown assassins. His badminton playing wife, Amita, was rumoured to be having an extra-marital affair with noted politician and much married father of two children Sanjay Singh. A case was lodged against Sanjay for arranging  the killing but as it happens in our country, the well-connected politician, also a royal and a close friend of the Gandhi family, got away scot-free. A little later Sanjay divorced his first wife and married Amita. There are no witnesses and no legal proof – Just a simple matter of putting two and two together.

The cricketing god and his free chariot

Another one which India Today totally missed. India’s biggest cricket icon was gifted a Ferrari car by his sponsors FIAT on equalling Don Bradman’s record of 29 centuries. It was a 75 lakhs rupee gift but there was also the small matter of paying the customs duty of 1.15 crores. The controversy started after it was reported that the batting maestro had requested a custom duty waiver on the car despite getting it as a gift and not winning it as a prize in any tournament. That he was well capable of paying for it added to the steam and matters came to a boil when the Union government decide to oblige. There was a hue and a cry and Tendulkar’s demigod status took a hit. Finally FIAT decided to end the controversy by picking up the tab.

Indian hockey – of what happened after the Olympic failure

The qualification failure is already in the first list. But what happened after makes for a far bigger storm. The union sports minister, Mani Shankar Aiyer shed crocodile tears but failed to take any action citing the Olympic charter (which calls for autonomy of sports bodies). Thankfully, he was replaced by M.S Gill who showed more gumption by sacking the IHF chief. Then the IHF secretary was caught accepting a bribe on camera and he was also duly removed from his post. An ad hoc body was put in place but soon the power battle begun with the likes of Sahara’s JB Roy mobilizing the support of the state bodies. Ex- chief KPS Gill also refuses to let go and keeps sabotaging the activities of the ad-hoc body. And the former secretary is now flexing his muscles in his home state’s association by setting up a parallel body with the support of the district chiefs. This one also continues to rage on

All the good work undoes the Mary Kom episode

When the champion of rights was the perpetrator himself

Milkha Singh has always trodden on a moral high ground and never shies away from speaking his mind – mostly it has to do with the government’s apathy and disrespect towards non-cricketing sports and sportspersons. He caused a furore by refusing the Arjuna Award and makes the India today list based on that controversy. And then the same gentleman, in his capacity as the chairman of the Arjuna Awards selection committee, strikes of the name of female boxer MC Mary Kom from the Khel Ratna award list. His excuse – he didn’t know which sport she competed in. Where does that rate on the scale of hypocrisy? The World Champion boxer was hurt and aggrieved at the ‘Flying Sikh’s’ lack of respect and complete ignorance. For the record, she has 4 World Championship crowns, which is 4 more than what Milkha Singh has.

The over-age controversy

This controversy raises its ugly head every time we participate in a junior event, especially in cricket, football, hockey and athletics. The most famous or rather most infamous instances are the times when we won the junior hockey world cup and finished runners-up. Numerous complaints have been registered against us but we are so driven in our efforts to capture glory at the junior events that we continue to court controversy and infamy. If only we had the same drive to win things the right way

The other cricket controversies

There are three other cricket controversies which deserve an equal mention. First the ban on Sehwag for excessiveappealing in South Africa which led to a protest by the Indian side and the final test had to be played as an unofficial one. Second is the Harbhajan slapping Sreesanth episode which remains the gold standard on how things should be brushed under the carpet. And finally the Vengsarkar – Ganguly fracas, where Ganguly claimed to have been unjustifiably dropped after a good season and the former chairman of selectors promised to explain his act and give Dada more than what he had bargained for. This event caused, as many Dada fans would claim, Sourav Ganguly to make an early exit from the game. As for Mr. Vengsarkar, we are still waiting for his reply. But as it happens in Indian cricket, a few wins and everything is forgotten.

Wardrobe malfunction?

Sania Mirza and the Beijing Olympics

Another case of a victim in the ‘India Today’ list switching roles. Sania Mirza’s mom caused a major storm when she was accommodated in the Indian contingent for the Beijing Olympics as one of the officials of the tennis squad. She was not accommodated as a one member cheering squad but as one of the coaches and her inclusion was at the cost of dropping a ‘real’ coach in Rick Leach and a couple of physios, including South African Heath Mathews, whose eventual inclusion in the squad played a crucial role in the outstanding performance of the Indian boxers. And that was not all. Sania Mirza then turned up wearing trainers and not the official uniform for the opening ceremony. Some claimed she didn’t know how to wrap a saree and the official word was that she didn’t get time as she was trying to get in some additional practise. Whatever it was, it didn’t make for a pretty picture as the Indian contingent marched in and obviously the country was incensed.

Will another Indian ever make the same mark in county cricket?

In his book, “Sometime I Forgot To Laugh”, Peter Roebuck provides some insight into a perplexing quandary that has long lingered in my mind- why haven’t Indian players done well in county cricket? The definition of well here is to have an outstanding season, good enough to be at the top of the average

s and strongly influence the fortunes of your county – something which a lot of South Africans, Australians , West Indians, Pakistanis and Kiwis have managed to do.

Except for Anil Kumble’s 100 plus wicket season, there isn’t a single performance which can fall into the ‘outstanding’ category. Rahul Dravid, Mohd Azharuddin, Javagal Srinath and Virender Sehwag are others who have had good seasons but not really great ones. I can’t remember an Indian county pro leading his team to multiple titles or anything. Think of the countries mentioned above and many players come to mind for gaining legendary status thanks to their stellar contribution.

Most Indians would actually fall into the category of flops – And not that the great ones haven’t played in county cricket. The likes of Sunil Gavaskar, Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly, Kapil Dev, Yuvraj Singh and Manoj Prabhakar have all had fairly mediocre seasons.

This fact becomes even more difficult to digest when you consider that county lore is replete with legendary tales of non-international overseas players – players who have made no impact on the international scene but set the county scene ablaze. Then how come Indian players with glittering international records have failed to do the same.

A point could be made about familiarity and comfort with the conditions – Indians being more at home on slow dry tracks as compared to players from the other nations. But there are two arguments against this theory. One, is the success Indian sides have had on tours of England. Many batsmen and bowlers have distinguished themselves on these occasions but the same guys have then flopped when donning the county cap – case in point being Sourav Ganguly and Sachin Tendulkar. Second, is the phenomenal success enjoyed by our cousins from Pakistan –players who have a similar preference for sub-continental conditions as do our players. You could argue that Pakistan has had a far more impressive array of fast-bowlers and these guys have been hugely successful in the pace and seam friendly environs of England. But how do you explain the superior performance of Pakistani batsmen?

Another county legend from Pakistan

It was in this confounding situation that Roebuck came to the rescue. At Somerset, he played with some of the finest international cricketers – Garner, Viv Richards, Sunil Gavaskar and Martin Crowe – and therefore is somewhat qualified to offer expert advice on the matter. He says of Gavaskar that the routine of County life was deadening for a man so reliant on his spirit. He goes to the extent of generalizing the theory by stating that Indians generally don’t enjoy the dull and drab life of a county professional. Sounds promising.

Let’s try and extend the hypothesis. Indian players are mostly used to being treated as superstars and playing in jam-packed stadiums – one-dayers and test matches alike. They hardly play in their own domestic tournaments – doesn’t excite them. Also ex-cricketers have enough opportunities to make a decent living. In this regard, they are surely different than their Pakistani counterparts. There have been many Pakistani cricketers who have built a post-cricket life in England. So obviously there are fewer opportunities for cricketers in Pakistan and they have to develop a mercenary mentality so important to succeed as a professional in county cricket.

In a nutshell, the Indian cricketer has little motivation to grind it out in the county circuit – he is used to a more exciting cricketing existence and doesn’t care for the monetary incentives either.

But is that all or is there more to explain the county misadventures of Indian cricketers. What do you think?