Champions League - Success or Failure

A recent report in one of the business newspapers suggested that the much hyped Champions league has not been a success, and organizers have blamed Diwali for the lack of interest in the fans towards the tournament. To me this looks like barking down the wrong tree. What BCCI and the organizers need to realize is that there are some fundamental issues, which need to be addressed, and unless those are done - success in such league formats is going to be difficult.

The first and foremost issue, which everyone in the cricketing setup seems to be blind about and everyone outside it seems to understand is that there is just too much 20-20 cricket, which in my opinion is the primary reason for the tournament to be a flop - with virtually no crowds (interestingly the commentators were trying to fool everyone by saying that the stadiums are packed when half the seats were clearly empty in matches involving non Indian clubs). What Mr Lalit Modi needs to understand is that it is virtually impossible for an average cricket fan to distinguish or remember any specific 20-20 match when compared to another one - because they are all the same. Team A scores 160-170, and Team B chases it. The script is so similar - that there will certainly be lack of interest. How they fail to see just amazes me. And think of it - they kept the Champions trophy such a small affair in order to accomodate the Champions League - when priorities should clearly have been different.

Secondly, we need to have some sporting pitches - else the script will become even more predictable, like it has become in one dayers in India.

Thirdly, international matches still take precendence for an average cricket fan, since it is easier to figure out loyalties there - League cricket still has a long way to go - before people bet big on it. How ESPN managed to pay USD 975 million for 10 year rights is beyond me!

This is not to say that the tournament cannot be a success in future. However, for that to
happen, two things are needed. One, the tournament should seem exclusive, which unfortunately it does not seem, given the amount of cricket we see. BCCI seems to have found a hen that lays golden eggs, and they are hell bent on cashing everything today - which is simply not possible. Secondly, there needs to be some time given to league cricket to develop, before betting all your resources on it. ESPN will probably learn this the hard way - and it will be unfortunate if they end up losing big time here, since they are the most competent channel around.

In a way it was good that the tournament ends up in a failure, because a reality check is necessary. When I watch cricket, I need to get completely involved in it, and I need to feel the pain when my team loses and feel the joy when it wins. I think it is the same with all Indian cricket fans -which is what makes cricket a success in India. However, we were all indifferent in this tournament. And that was the biggest problem. The only thing good about this tournament was Trinidad and Tobago.

The aftermath of the Champions trophy

We have already seen enough India and Dhoni bashing – after basically one loss of the Indian team. Maybe more than the loss, it was the manner of the loss, where India’s bowling looked awfully short of what world’s number 1 team should boast of. However, a few things to remember here – firstly, we only lost 1 match, and it is the ridiculous format (yet again) of another ICC event which has more contribution to this rather than the woeful form of Indian bowlers itself. God only know why does ICC have to have a 2 month long World Cup in 2007, which just refused to end once it started, and such a short ICC Cahmpions Trophy, which does not even have a reserve day for the Final. Obviously the monetary implications of the upcoming Champions League and the power of the Indian Board has something to do with it, which in a way serves us right by eliminating our team courtesy a rain wash out. I am not indicating that we have played well in that match, but the fact is, India has successfully chased higher and tougher targets in the past, and had the match been completed, atleast we would not have been in a world of could-have-been.

Anyway, that’s that – and the more important issue is that we as fans and cricket analysts need to understand that the team is not bad. It was short of 3 key players, and you remove 3 key players from any team in the world and see the impact. I understand some changes need to happen, and there is no justification for short pitch bowling, but let the team learn from its mistakes rather than branding 20 year old players as liabilities.

Lastly, the team management also needs to take a good hard look at the bowling. Why on earth would you want a guy like Ishant Sharma to bowl slower balls is beyond my imagination. The alarming frequency with which he has started the use of the slower ball has definitely got something to do with the bowling coach Venkatesh Prasad. I think someone needs to tell him to just bowl fast, and aim the toe (The batsmen’s – that is) for a few years. He has his entire life to try bowling slower balls after that. Harbhajan needs to learn to flight the bowl. I know it sounds sarcastic, but honestly after all these years, I would not be wrong in saying that Harbhajan is far from being a consistent match winner that a bowler of his class should be. He is just too inconsistent, and his record is nowhere close to fellow spinners. Amit Mishra should play more, even in the one day version. Finally, it is high time we try developing some bowling allrounders - along with some sporting pitches. World cup is not very far, and with this bowling attack on our kind of pitches, we will more or less be chasing 300 in each match.

Mohali test

who on earth got his brainwave of having a test match at mohali in December? Of all the paces in India - Mohali was chosen. It ought to be common knowledge that fog and bad light will disrupt the match.

Rewriting the script

There are rarely such matches that provide so many thrills as the recently concluded Chennai test between India and England. While England dominated the test for most of the time, it took three brilliant innings of different styles to really snatch victory from the English team. While Sehwag’s belligerent innings was the difference between the two teams, it was Sachin Tendulkar’s measured approach to the target that won us the match – not to forget Yuvraj Singh’s performance.

For long I have been extremely critical of Sachin’s ability to win matches on his own – and used to rant about a long list of matches where he could have won us those but either gave away his wicket at a crucial juncture or got out. However, this year alone, he has played two amazing knocks – one in the CB series final against Australia, and this one now against England in the Chennai Test. Both innings had determination written all over them – that he will not give up before taking the team home. The Chennai innings was special, since about 10 years ago, on the same ground, Sachin had failed to win a match he single handedly set up for India. That was probably his best inning till date – fighting a back problems and a terrific Pakistan bowling attack. The only blot on that innings was that he got out with India needing some 15 odd runs, and we lost 3 wickets and the match after that. It was heartbreaking!

So it was only apt that he chose the same venue to rewrite the script, and take India home in this record chase. Let us hope we see a lot more of these innings from him now, as the pressure on him gets considerably lesser.

And I think we need to leave Dravid alone. For 2 months – let us not ask for his head. The guy will be back with a bang. He alone has saved and won more matches for us than a lot of the others – he has been the mainstay of this team for ages – he deserves to be left alone by critics and media for some time.

What happened to the review system?

Ok.. So, after a long hiatus, I return to write something here. Whoa, this has been some period – 2 great India Australia Test Match series, the IPL and changes in the Indian Cricket Team; the emergence of Ajantha Mendis in world cricket – and the retirement of a few greats. More on these in some later posts!

The review system was introduced during this period – and for some reason – continues to be in trial, in spite of unequivocal good that it brought to the game. Now for starters - the main critique of the review system is that I consumes too much time – and that we could live with a few mistakes from umpires as human errors. I even heard some absurd comment from Sanjay Manjrekar in a recent series – he claimed this took up almost 20-30% of the time of a test match. I still wonder how. Each innings can technically have 6 unsuccessful reviews – 3 by each team. I am not adding up the successful reviews – where the umpire’s incorrect decision is changed – since that is the purpose of the system, and that is the necessity for a fair game. After all, every one of us would be ok with a correct decision being made. So coming back to the issue - even if a review takes 3 minutes (if it takes more than we need more competent 3^rd umpires) it works out to 18 minutes in an innings, and about 72 minutes in the game. Out of the 1800 minutes that the game has, and assuming all 4 innings are completed and all reviews are utilized, we still lose only 72 minutes – that is 4% of the game time. So I do not know how Mr Manjrekar came up with this statistic. He also went on to say that he is willing to accept the umpire’s decision as a human decision and carry on. Hello!! I am sure a commentator would be willing to do that – but what about the players. I have said it earlier – people turn up to watch Sachin bat and Bret Lee bowl – and not for Rudy Koertzen to umpire. So I as a spectator am not willing to accept the incompetence of an umpire make a mockery of a cricket match. Sometimes I wonder who makes these guys a commentator.

And we have not even accounted for the positives it brings to the game. Players appeal lesser – or let me put it this way – unnecessary appealing is cut. I do not want to calculate the time of Harbhajan’s appeals every time the ball hits the batsman’s pads – but I am sure this will be comparable to the earlier stats we have discussed. Players have started walking – since they will anyway be given out in the review system – if they are out.

The only argument that stands negatives of the review system is that we may not have technology to be 100% sure of decisions. Fair enough – if we are not 100% sure – then we accept the field umpires decision. But when we know he is wrong – blatantly at that – why should we shy away from using a good system. We do not need the third umpire to definitely come out with a decision every time. He can aid the on-field umpire with a few replays. What could possibly be wrong with that? I sincerely hope the systems returns – as it is again being tried in the New Zealand – West Indies series.

And the Man of the Match award goes to ... Pakistan

This is something I found while surfing through www.cricinfo.com. Probably the only instance of its kind in ODI cricket. In this match between England and Pakistan in 1996, the entire Pakistan team was adjudged the ‘Man of the Match’.  Shadab Kabir, a Pakistani player, made his debut in this match, and won the ‘Man of the Match’ in his debut match despite being dismissed for 0!! In all he played 3 matches, and scored 3 ducks, and yet is one of the players to have the record of winning the ‘Man of the match’ in his first ODI!  

Thanks Gilly

Very rarely do you find players, who apart from being great players change the way cricket is played. Jonty Rhodes revolutionized the concept of fielding, and after his arrival, fielding became as integral a part of the game as batting and bowling. Vivian Richards showed that aggressive nature may not mean reckless, and test batsmen can be aggressive too. Sir Gary Sobers and Kallis and Flintoff showed the importance of allrounders and their necessity in each team. Cricket goes through a phase shift when such players happen, and is never the same again after these players showcase their skills. Adam Glichrist will be known in the coming generations as one such player. He showed that a wicketkeeper who is an accomplished batsman can be the difference between winning and losing, and for a long time, he was the key difference between Australia and their competitors. He completely changed the notion of a wicketkeeper who could be a handy batsman, chipping in with 20-30 runs when he bats. Adam Gilchrist was as good a batsman as anyone else in the team, and that suddenly allows the team to have the luxury of picking one extra batsman or bowler. His batting average of almost 50 in test cricket is far ahead of anyone else who has been a wicketkeeper and played that long.

Apart from this, his opening in one-day internationals also had a similar impact for Australia. When you have a wicketkeeper who has a strike rate of 95+ and can open the innings, you suddenly transform into a very powerful unit. Again the luxury of picking up an extra batsman or bowler is more often that not the key difference in winning or losing. Before Adam Gilchrist, wicketkeepers used to be wicketkeepers. After his arrival, they were allrounders, who could do well in more than 1 aspect of the game, like any other allrounder.

Australia has been a force in the last 10 years in international cricket, and this man has had a big hand in that. Often overshadowed by the likes of Waugh, Ponting, Warne and Mcgrath, Gilchrist has probably been far more instrumental in Australia maintaining their supremacy in the cricketing world. He belongs to the ever shrinking family of players who walk before the umpire’s decision in cricket, but he is not one who would walk away from a challenge. And when you felt he is down and out, he would come back and strike. What better example than the 2007 world cup final? Gilly had a bad series by his standards, but chose the final to tell the world what he is capable of. He blasted 149 off 104 balls, which more or less finished the match for Sri Lanka. Gilly played 96 consecutive tests for Australia, out of which Australia lost only 11, and astonishingly, won 73!! That tells you something about this team and this player.

Cricket has never been the same once Gilchrist arrived. Each team started looking for a wicketkeeper who could be an accomplished batsman. Teams without such players look inherently weak against someone who has such players. And I do not think cricket will ever be the same again after Gilly departs. We will thoroughly miss a player, who had the capability of changing matches on his own. He made cricket richer. As the PA system announced appropriately at the end of the Adelaide test – Thanks Gilly…